Trail Stop 1: Why Peer Review Matters

Becoming an Excellent Peer Reviewer: A Writer’s Camp Learning Trail

Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN

Writer’s Camp Director

---

Peer review is essential, yet most reviewers begin without a map.

---

Peer review sits at the heart of scholarly publishing. It is how manuscripts are evaluated, improved, and ultimately prepared for publication. Yet for something so central to academic life, many reviewers receive little formal guidance about how peer review works or how to do it well. I never took a formal course or had specific mentorship in how to be a peer reviewer. I learned “on the job” and my evaluation was the fact that I kept receiving manuscripts, so I assumed I was giving the editor what they wanted (for the record, the editor was Donna Diers and the journal was Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship). When I had the opportunity to meet Donna at a conference, she told me that I was on her “short list” of reviewers and I was stunned. Did she really know me well enough to compliment me in person? Wow. That was a peak experience and a moment that has stayed with me ever since.

The irony is that while Donna was delighted to have me as a reviewer, I was equally delighted to be reviewing for her journal. I learned so much through the process—what makes a good manuscript, which ones were interesting to read, whether I learned something new from the paper (not always), and most surprisingly, how many people submitted manuscripts that were poorly written, unorganized, and replete with mistakes. “This is the best they could do?” I often found myself thinking. Being a peer reviewer ultimately made me a better author.

At that time, manuscripts were printed on paper and sent through the mail. The pace was slower and I felt like I had time to read, reflect, and learn. Now, everything is handled electronically and authors, reviewers, and editors are under tremendous pressure to produce, meet deadlines, and move quickly. Journals are no longer a group of printed articles compiled together in a bound publication. They are part of a complex system^1,2 and everyone involved plays an important role in their production. Unfortunately, some of what has been lost is the luxury that I had—to learn peer review by doing. Editors now need to reviewers who are confident and skillful, right from the start. That is why this series of articles has been developed—to give you the necessary knowledge in all aspects of peer review to be an effective reviewer—the kind they want to put on their short list. With that in mind, let’s begin. And we’ll start with the basics: an overview of peer review and why it matters.

The Growing Need for Reviewers

Today, the peer review system is under strain. Submission volumes have increased across all specialties in nursing, while the pool of available reviewers has not kept pace. In a recent informal survey of editors of nursing journals (n= 66), many reported receiving 1000 or more manuscripts per year. At the same time, they reported an ongoing or urgent need for reviewers.³ This imbalance reflects several factors, including increased publication pressure, limited incentives for reviewers, growing professional demands on clinicians and academics, reviewer fatigue among experienced reviewers, and the expanding scope of interdisciplinary and global scholarship. At the same time, many scholars, particularly early-career authors, are eager to contribute but are unsure how to begin. This creates both a challenge and an opportunity. Thoughtful, skilled reviewers are needed now more than ever.

A Brief History of Peer Review

Peer review, as we know it today, is a relatively recent innovation. Early scholarly journals in the 17th and 18th centuries relied primarily on editorial judgment so manuscripts were reviewed but not in the way that peer review is currently practiced. In addition, early journals had trouble filling their pages, so editors were usually on the lookout for good manuscripts and not faced with making decisions about what to publish and what to reject.   

This situation changed dramatically in the mid-twentieth century, driven in large part by advances in science and the impact of World War II on education and scholarly productivity. Actual written histories are scant and require piecing together information from editorials and correspondence, but it appears that JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine were early leaders in the US in implementing “modern” peer review. To its credit, Nursing Research had a peer review process in place from its founding in 1952.⁴ Over time, other nursing journals followed suit and peer review has become the dominant model for scholarly knowledge evaluation. The quality of peer review for a journal often determines where the journal is indexed and has an impact on its scholarly profile. Thus, the purposes of peer review are many, including:

• Improving manuscript quality;
• Ensuring rigor and credibility;
• Providing expert perspectives; and
• Supporting editorial decision-making.

While the system is not perfect and many think new models should be implemented,^5,6 the system that we have today is well-established (some may say entrenched) and not disappearing anytime soon. Therefore, for anyone reading this who wants to serve as a reviewer, it is to your advantage to be familiar with the system, its processes, and what is expected from the various people who are involved, including authors, editors, reviewers, publishers, and most importantly, you.

What Peer Review Looks Like

There are several peer review models that exist but in general, the process can be described simply: a manuscript is submitted to a scholarly journal and is reviewed by the editor (or members of the editorial team) for suitability, such as scope, length, and absence of technical or ethical errors. If it survives that first hurdle, then the manuscript is sent to some number of people (two to six is what is quoted in the literature but in my experience, one to two is the most common) for their review and feedback. The manuscript is usually de-identified so that the reviewers do not know who the author is—and, typically, the reviewer information is not shared with the authors. In the past this was known as a “double-blind review,” but that language is dated and “anonymous” is now preferred. There are variations on this model: author or reviewer information is shared, or the process is fully “open” to all involved. But the basic idea is the same: peers provide a review which the editor then uses to make a decision.

