Celebrating Peer Review

Science needs a peer review process by which research becomes available to those who need it—other scientists, healthcare professionals, and the public. Peer reviewers are an integral part of that process. The quality of peer review greatly affects the direction of science; scientific journals, such as Nursing Research, depend on reviewers who volunteer their time and expertise to ensure that the best science is published. The peer review process benefits many. Authors benefit by receiving unbiased, constructive critique on the merits of their papers, as well as suggestions for how a paper can be improved. Editors benefit by receiving fair and constructive critiques about the scientific merit, originality, and scope of a paper. Editors also benefit by having reviewers identify subtle, and not so subtle, ethical concerns and “fatal flaws,” particularly in analyses and interpretations. Readers, including the lay public, benefit from peer review, as reviewer critiques help authors improve papers so readers can accurately evaluate the scientific merit of the work. Other scientists or healthcare professionals benefit as they may have greater trust in a peer-reviewed paper and thus may be more likely to use the results to improve their own research or apply the results to the care of others, respectively. Despite these benefits and the overriding purpose of peer review to support scientific integrity, correct errors, and broaden decision-making about what gets published and adopted (Aczel et al., 2025), concerns about peer review have been raised. For example, although I have not seen it, reviewers have been known to negatively review papers that may be unfavorable to their own work, thus censoring the publication of these papers. Reviewers have also been known to take ideas from unpublished papers and use them as their own; I have not seen this either. Reviewers may also be biased toward (or against) certain topics or with a focus on particular populations. These behaviors threaten the integrity of the review process and are particularly difficult to substantiate. It is also the case that peer reviewers can feel exploited by journals and publishers, who rarely pay peer reviewers or offer much in the way of tangible rewards. All of these concerns with peer review as it exists are valid. And yet, our current, voluntary process of peer review may be the best of all potential other options, including paid review, institutional review, or public review. Good peer reviewers are a treasure, and as almost all editors can attest, they are difficult to find and keep engaged. Most journals, including ours, keep a large database of potential reviewers. At Nursing Research, many of our reviewers have written for the journal, and thus, we have some knowledge of the quality of their work. Other reviewers we find by reading other scientific journals and through extensive networking. We need a large database because of the volume of papers the journal receives and because reviewers are not always available when we want or need them to be. It is not unheard of to ask over 20 potential reviewers in order to recruit two; sometimes, we ask over 20 and recruit none. Although we are disappointed when it happens, we understand when reviewers decline an invitation to review; reviewers are busy with their own science and their own writing. In fact, timing and time are the most frequently cited reasons for declining a review (Medina & Draugalis, 2022). Many of us can identify with both these reasons to decline spending several hours reading and critiquing someone else's paper. We may be like many authors who finally finish papers after a semester has ended or after a grant has been submitted. Those papers are submitted to journals who are then recruiting for reviewers during one of the other very busy times in an academic's life—the beginning of semester. Some journals have shortened the time given to reviewers to complete a review, in some cases to 5 or fewer days. I know that I live by a very tight calendar. I can rarely fit in a 3- to 4-hour review on short notice, even though I know that the longer a review takes, the more prolonged the time for good science to be published. Reviewers may also decline to review for less commonly cited reasons including a conflict of interest, a perceived lack of expertise related to the manuscript's content, or lack of experience or training conducting peer reviews. All these—time, timing, conflicts, expertise, experience, or training—are valid and important considerations in the review process, although incentives that might be important to reviewers are largely unknown (Zaharie & Seeber, 2018). Of course, reviewers also know that their review work is largely hidden, and this alone may be sufficient reason for some to decline review invitations. Obviously, unless the review is open, where authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity, reviewing is anonymous; a reviewer's name is rarely attached to a paper. Reviewers' workplace, including universities, may not appreciate or recognize the contributions reviewers made to science; many scientists themselves fail to acknowledge these contributions. Moreover, few reviewers are paid for their reviews. Thus, even though we—authors, editors, readers, and the broader public—are indebted to reviewers for their work, there is little reward for peer reviewing. Fortunately, most reviewers see their work as providing