Trail Stop 8: Reviewing Conceptual and Theoretical Papers

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

Diane B. Monsivais, PhD, CNE, ANEF

Writer’s Camp Counselor

---

When the questions change, so does the review.

---

If you have spent most of your reviewing life in the world of empirical manuscripts—those familiar, well-marked trails of methods, samples, instruments, and statistical tests—then conceptual and theoretical papers can feel like stepping into different terrain altogether.

There is no methods section to examine. No p-values to question. No sample size to debate. Instead, you are asked to do something both less concrete and more demanding: to evaluate ideas. The aims are different. And so, the expectations for review must shift as well.

From experience, this is also where the path can slow. Finding the right reviewers for conceptual work is often more difficult, and turnaround times tend to stretch. That alone is a signal: this work asks something different of us.

What Reviewers Consider

Conceptual and theoretical manuscripts are not trying to test ideas—they are trying to shape them. Different manuscript aims call for different evaluation criteria.  

Rather than focusing on methods or data, reviewers should consider:

• Is the central idea clearly articulated?
• Does the literature review meaningfully identify gaps?
• Is a recognizable method or approach to concept or theory analysis used?
• Are the ideas coherent and well connected?
• Does the manuscript contribute something new or needed?
• Will it matter to readers or practice?

In order to accurately answer those questions, it is essential the reviewer understands the key aim of the manuscript. For example, conceptual and theoretical manuscripts often aim to introduce new ideas, reinterpret existing concepts, extend theoretical frameworks, offer philosophical perspectives, clarify directions for research, and stimulate discussion.

Consider concept analyses of competence in nurse educators or practicing nurses.¹^,² These authors are not measuring student or patient outcomes.  They are asking more foundational questions: What do we mean when we say competence? What are its defining attributes? How has the concept evolved over time?

Or take a manuscript that reframes resilience in nursing—not as an individual trait, but as a shared responsibility across systems and policy.³ Your task as a reviewer is to ask: Is this argument clear? Logical? Persuasive?

The same applies to theory analysis papers.⁴^,⁵ These works are not proving hypotheses. They are refining, extending, or reinterpreting frameworks. The reviewer’s role is to determine whether that effort deepens understanding, resolves ambiguity, or opens meaningful directions for practice or inquiry.

In empirical reviews, review instruments like those from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) help guide judgments about rigor and design. Conceptual work requires a different kind of guidance. Frameworks such as Walker and Avant’s⁶ frequently applied approach to concept analysis provides structure for reviewing, while theory evaluation criteria also provides structure, but is less consistently applied and remains an evolving need in the field.⁷

A grounding question that is simple but powerful: Did the manuscript accomplish what it set out to do?

Where Reviewers Wander Off the Trail: Common Pitfalls

Even experienced reviewers can occasionally wander off the trail. Common pitfalls include:

• Asking for data when none are needed.
• Requesting research methods for conceptual arguments.
• Asking for literature reviews structured like research reports.
• Expecting empirical validation within the manuscript.

Review comments appropriate for data-based research are usually are well-intentioned—but misplaced. A philosophical analysis of patient autonomy, for example, may draw on ethics, theory, and clinical insight without following a systematic review structure. Asking the authors to reshape it into one can dilute the very strength of the work.

Another frequent misstep is expecting validation within the same manuscript: “The authors should test this framework with a sample of nurses.” That may be a valuable next step—but it is not a reasonable requirement for a conceptual paper. When reviewers lose the trail with these type of comments, two things tend to happen. First, authors receive confusing or inappropriate revision requests. Second, editors receive reviews that are difficult to reconcile. A better orienting question is this: Is the argument logical, coherent, and meaningful within its intended purpose? If the answer is yes, the manuscript may be strong—even without a single data point.

Respecting the Terrain: Philosophical Traditions

Conceptual and theoretical manuscripts are often grounded in distinct philosophical traditions with their own unique vocabulary, assumptions, and worldviews. These perspectives shape what counts as knowledge, how arguments are built, and what qualifies as evidence.

Consider these examples:

• Human science approaches that assist the researcher to discover meaning of lived experiences from those living them.
• Phenomenology.
• Rogerian science grounded in Martha Rogers’ theoretical work.
• Critical or interpretive frameworks.
• Philosophical analyses.

At times, that terrain may feel unfamiliar—or even uncomfortable. A phenomenological manuscript may feel abstract. Rogerian science may use language that seems distant from clinical practice. A critical theory paper examining power and inequity in healthcare may not align with your personal perspective. It is important to keep in mind that the reviewer’s role is not to agree, but rather to assess whether the work is:

• Internally coherent;
• Consistent with its chosen framework; and
• Clearly expressed.

