Nurses embody and role model collegial relationships including partnerships. In the Institute of Medicine report The Future of Nursing, Leading Change, Advancing Change, recommendation 8 addresses “The optimization of resources through interdisciplinary relationships by building an infrastructure for the collection and analysis of interprofessional healthcare workforce data.”1 As colleagues, where do we draw the line between collaboration toward common interests versus bias?
The Journal of Nursing Administration (JONA) is a leading source of nursing-generated and interprofessional scholarly information. Experienced researchers and published authors on our editorial board and manuscript review panel bring a wide range of skills and expertise to the manuscript review process. As with the expectations for any organizations related to transparency, we are interested sharing our outcomes and processes.
All articles submitted to JONA are reviewed by the editor-in-chief at the time of submission for formatting and application to our audience versus other journals. Assignment of reviewers to manuscripts is based on key words entered by the author and expertise declared by the reviewer. To eliminate potential sources of bias, articles are double blinded for review. Neither the author’s nor reviewer’s identity is known to the other. However, it is always possible, given the international scholarly expertise of our reviewers, that they might think they recognize the manuscript’s authors, the project, or the institution involved. In this case, reviewers are asked to decline the review invitation and the manuscript is assigned to another reviewer. JONA has adopted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ definition of editorial freedom and likewise considers peer review as a part of the scientific process.2 Editorial freedom is the responsibility of the editor. Editors should base publication decisions on the validity of the work and the importance to the journal’s readers. At JONA, I do not select reviewers with any obvious bias and take this responsibility very seriously.
To keep JONA on the cutting edge of what is happening in nursing, society, and healthcare, JONA cultivates relationships with many people and organizations, including the Council on Graduate Education in Nursing Administration (CGEAN), the American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE), and the Magnet Recognition Program®. Through partnerships with CGEAN and the Magnet Recognition Program, each organization submits a column to JONA and is given a designated seat at the editorial advisory board’s annual meeting. These columns are not peer reviewed but reviewed and screened by the editor. In addition, JONA has partnerships with AONE and the Association of California Nurse Leaders, where each organization’s members receive a reduced rate for JONA subscription.
All full-length manuscripts, regardless of the authorship, are processed through the peer review system before publication. Leaders from none of the 4 affiliated groups have any influence or knowledge about the authors, content, acceptance, or rejection of any manuscript processed by JONA.
Partnerships among nurses and nursing entities are advantageous for the dissemination of new science and practice innovations. JONA is a stringent peer reviewed journal with an 85% rejection rate. JONA is the 12th of 88 nursing journals with impact factor. We receive substantial submissions of unique and important articles and take this responsibility very seriously.
Karen S. Hill, DNP, RN, NEA-BC, FACHE
2. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: peer review. Available at http://www.icmje.org/ethical_3peer.html
. Accessed October 26, 2011.