907 Survey of Dental Hygiene Journal Peer Reviewers

Friday, March 23, 2012: 2 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Presentation Type: Poster Session
A.E. SPOLARICH, System Sciences, Arizona School of Dentistry and Oral Health, A.T. Still University, Mesa, AZ, and R. WILDER, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Objectives:  Peer reviewers are essential contributors to quality of publications in scientific journals, yet little is known about challenges and benefits of being a peer reviewer for a dental hygiene journal.  The purpose of this survey research was to examine peer review behaviors, ethical and professional concerns, and challenges encountered during the peer review process.  Methods:  A nursing survey with established reliability and validity was modified to reflect the Dental Hygiene profession.  IRB approval was obtained and the survey was pilot-tested for face validity. A sample of all reviewers (n=90) for a refereed dental hygiene journal were invited to participate in an electronic survey (SurveyMonkey®).  Eighty three response items measured 6 constructs: level of involvement in reviewing; relationships with editorial staff; preparation for the role of reviewer; experiences and challenges; ethical conflicts; and general reviewer experiences.  Reponses were collected electronically and reported in aggregate.  Descriptive statistics were utilized. Results: Seventy percent responded (n=63). The majority (92%) have a masters or doctoral degree. Most (67%) are currently involved in research. One to three reviews are completed by 78% annually. Reasons for turning down invitations to review include timing of deadline (63.8%), competing work priorities (46.6%) and lack of content expertise (44.8%). Most (68.6%) desire access to comments by other reviewers and 76% want feedback about their review.  The majority (84.8%) are satisfied/very satisfied with communications with the editor/editorial staff.  Most have encountered ethical conflicts with submitted papers, including insufficient protection of animal/human subjects, duplicate publication, plagiarism and legitimacy or honesty in representation of data.  All report a high value of this professional opportunity. Conclusions:  Reviewers for dental hygiene journals encounter challenges, but value serving in this role and desire to improve.

Keywords: Journal Reviewers
See more of: Oral Hygiene Care
See more of: Oral Health Research
<< Previous Abstract | Next Abstract