What is the rationale for anonymous review? The major reason is to reduce bias on the part of the reviewer. Several common examples are often given as to how you, as a reviewer, could be influenced, including:

• Author reputation or prestige;
• Institutional affiliation;
• Country of origin;
• Gender or demographic characteristics; or
• Prior relationships or conflicts.

The idea is that you as a reviewer should consider the work itself and not the person who produced it and anonymity promises this non-judgmental perspective. Is this true or is it a rarely questioned belief of the scholarly world? Studies that have been done on this topic have mixed results and conclusions.^7,8 I will say, from my perspective as an editor of nursing journals for 30-plus years, I think some of the concerns are overblown. Perhaps that is the nature of the discipline (I do not think nurses are hyper-competitive) but no matter—if you are reviewing for a journal and they use some variation of anonymous peer review, then you, as a reviewer, need to respect that. That means you should not identify yourself (unless asked) and if the author is unknown to you, that should stay that way. If you can ascertain who the author is either by guessing or some other identifier, then you need to decide if you can still review fairly or if that creates a conflict. If the latter, is true, then you should decline the review and return the manuscript to the editor. Again, in my experience, most conflicts are not disqualifying but you need to make that decision for yourself.

The Reviewer’s Role

A peer reviewer’s primary role is to review an assigned manuscript and provide feedback to the editor. The editor then uses this feedback to make a decision about the disposition of the paper: accept, reject, or revise. There may be nuances for each of these, for example, “accept with revisions,” but in reality, the editor has three choices. Note that the peer reviewer provides advice but not a decision. A peer review form may ask for your recommendation, but you are not adjudicating what happens to the manuscript and the editor is not required to accept your feedback.

While what I just described is the primary role of the peer reviewer, that is not the only dimension. When you serve as a peer reviewer, you are also:

• Supporting colleagues as a professional peer;
• Contributing to scholarly dialogue;
• Working in partnership with editors; and
• Mentoring authors.

A strong review can improve a manuscript, clarify ideas, and strengthen scholarship. In some cases, a thoughtful review shapes not only the paper, but the direction of future work. This is what makes being a peer reviewer rewarding, and why people continue to serve in this role over the course of their career. I became a reviewer for Image more than 40 years ago, when I was a novice author and before I became an editor. I continue to review on a regular basis. Even with the thousands of manuscripts I have read over the years, I still enjoy the work.

Conclusion

You may ask yourself, “Am I really qualified to be a peer reviewer?” If you are reading this, then I think the answer is yes. Qualifications are not just about educational credentials, research expertise, or experience. If you have the interest, motivation, and are willing to be a careful, thoughtful reviewer, then you have what it takes to do the job. Granted, certain manuscripts may be beyond your skillset (if you don’t know statistics, you shouldn’t review quantitative papers) but others might be right in your wheelhouse. Taking the time to learn what is needed and what editors want will go far in helping you be successful in this important, professional role.

And let me just say in closing…welcome to the Writer’s Camp Peer Review Trail!

References

1. Nicoll LH. Journals as systems: Rethinking how scholarly publishing works. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2026;2(1):3. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.18099850
2. Nicoll LH. How journals work: A systems-based framework for understanding scholarly publishing. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2026;2(1):4. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.18037409
3. Nicoll LH. New on the site: Peer reviewer needs. The Writer’s Camp Journal. Published online April 11, 2026. Accessed April 11, 2026. https://writers-camp.org/2026/04/11/new-on-the-site-peer-reviewer-needs/
4. Nicoll LH. The impact of the photocopier on peer review and nursing theory. Nursing Research. 2018;67(2):74-80. doi:10.1097/NNR.0000000000000236
5. Brembs B, Huneman P, Schönbrodt F, et al. Replacing academic journals. Royal Society Open Science. 2023;10(7):230206. doi:10.1098/rsos.230206
6. Horta H, Jung J. The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science. Higher Education Quarterly. 2024;78(4):e12511. doi:10.1111/hequ.12511
7. Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2017;114(48):12708-12713. doi:10.1073/pnas.1707323114
8. Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2008;23(1):4-6. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008

Author: Leslie H. Nicoll

Reviewed and Edited by: Jenny Chicca and Anjie Raber

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Leslie H. Nicoll. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Nicoll LH. Trail stop 1: Why peer review matters. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2026; 2(2):12. doi:10.5281/zenodo.19559925