Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing (대한간호학회지)

Korean Society of Nursing Science (한국간호과학회)
권호 표지

Analysis of Review Contents of the Submitted Papers in Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing - Focus: The Submitted Papers in 2003

대한간호학회지 논문 심사결과 분석 - 2003년 투고 논문을 중심으로 -

  • Published : 2006.02.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of the study is to analyze the review contents of reviewers for the submitted papers in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing in 2003. Method: The review contents of the 165 papers were selected 217 papers that were submitted in 2003. Among those 165 papers, the 21 papers belonged to the 'Do not publish' list and 17 papers, 'Revise manuscript and resubmit', list and the 94 papers, 'Publish if revisions are made' list. There are more than two level differences among the four levels of decision in acceptance of publication in 33 papers. Results: The analysis of the review contents for the papers were suggested according to review categories: introduction, method, results, discussion and conclusion. In addition, if papers had more than two levels of review they were rated poor accord or inconsistent. Conclusion: For the quality of the academic journal and development of the nursing science, it is important to disseminate and publish the research paper. Therefore, review of the submitted paper is also important. Implications for the profitable review were suggested in the study.

Keywords

References

  1. Benos, D. J, Kirk, K. L., & Hall, J E. (2003). How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ, 27(2), 47-52 https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00057.2002
  2. Bordage G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med, 76, 889-896 https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200109000-00010
  3. Han, D. S. (2005). Reviewer's role, The Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors 2005 Workshop (pp. 19-27), Seoul. The Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors
  4. Hyun, M. S., & Cho, K. S. (2004). Analysis of Review Results, Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2004 Workshop (pp. 1-29), Seoul, Korean Society of Nursing Science
  5. Kim, K. B., Sin, K. R., Kim, S. S., Yoo, E. K., Kim, N, C, Park, E. S., Kim, H. S., Lee, K. S., Kim, S. Y., & Seo, Y. O. (2005). Qualitative research methodology. Seoul : Hyunmoonsa
  6. Provenzale, J. M., Stanley, R. J. (2005). A systemic guide to reviewing a manuscript. Am J Roentgenol, 185(4), 848-854 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0782
  7. Weber, E. J., Katz, P. P., Waeckerle, J. F., & Callaham, M. L. (2002). Author perception of peer review : impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. JAMA, 287(21), 2790-2793 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2790
  8. Woods, N. F. (1988). Nursing Research: Theory and Practice. Mosby Com