Respecting philosophical traditions requires a kind of intellectual humility. It asks you to recognize that there are multiple valid ways of knowing—and that your task is not to collapse them into one.

Knowing When to Step Back

Not every reviewer is the right guide for every trail. If you are not the best person to evaluate a manuscript’s conceptual or philosophical foundation, say so. For example:

“This manuscript is grounded in a philosophical tradition outside my primary area of expertise; my comments focus on clarity and organization.”

This brief statement helps the editor interpret your review while allowing you to contribute meaningfully without overreaching. Even without deep expertise in a specific tradition, you can still offer valuable insight on clarity, structure, and readability—elements that matter across all manuscript types.

Staying on the Trail: Avoiding Overreach

Conceptual manuscripts invite a particular kind of reviewer temptation: the urge to reshape the paper into something you would have written. This can appear as:

• Recommending entirely different frameworks.
• Asking authors to adopt a different philosophy.
• Suggesting a shift in the central argument.
• Requesting empirical validation.

These suggestions may seem constructive, but often they amount to asking for a different paper altogether.  A more productive stance is this: Does this manuscript work on its own terms?

There are moments when suggesting an alternative framework is appropriate—especially if the current one is misaligned. But even then, the tone matters. For example: “The authors may also consider how this argument aligns with [alternative framework], although the current approach is coherent as presented.”

This keeps the focus on strengthening, not replacing, the work.

The Reviewers Role in Supporting Editorial Decisions

Conceptual manuscripts often generate divergent reviews. One reviewer sees innovation; another sees ambiguity. Sometimes the difference lies not in the manuscript—but in the reviewer’s perspective on the central idea. This is where clarity in your review becomes essential. A helpful review:

• Explains the reasoning behind judgments.
• Distinguishes personal preference from critique.
• Focuses on clarity, contribution, and coherence.

Instead of writing: “I did not like this framework,” consider: “While the framework is clearly articulated, its contribution beyond existing models is not fully evident. Clarifying this distinction would strengthen the manuscript.”

And when your perspective differs: “From my perspective, an alternative theoretical lens might offer additional insight; however, within the chosen framework, the argument is coherent.”

This kind of transparency allows editors to weigh your input appropriately.

In many ways, reviewing conceptual work is less about delivering a verdict and more about facilitating a conversation—between author, reviewer, and editor.

Conclusion

Becoming an excellent reviewer of conceptual and theoretical manuscripts does not mean abandoning rigor. It means understanding how rigor is demonstrated in this form of scholarship. Reviewers should look for precision of thought, clarity of expression, coherence of argument, and faithfulness to the manuscript’s philosophical foundations. The goal is to evaluate the work on its own terms while helping the author strengthen both the reasoning and its presentation.

And perhaps most importantly, it asks you to hold your expertise lightly—firm enough to offer insight, but flexible enough to make space for ideas that are not your own. When done well, this work is deeply rewarding. You are not simply reviewing a manuscript. You are participating in the evolution of ideas in your field.

References

1. Hull JL. Competence of the academic clinical nurse educator: A concept analysis. Journal of Professional Nursing. 2024;55:146–151. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.10.004
2. Mrayyan MT, Abunab HY, Abu Khait A, et al. Competency in nursing practice: a concept analysis. BMJ Open. 2023;13(6):e067352. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067352.
3. Butler S. Rethinking resilience in nursing: shifting from individual burden to collective support. Nursing Management. (Harrow). 2026. Feb 24. doi: 10.7748/nm.2026.e2179
4. Abu Khait A, Sabo K, Shellman J. Analysis and evaluation of Reed’s Theory of Self-Transcendence. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice. 2020;34(2):170–187. doi: 10.1891/RTNP-D-19-00015.
5. Elliott TH. Theory analysis and evaluation of emancipatory nursing praxis. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge. 2024;35(1):32–39. doi: 10.1111/2047-3095.12414.
6. Walker LO, Avant KC. Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing. 6th ed. Pearson; 2018.
7. Im EO. The current status of theory evaluation in nursing. The Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2015;71(10):2268–2278. doi: 10.1111/jan.12698

Author: Diane B. Monsivais

Reviewed and Edited by: Anjie Raber and Leslie H. Nicoll

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Diane B. Monsivais CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Monsivais DB. Trail stop 8: Reviewing conceptual and theoretical papers. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2026;2(3):7. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21687884

AI USE Disclosure:  AI (Chat GPT) was used for final editing for clarity, flow, and style consistent with “Becoming an Excellent Peer Reviewer: A Writer’s Camp Learning Trail” series.  The author retains full responsibility for the content.