Year: 2007
Type: editorial
Abstract: It has become a tradition at CJNR, in the final issue of each volume, to publish the names of those who have served as reviewers during the preceding year, as a way of publicly acknowledging their vital contribution to the Journal.We think of our reviewers as partners.As editors we rely heavily on their assessments and evaluations in our deliberations on what will be published in the pages of CJNR.This means that we share responsibility with our reviewers for what appears in print.We draw on their expertise to assess the conceptual basis and scientific merit of a research study and to ensure the integrity of what we publish.The feedback and direction that their critiques provide us and our authors lead to improved manuscripts.As we have stated in CJNR's editorial pages over the years, through their comments to editors and authors, reviewers make essential contributions to the development of science, particularly nursing science.In recent years there has been much debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the peer-review system, including examination of the costs and benefits to the individuals concerned and a search for alternative methods of assessment.This is a subject that has been reviewed and revisited continually (e.g., British Academy, 2007).While members of a number of disciplines have critiqued peer review and pointed out its flaws, no one has been able to come up with a better model for assessing quality.Warts and all, peer review remains the "gold" standard for judging the quality of scholarly work and a fundamental characteristic of scholarly journals, distinguishing them from other means of publishing research.But this standard can be upheld only if reviewers possess the knowledge and experience needed to expertly and fairly critique and judge the quality of a research study.The peer-review system fulfils the same function for the scientific community and its consumers that Health Canada does for the food industry: When it works, it is one of the best ways to safeguard the research consumer and the public against insufficiently documented or even fraudulent results and against research practices that can endanger public health and undermine the public trust.
Source: PubMed
Authors: Laurie N Gottlieb, Sean P Clarke
Language: English
Subfield: History and Philosophy of Science
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2993606861