service to the academic and broader community (Gasparyan et al., 2015). Despite the time it takes to complete a thorough and thoughtful review, many reviewers gain intrinsic rewards, especially emerging scientists who may learn a lot about good science by reviewing the work of others, reading interesting and new ideas, discovering new references, and observing the effectiveness of various writing and presentation strategies. Additionally, some work settings do acknowledge the value of peer review, as long as the reviewer has evidence to demonstrate expertise in the broader scientific community. Importantly, many peer reviewers agree that reviewing is an important professional obligation, even if they do not receive the recognition they deserve. You may wonder how peer review happens at Nursing Research. As noted, we have an extensive database of peer reviewers. Our peer reviewers are most often those who have had papers published in the journal; we invite all published authors to become a reviewer for the journal. We also invite well-established authors or experts in particular areas of scientific focus to become peer reviewers even if they have not published in the journal. We have reviewers who have contributed their review expertise to the journal for years and some who are just starting their scientific careers. We have reviewers from across the globe and from disciplines other than nursing. It is important to have an extensive reviewer list because we recruit at least two reviewers to evaluate each manuscript; we may recruit more reviewers when specific expertise is needed and especially when complex statistical methods have been used. We may also seek additional reviewers when there are strong differences of opinion among reviewers about the quality of a paper. At Nursing Research, we hold our reviewers in high esteem for their contributions and recognize their significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers, even though we do not pay them. We do publicly thank reviewers, posting their names on our website (https://journals.lww.com/nursingresearchonline/Pages/listofreviewers.aspx). We also publish reviewer names in the journal; you will find the list of 2024 reviewers in this issue. We additionally provide continuing education unit (CEU) to reviewers via a process integrated into Editorial Manager. To receive CEU, peer reviewers must indicate they want to earn CEU, provide other required information including time expended on the review, and earn a satisfactory score on the quality of their review from the Editor. We also automatically notify Publons when a reviewer completes a review, allowing the reviewer to keep a record of their review work. Perhaps you would like to review for Nursing Research. We would be happy to consider you for this important work. Send us an email requesting that we add you to our peer review list; be sure to attach a copy of your curriculum vitae. We will evaluate your curriculum vitae for evidence of publication in high-quality journals, including ours, and for a coherent body of work. We may ask if you have received training for peer review and recommend some resources to receive training; we do not require reviewer training (yet), but we think that training is very important. In fact, we offer scientists the opportunity to support their predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees in learning the peer review process with only a few conditions: the reviewer must request permission to supervise a mentee in the review of a specific manuscript; the name, email, and position of the mentee must be provided; the reviewer must agree to convey information about the peer review process to the mentee and ensure that ethical standards are met; and no work on the review may be undertaken by the supervised mentee until written permission from the Editor is received. Additionally, our reviewer guidelines provide an important source of support for reviewers about what to expect during the peer review process, including how to write review reports and address ethical concerns. Every year at this time, all of us have a special opportunity to give tribute to peer reviewers. This year, September 15–19, 2025, is Peer Review Week, when we will celebrate the peer review process and peer reviewers (https://www.peerreviewweek.net/index.php). At the time of this writing, the theme for this year's events is unknown. Voter choices for the theme were as follows: “future proofing” peer review for tomorrow's research, rethinking peer review in the AI era, cultivating growth and mentorship in peer review, and communication and collaboration in peer review. I personally voted for ways to grow and mentor peer reviewers. Although all potential foci are important, for me, a focus on encouraging emerging (and emerged) scientists to become peer reviewers seems tantamount to the continued high quality of scientific dissemination. Indeed, greater inspiration and resources for emerging scientists to become engaged in the peer review process are needed. Through a robust peer review process, reviewers provide a vital and important service that ensures the quality and integrity of published research. At Nursing Research, we acknowledge the contributions of our peer reviewers, and we thank them with much gratitude for all they do. We also commend and congratulate all of you who provide peer review for scientific journals, for your invaluable service to the advancement of science.