What is a 200-word response?

Peer review, a process where experts in a specific field evaluate manuscripts for publication, plays a crucial role in upholding high-quality scholarly publishing standards. These peer reviewers provide feedback on the originality, significance, and completeness of submitted manuscripts and act as gatekeepers, preventing flawed research from gaining wide distribution. Their role is crucial in ensuring the quality of published work and maintaining the integrity of scholarly publishing(Dhillon, 2021).

According to Hope and Munro (2019), potentially vital processes allow for skillful criticism: "Judgment and scholarly work" presents different processes to cultivate good judgment when reviewing scholarly works. First, judgment arises from a deep affection for science in academic work. It emphasizes the importance of thoroughly examining the work and using tools to evaluate whether it meets scientific standards. However, it cautions against simplifying judgment to a checklist of standards and encourages a more careful perception of innovative work (Hope & Munro, 2019).

Second, the text highlights the importance of skepticism in reviewing new knowledge. It warns against a superficial, thumbs-up, or thumbs-down approach to evaluating scholarly work. Instead, it advocates for critically analyzing the work's strengths and weaknesses while acknowledging its potential (Hope & Munro, 2019). Furthermore, the text emphasizes that scientific judgment is influenced by lived experience and expertise (Hope & Munro, 2019). It suggests that peer reviewers with different professional backgrounds and experiences should be chosen to provide diverse perspectives on the reviewed work. Your unique perspective is valued and can contribute significantly to the review process (Hope & Munro, 2019). Lastly, the text acknowledges that human decision-making is susceptible to biases, which can affect the review process. It stresses the need for reviewers to be aware of their biases and to correct them to ensure a fair evaluation of the work (Hope & Munro, 2019).

In addition to discussing the judgment processes, the text also addresses the challenges in the current peer review system (Hope & Munro, 2019). It acknowledges the difficulties and stresses the need to incentivize high-quality peer reviews and increase the diversity of potential reviewers to cope with the increasing number of scholarly works being submitted (Hope & Munro, 2019). The DNP learner acknowledges the feedback given in her manuscript for maintaining high-quality scholarly publishing standards. She also expresses gratitude for the constructive criticism and feedback received on her manuscript from her Chair and peer reviewer in AQR1, acknowledging their role in improving its clarity and readability, whichwillincrease the diversity of potential viewers.

References

Dhillon, P. (2021). How to be a good peer reviewer of scientific manuscripts. The FEBS Journal, 288(9), 2750-2756. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15705

Hope, A. A., & Munro, C. L. (2019). Criticism and Judgment: A Critical Look at Scientific Peer Review. American Journal of Critical Care, 28(4), 242-245. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2019152