Supporting Professionalism in the Editorial Process

Julee Briscoe Waldrop, DNP, PNP-C, EBP-C, FAANP, FAAN

Jayne Jennings Dunlap, DNP, PhD, FNP, CNE, FAAN, FAANP

Lisa Kelly, MSN, RN

Writer’s Camp Guest Counselor (JBW) and Counselors (JJD, LK)

Abstract

Emerging scholars reported experiences of unprofessional peer review, leading to hesitance in future submissions. While unprofessional reviews harm authors, editors play a key role in addressing these issues by maintaining ethical standards and transparency. Constructive feedback promotes author growth, and all participants in the editorial process share responsibility for professionalism.

Professionalism in the editorial process is everyone’s responsibility.

During a question-and-answer session following a recent conference presentation, several emerging scholars shared experiences of receiving unprofessional feedback from peer reviewers. Notably, none of them had contacted the journal editor to seek clarification. Many also described feeling hesitant to submit future work for publication.

Why did these authors not reach out to the editor? Is there a perception that reviewers, rather than editors, make publication decisions? And what role should editors play when reviews cross the line? Unfortunately, unprofessional peer review is not a new problem. Twenty years ago, an article in Nurse Author & Editor described one author’s experience with unprofessional peer review and disrespect from an editor.1

Yet peer review, at its best, is not merely an exercise in judgment but one of engagement. Its purpose is to strengthen scholarship through thoughtful critique that helps authors clarify and advance their work. What separates helpful review from harmful review is not whether critique is offered, but how it is communicated. Feedback that is clear, specific, and respectful upholds the integrity of the process while preserving the author’s connection to the work.

Unprofessional Peer Review

Unprofessional peer review can take many forms. Some involve tone: comments that are insulting, unnecessarily discouraging, or dismissive of the author or their line of research, such as “This is not even nursing science.”2 Others involve substance: unhelpful or vague critique, impossible requests, opinion-based demands unsupported by evidence, or requests to cite the reviewer’s own work.3

Although we do not know how prevalent this problem is in nursing, a survey of authors in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields found that 58% reported receiving at least one unprofessional peer review over their careers.4 Reported effects on authors, especially those early in their careers, include psychological distress, self-doubt, impaired performance, and delayed career advancement.5,6

In some cases, reviewer behavior goes beyond poor feedback and reflects a misuse of power within the peer-review process. Comments containing discriminatory language or critiques unrelated to improving the manuscript can exploit the inherent power imbalance between reviewer and author, constituting a form of academic bullying. Such practices run counter to the goals of peer review and undermine the editorial process. This is where the editor’s role becomes essential—a role that is not without its challenges.

Editorial Power and Responsibility

Editors hold significant power relative to authors, and with that power comes responsibility for how it is exercised. Both editors and reviewers are entrusted with unpublished work and must never use it to their own advantage. Ethical responsibility and transparency are essential to maintaining authors’ trust in the process.

Editorial responsibility also includes respecting authors’ time, as prolonged time to publication can feel disrespectful.7 A common concern in editorial circles is the difficulty of finding peer reviewers who will accept an invitation and complete a thoughtful, constructive review. However, delays can also stem from editors’ own practices. In nursing, most editor positions are not full-time and are taken on in addition to other employment obligations.8 This reflects broader structural issues in which editorial work is not consistently supported in proportion to its demands.9 As a result, competing obligations can make it difficult to prioritize editorial responsibilities. Communicating realistic timelines and sharing current review metrics, such as average time to first decision, are meaningful ways to show respect for authors.

These same competing demands can affect how closely reviews are screened. Editors are human, and unprofessional reviewer comments may occasionally be overlooked. When this happens, editors want to know.

What Editors Can Do

Because the editor, not the reviewer, makes the publication decision, editors are well positioned to prevent and address unprofessional reviews. Editors seek peer reviews for advice and expertise, then use that input to reach an editorial decision. Although there is some debate over how much an editor can or should modify reviewer comments,10 editors can decline to forward comments that are insulting or irrelevant to improving the manuscript.

When an author raises concerns about a review, the editor should take them seriously and investigate. An apology may be warranted. The editor can also consider whether the comment was an isolated lapse or part of a pattern that should be addressed directly with the reviewer and may choose not to invite that reviewer again.

What Reviewers Can Do

Reviewers shape both the quality of the work and the author’s experience of the process. A simple guide is to review a manuscript the way one would want one’s own work reviewed, and to write as if the review would be signed rather than blinded.3 Reviewers should also accept invitations only when they have adequate time to provide a thoughtful, original review. Uploading manuscript text into generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools for summarization or critique risks disclosing confidential, unpublished work to third-party platforms.11 Several publishers now prohibit the use of generative AI in peer review, but adherence ultimately relies on reviewers’ professional integrity.12,13

Comments should always be constructive and should critique the manuscript, not the author or the topic.11-13 The reviewer’s expertise on the content is what the editor most needs. Reviewers need not line-edit or impose personal style preferences; focusing on substance makes the review more useful and leaves copyediting to the publication process.

