© 2006, AWHONN, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses JOGNN 443

Crafting a clear road map of effective critique is even more diffi cult than accepting one. The most common weakness of peer reviews in the eyes of nurse editors is lack of concrete suggestions for im-provement ( Kearney & Freda, 2005 ). Excellent peer review requires thorough grounding in the subject matter, ability to recognize and facilitate the organi-zation of a manuscript, and practice at using lan-guage clearly and compassionately. Critique must be offered with humility, rather than asserted as a means of demonstrating superiority. This complex skill set needs further emphasis in our graduate curricula.

Later at the research conference, I was heartened to see the distinguished researcher in conversation with the doctoral student. The famous professor was clearly busy and could not have known how her sug-gestions would be received, but she took the time and the risk to offer them out of respect for the learner and for nursing scholarship.

Scholars have the responsibility to craft clear and kindly worded directions for those who are fi nding their way. All of us can receive critiques as generously offered road maps, even when we are familiar with the territory and not in a mood to ask for directions. Effective peer review improves the quality of scientifi c evidence but requires training, practice, and profes-sional support. We must increase our attention to this skill set to move our scholarly agenda forward.

Margaret H . Kearney Associate Editor

REFERENCE

Kearney , M . H . , & Freda , M . C . ( 2005 ). Nurse editors’ views on the peer review process . Research in Nurs-ing & Health , 28 , 444 - 452 .

Skilled Peer Review: A Road Map to Stronger Scholarship

A t a recent research presentation by a young doctoral student, a distinguished researcher whis-pered to her colleague, “ Great data, but those fi nd-ings are way off. She needs to reanalyze it and take income into account. ” The young presenter scanned the room nervously as the moderator announced, “ We have time for comments or questions. ” Silence ensued.

I was disappointed in my senior colleague. Knowl-edge development in nursing depends on the peer re-view process. Nurses with advanced education and experience have a responsibility to provide direction to their colleagues in order to strengthen the rigor and clinical relevance of our science. Yet, we often have great diffi culty both giving and receiving rigorous cri-tique, both in public venues and in written reviews.

I was a master ’ s student when an editor rejected my fi rst submission for publication. Some of the words still echo 20 years later: “ The reviewers had diffi culty de-termining what this paper was about … ” (It was sup-posed to be about breastfeeding.) When I could face the paper again, I could see how convoluted my writ-ing actually was. After much work, it was published in another journal. The rigorous critique was emotion-ally painful, but it helped me improve my writing.

Accepting scholarly critique is an acquired skill. After more than 50 publications, I now submit each manuscript not envisioning acceptance but anticipat-ing reviewer input to make the work better. I have learned how much time it takes to shape an intelli-gent and respectful set of suggestions, and I try to si-lence my defensive thoughts and consider the comments seriously. I now view it as being offered a road map. Whether or not I am actually lost, my writing must have given the reviewers that impres-sion, so I need to take their suggestions seriously.

EDITORIAL