Peer Review in Nursing: A Guide for Early Career Scholars

Peer review is a fundamental mechanism in academic nursing, serving as both a quality assurance process and a cornerstone of scholarly advancement (Ali and Watson 2016). For early career nursing scholars, the dual role of undertaking and receiving peer review comments presents significant opportunities for professional development alongside considerable challenges. This editorial aims to explain the peer review process, emphasising its significance, challenges and opportunities for professional development in nursing scholarship whilst providing practical guidance for early career researchers seeking to engage in this essential scholarly activity. The peer review system functions as a critical quality control mechanism, ensuring that published research meets rigorous standards of methodological soundness and clinical relevance (Trotter 2021). Within clinical nursing, where research findings directly inform patient care protocols, educational curricula and healthcare policy development, the importance of robust peer review processes cannot be understated. Ali and Watson (2016) identify peer review as integral to the scientific enterprise, functioning simultaneously as a publication gateway and a component of academic recognition systems. Empirical evidence demonstrates substantial benefits of peer review engagement for emerging scholars across multiple professional domains. Sethares and Morris (2016) conducted research revealing that 82% of doctoral nursing students found peer review assignments beneficial, with 59% reporting enhanced writing capabilities and 73% indicating improved critical reading skills. These findings suggest that peer review participation functions as a multidimensional educational experience with far-reaching implications for scholarly development. The peer review process facilitates the development of critical analytical skills through systematic manuscript evaluation, enhances understanding of research methodologies and provides exposure to current disciplinary developments (Trotter 2021). Beyond these competencies, engagement in peer review activities contributes to professional networking opportunities, scholarly visibility within the nursing academic community and the development of expertise in specific research areas. Xu et al. (2016) highlighted that mentored peer review groups for doctoral students effectively developed content knowledge, leadership skills, and capacity for respectful scholarly dialogue. Additionally, peer review engagement provides early career scholars with insights into publication processes, editorial decision-making and quality standards across different journals. This exposure enables researchers to better understand manuscript preparation requirements and increases their likelihood of successful publication. The process also develops critical thinking skills that transfer to other scholarly activities, including grant writing, research proposal development and academic presentations. Early career researchers should be strongly encouraged to engage in peer review for several compelling reasons that extend beyond immediate professional benefits (Oerther and Watson 2019). First, peer review participation democratises the scholarly process by ensuring diverse perspectives contribute to knowledge evaluation and development. Early career scholars bring fresh viewpoints, current methodological knowledge and novel theoretical perspectives that can enhance review quality and advance disciplinary understanding. Second, engaging early career researchers in peer review helps to address the significant reviewer shortage that obliges editors to invite numerous potential reviewers in order to secure adequate coverage for each manuscript (Eltaybani and Trapani 2024). By participating in review processes, early career scholars contribute to the sustainability of academic publishing whilst developing essential professional competencies. Third, review experience provides emerging researchers with competitive advantages in academic career development, as many funding agencies, promotion committees and academic employers value peer review experience as evidence of scholarly engagement and professional service. Emerging researchers beginning their peer review journey should start by identifying their areas of expertise and interest (clinical background knowledge), recognising that specialised knowledge in specific topics, methodologies or populations constitutes valuable reviewer qualifications. Doctoral students and early career researchers should not underestimate their capacity to contribute meaningful reviews, particularly in areas where they possess current knowledge of recent literature and contemporary methodological approaches. Initial positioning involves several strategic considerations. Emerging reviewers should identify journals within their research areas and examine their review policies, typical manuscript types and reviewer guidelines. Many journals provide comprehensive reviewer handbooks that outline expectations, evaluation criteria and review timelines. Potential reviewers should assess their current expertise areas and consider how these align with journal scope and manuscript topics. It is important for reviewers to clearly understand their role in the review process, whether they are providing feedback as a content expert or a methodology specialist. This clarity allows reviewers to offer more focused and valuable insights, ultimately supporting editors in making well-informed decisions about the manuscript. Beginning reviewers should create comprehensive profiles on journal websites and reviewer databases such as Publons or ORCID, highlighting areas of expertise, methodological competencies and research interests. Before undertaking