Finally, published authors owe a debt to the colleagues who volunteered their time to review their manuscripts. Reviewing is a critical part of scholarship,14 and although it may earn fewer rewards in academia than other activities, accepting review invitations whenever possible is one way to pay that debt forward.15 The peer-review system is not perfect, but no better system has been proposed.16

What Authors Can Do

Authors who receive unprofessional feedback should first pause. Critique of one’s work can provoke a strong emotional reaction, so taking time to reflect, or seeking a second opinion from an experienced colleague, can provide a more objective perspective. Often, unprofessional comments can be separated from valid critique, and authors who approach valid feedback as a learning opportunity can build more resilient writing practices.17

Even so, authors should not hesitate to share their concerns with the editor. Modeling the professional communication they hope to receive, authors can ask for clarification, request that another reviewer be invited,18 or, if necessary, withdraw their manuscript before publication.

Twenty years ago, the article referenced earlier advised authors to respectfully assert themselves when they believe editors or reviewers have treated them unfairly or unprofessionally.1 That advice still holds true today.

Conclusion

Professional conduct in publishing shapes not only the quality of the nursing literature but also the experience of everyone who contributes to it. Feedback that is depersonalized and focused on growth helps writers develop their skills and produce their best work. This does not mean accepting every manuscript—it means offering honest, constructive critique while upholding the integrity of the literature. When reviews fall short, editors and authors must feel equally empowered to address them, so that emerging scholars are encouraged to share their work rather than being discouraged from doing so. Whether we serve as editors, peer reviewers, or authors, each of us helps set the tone for how our profession writes, reviews, and learns from one another—and in doing so, advances the nursing discipline.

References

  1. Spear HJ. On ethical peer review and publication decisions: The importance of professional conduct and communication. Nurse Author & Editor. 2004;14(4):1-3.
  2. Kelly L. Rejection, resilience and the risk of saying yes. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2025;1(1):15. doi:10.5181/zenodo.15603064
  3. Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM. The good, the bad and the rude peer review. International Orthopaedics. 2020;44(3):413-415. doi:10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1
  4. Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ. 2019;7:e8247. doi:10.7717/peerj.8247
  5. Wilcox C. Rude paper reviews are pervasive and sometimes harmful, study finds. Science. Published December 12, 2019. Accessed May 15, 2026. https://www.science.org/content/article/rude-paper-reviews-are-pervasive-and-sometimes-harmful-study-finds
  6. The mental health of PhD researchers demands urgent attention. Nature. 2019;575:257-258. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03489-1
  7. Javed F, Michelogiannakis D, Rossouw PE. Editorial bullying: An exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. 2024;9:1345553. doi:10.3389/frma.2024.1345553
  8. Waldrop J, Likis FE. Roles and responsibilities of editors of nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2022;54(4):477-484. doi:10.1111/jnu.12745
  9. Likis FE, Waldrop J. Compensation of editors: A cross-sectional international survey. Nursing Economic$. 2022;40(2):79-86.
  10. Committee on Publication Ethics. COPE guidelines: Editing peer reviews. Published 2021. Accessed March 8, 2026. doi:10.24318/AoZQIusn
  11. Ali SI, Shaban M. Nursing academic reviewers’ perspectives on AI-assisted peer review: Ethical challenges and acceptance. International Nursing Review. 2025;72(3):e70100. doi:10.1111/inr.70100
  12. Elsevier. The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the review process. Published 2024. Accessed March 6, 2026. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-the-review-process
  13. Taylor & Francis. AI policy for authors, editors and reviewers. Published 2024. Accessed March 6, 2026. https://taylorandfrancis.com/our-policies/ai-policy/
  14. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. Defining Scholarship for Academic Nursing: Task Force Consensus Position Statement. Published 2018. Accessed March 3, 2026. https://www.aacnnursing.org/news-data/position-statements-white-papers/defining-scholarship-for-academic-nursing
  15. Griffiths P, Baveye PC. Peer review—beyond the call of duty? International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2011;48(1):1-2. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.12.013
  16. Kottner J, Dall’Ora C, Griffiths P, Norman I. Quality peer review. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances. 2025;9:100382. doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2025.100382
  17. Waldrop J, Dunlap JJ. Writing Resilience: Sharing Your Voice to Make a Difference in Healthcare. Cognella; 2026.
  18. Conroy G. Q&A Linda Beaumont: Journals should take action against toxic peer reviews. Nature Index. Published August 30, 2019. Accessed February 26, 2026. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/linda-beaumont-research-journals-should-take-action-against-toxic-peer-reviews

Authors: Julee Briscoe Waldrop, Jayne Jennings Dunlap, and Lisa Kelly

Guest Counselor Bio: Julee Briscoe Waldrop, DNP, PNP, FAANP, FAAN, is associate editor of the Journal of Professional Nursing and former editor-in-chief of The Journal for Nurse Practitioners. She has practiced as a nurse practitioner since 1991, mostly with underserved women and children, and has taught nursing since 1994. A fellow of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the American Academy of Nursing, she especially enjoys helping students and practicing nurse practitioners publish their work.

Reviewed and Edited by: Anjie Raber and Jenny Chicca

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Julee Briscoe Waldrop, Jayne Jennings Dunlap, and Lisa Kelly. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Waldrop JB, Jennings Dunlap J, Kelly L. Supporting professionalism in the editorial process. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2026; 2(4):4. doi.10.5281/zenodo.23146353

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *