Browse > Article

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

Cho, Kyung-Sook (Department of Nursing, Kyungwon College)
Hyun, Myung-Sun (School of Medicine, Division of Nursing Science, Ajou University)
Cha, Dong-Sook (Department of Nursing, Seoul Health College)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing / v.36, no.1, 2006 , pp. 197-205 More about this Journal
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 Among those 165 papers, the 21 papers belonged to the 'Do not publish' list and 17 papers, 'Revise manuscript and resubmit', list and the 94 papers, 'Publish if revisions are made' list.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
Journals; Review;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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
2 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
3 Woods, N. F. (1988). Nursing Research: Theory and Practice. Mosby Com
4 Provenzale, J. M., Stanley, R. J. (2005). A systemic guide to reviewing a manuscript. Am J Roentgenol, 185(4), 848-854   DOI   ScienceOn
5 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   DOI   ScienceOn
6 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
7 Benos, D. J, Kirk, K. L., & Hall, J E. (2003). How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ, 27(2), 47-52   DOI
8 Bordage G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med, 76, 889-896   DOI   ScienceOn