ORNAC Journal Reviewer Guidelines

(Traduction française en cours.)

ORNAC Peer Reviewer Application

The ORNAC Journal is an open access publication that uses a double-blind peer-review to present evidence-based clinical research that contributes to the improvement of perioperative nursing practice. With a rich history of publishing in both Canadian official languages, ORNAC Journal has garnered an international reach and respect in its specialized field. The peer-review process is integral to maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal.

 

Why Peer Review Matters

Peer review is essential for advancing science and educating professionals by disseminating findings of high-quality research (Luo & McGregor, 2020). Based in the trust and cooperation of the scientific community, peer review ensures research is original, significant, and valid. Through the process, the selecting and vetting of research, while helping authors improve their work, ensures only the best is published.

We use a double-blind review system, in which the reviewers do not know who the authors are and the authors are unaware of who is reviewing their work. A minimum of two reviewers are engaged for each manuscript, and when the manuscript comes to the reviewer, all identifying factors have been removed. Awareness of the need for trusted research processes is growing, with an increased focus on making reviewer transparency, recognition, and training core issues for recording research. With a collaborative approach across the whole research and publishing cycle we get better reviewers and a streamlined and trusted review process (Luo & McGregor, 2020).

 

Basic Requirements

When onboarding our peer reviewers, we require them to sign a confidentiality and ethics agreement, which will be in effect during the review term. We ask that our peer reviewers are currently registered professionals with a minimum of five years of experience in the perioperative or a related field. Let us know your areas of interest and proficiency, so we can direct the appropriate manuscripts your way.

 

Benefits of Being a Reviewer

Doing peer reviews establishes you as an expert in your area and raises your profile as a professional. Along with the continuing education that keeps you current with the developments in the perioperative field, as a peer reviewer you get access to leading edge ideas and knowledge, while ensuring the quality and integrity of published research.

 

The Review Process

When a manuscript is received by ORNAC and the Editorial Team deems it relevant and appropriate for the ORNAC Journal, you will be approached by the editor asking if you are available and interested in doing a review of that manuscript. The reviewer selection will be determined by a reviewer’s areas of expertise and interest.

We ask that reviewers complete their review within 3–4 weeks, to ensure a timely progression of the publication process, which includes review, revision, editing, and translation. If you are not able to commit to this timeframe, if you hold any conflicts of interest, or feel the scope of the paper is beyond your expertise, please indicate this to the editor so that another reviewer can be invited.

Once your review is completed and returned to the editor, your comments and suggestions will be forwarded anonymously to the corresponding author. The author(s) then address any concerns and make any changes they feel necessary within the scope of their manuscript. Unless there are major changes incorporating new research data and considerable rewriting, the review is complete once it has been returned to the editor.

 

Our Expectations of the Review

We expect all reviewers to follow these basic guidelines.

  • Timely return of reviews facilitates the publication process.
  • Competing interests must be declared before doing a review.
  • Complete the review form provided, which has specific questions and considerations for your convenience.
  • Your job is to assess the material, not the author.
  • Approach all manuscripts with the principles of diversity, equality, and inclusiveness.
  • Your approach must be professional and constructive – no nitpicking. Waiting at least 24 yours after reading the manuscript before writing your review often helps deliver a balanced and well reasoned review.
  • Identify strengths of the work and constructively help the author(s) improve their manuscript where weaknesses are noted.
  • Give ethical treatment to the manuscript and author(s), which includes confidentiality and respect of copyright and prohibits use of information gained through the process for personal gain or for discrediting others.
  • Reflect and be aware of any potential bias you may have and work to minimize its effect.
  • Inform us should you find any ethics violation in the manuscript – for example, similarity to another work with which you are familiar.
  • Reviewers are not responsible for grammatical editing; however, feel free to add comments to the manuscript if you feel so inclined.
  • Note misuse of terminology, use of brand names, and improper or missing citations.
  • We ask you to recommend acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, acceptance with major revisions, or rejection of the manuscript.

We appreciate the knowledge, experience, and expertise you share in doing reviews and how that contributes to maintaining the quality and standards of our journal. If you have any questions or concerns about the review process or your role as a reviewer, please contact the Editor by email at editor@ornac.ca

 

 

Sources

For your convenience, should you be interested in more information about peer reviewing, here are links to the sources used in compiling these guidelines.

Author Hub. (n.d.). A Guide to Peer Reviewing Journal Articles. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/file/5a1eb62e67f405260662a0df/Refreshed-Guide-Peer-Review-Journal.pdf

COPE Council. (2017). COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Luo, A., & McGregor, S. (2020). Standing up for science 3: Peer review – The nuts and bolts. Sense about Science. https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts-2/

Scott-Lichter, D., Blume, M., Danick, B., Goodell, H., Hartley, A., Kahn, M., Laine, C., Mahar, J., Marcovitch, H., Morrissey, S., Parish, D., Polly, D., Rossner, M., Scheetz, M., Trudgett, A., Vasco, M., Ward, J., & Bradford, M.: the Editorial Policy Committee. (2006). CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. Council of Science Editors. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/recommendations-for-promoting-integrity-in-scientific-journal-publications