independent reviews, emerging scholars should seek mentorship opportunities through academic supervisors, senior colleagues or formal mentorship programmes. One such opportunity is currently provided through Wiley's early career researcher editorial board member programme with the Journal of Clinical Nursing. Within this structured one-on-one mentorship programme, early career researchers receive guidance from current journal editors regarding both peer review processes and broader editorial decision-making procedures. This programme exemplifies how publishers and journals can extend beyond traditional academic supervision, offering insights into the operational aspects of scholarly publishing whilst developing reviewer competencies under expert guidance. Effective peer review requires adherence to systematic evaluation principles that can be learned and applied consistently. The review process should commence with a comprehensive manuscript reading to establish contextual understanding without premature judgement formation. Beginning reviewers should allocate sufficient time for this initial reading, typically requiring multiple readings and careful consideration over several days (Figure 1). Subsequent detailed examination should address multiple manuscript components systematically. Title and abstract evaluation should assess clarity, accuracy and completeness in representing study content. The introduction assessment should evaluate literature review comprehensiveness, gap identification and research question articulation. Methodology examination should review design appropriateness, sampling adequacy, data collection procedures, analytical approaches and ethical consideration verification. Results evaluation should assess logical presentation, appropriate statistical analyses, accurate interpretation and effective use of tables and figures. Discussion analysis should evaluate literature contextualisation, limitation acknowledgement, implication discussion and conclusion appropriateness. Throughout this process, beginning reviewers should focus on areas within their expertise, whilst noting concerns in other areas for the editor's consideration. Constructive peer review principles emphasise work-focused rather than author-focused evaluation, addressing methodological rigour, findings interpretation and knowledge contribution. Beginning reviewers should focus on providing specific, evidence-based feedback that offers clear improvement suggestions whilst maintaining professional respect and acknowledgement of author effort, even when recommending manuscript rejection. One of the most significant challenges facing nursing journals is recruiting qualified reviewers. Eltaybani and Trapani (2024) note that it is not uncommon for editors to invite numerous individuals simply to secure two willing reviewers. This reluctance may stem from various factors, including workload pressures, declining morale and lack of recognition for voluntary contributions. A study revealed that approximately 75% of authors found nursing journal reviews helpful; however, journal editors reported insufficient and inconsistent feedback, reviewer bias and disrespectful tone as ongoing concerns (Shattell et al. 2010). In particular, various biases compromise evaluation quality, including gender bias, institutional affiliation bias and methodological conservatism that may impede innovative research advancement (Eltaybani and Trapani 2024). Beginning reviewers can help address these biases through awareness and commitment to fair, evidence-based evaluation. Trotter (2021) highlights the concerning issue of incivility in nursing peer review, characterised as rude, discourteous or disrespectful actions. Examples include personal attacks on authors rather than constructive criticism of work, harsh and unconstructive feedback without suggestions for improvement and comments that discourage rather than educate emerging scholars. Unprofessional peer review can have devastating effects on budding nurse scientists, leading to short-term disruptions in productivity, delays in career trajectory, lowered self-esteem and confidence and discouragement from pursuing publication (Silbiger and Stubler 2019; Trotter 2021). Beginning reviewers should model respectful, supportive review practices that encourage rather than discourage scholarly participation. Peer review remains essential to nursing science advancement and research quality assurance, with direct implications for patient care improvement. For emerging nursing scholars, peer review engagement provides crucial professional development opportunities whilst contributing to disciplinary knowledge advancement. The comprehensive benefits of review participation, including skill development, professional networking and scholarly contribution, far outweigh the initial learning investment required. Beginning reviewers should approach peer review as a learnable skill set that develops through practice, mentorship and systematic training. By utilising available resources, seeking appropriate guidance and committing to professional standards, emerging scholars can make meaningful contributions to the peer review process whilst advancing their own scholarly development. As McKeown (2024) argues, enhanced cooperation rather than competition is essential for scholarly progress. The peer review process, when conducted with integrity and collegiality, serves not only individual manuscript improvement but also strengthens the entire nursing discipline. Emerging researchers must embrace their opportunity to contribute to and benefit from this essential scholarly process, recognising that their participation today shapes the quality and sustainability of nursing scholarship for future generations. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.