Welcome to Writer’s Camp!

I am delighted that you have found your way to Writer's Camp, a community that celebrates excellence in writing, editing, and publishing. While we emphasize these skills for nursologists, everyone is welcome. Take a few minutes to see what we have to offer.

You can be a learner, or if you are so inclined, you can write for Writer's Camp. Bookmark the site and visit it often — there's something new almost every day. I am glad you are here!
—Leslie H. Nicoll, Camp Director

Peer Review Week Starts Tomorrow!

Pull up a camp chair—Peer Review Week starts tomorrow! From September 14–18, 2026, we’re celebrating the people, care, and thoughtful judgment that help scholarly work become stronger. There are many activities happening during the week, with opportunities to learn, listen, and join the conversation. Explore the official Peer Review Week events and activities page for … Continue reading Peer Review Week Starts Tomorrow!

Trail Stop 13: Reviewing as a Lifelong Habit

Sarah A. Martin article emphasizes the importance of becoming a peer reviewer in nursing. She outlines essential elements, such as cues for engagement, establishing a reviewing routine, and recognizing the rewards. By developing peer review habits, nurses can enhance their writing and critical thinking skills, contribute to their field, and support scholarly communication effectively.

How detailed should submission requirements be?

Roger Watson, BSc, PhD, FRCP, Edin, FAAN

At the Trailhead

  • Why this matters: Clear author guidelines are a journal’s first line of quality control.
  • What judgment this supports: Editors need to determine how detailed and comprehensive submission requirements should be.
  • How an editor might use this: Use the guidance to strengthen author instructions, reduce recurring submission problems, and save editorial time.

Detailed submission requirements are a journal’s first line of quality control. Clear, specific guidance helps authors prepare stronger submissions, promotes fair and consistent screening, and reduces preventable queries, revisions, and editorial delays.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

Trail Stop 12: Writing the Recommendation

At the end of a review, reviewers are typically asked to make a recommendation: accept, revise, or reject. This step can feel daunting, especially for newer reviewers. It is important to remember that your recommendation is advisory—editors make the final decision. This Trail Stop focuses on making thoughtful recommendations, aligning comments with recommendations, and avoiding mixed messages.

Self-edit Your Way to Publication Success

Cynthia Saver emphasizes the importance of self-editing in manuscript preparation to enhance its quality before submission. Through a structured approach involving broad assessments and detailed checks, authors can identify gaps and errors, ensuring their work communicates effectively and is free of common pitfalls. Engaging peers for feedback is also recommended.

Trail Stop 11: Disagreement Among Reviewers

The article discusses the dynamics of peer review, emphasizing that disagreements among reviewers, or non-convergent reviews, are common and can enhance scholarly dialogue. It highlights the editor's role in synthesizing feedback, encouraging humility among reviewers, and providing guidance to authors in addressing conflicting comments, ultimately supporting quality manuscript development.

Trail Stop 10: Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Trust is essential in peer reviewing, requiring confidentiality, unbiased assessments, and professional conduct. Reviewers must navigate potential conflicts of interest, maintain respectful communication, and handle new AI technologies carefully. Upholding these ethical responsibilities enhances the credibility of scholarly publishing and fosters trust among authors, editors, and the academic community.

Trail Stop 9: Fit the Review to the Manuscript

Effective peer review requires matching review criteria to the purpose of the manuscript. This article provides practical guidance for reviewing clinical, educational, leadership, evidence-based practice, quality improvement, and policy manuscripts. By emphasizing manuscript-specific evaluation, reviewers can provide more constructive feedback, support editorial decisions, and strengthen nursing scholarship.