In This Issue—The Value of Peer Review

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this column, the editor of The Journal of Perinatal Education discusses the value of peer review and how the peer review process works. The editor also describes the contents of this issue, which offer a broad range of resources, research, and inspiration for childbirth educators in their efforts to promote, support, and protect natural, safe, and healthy birth and postpartum.

As an editor and in my day job as a nursing faculty member mentoring junior faculty, I often get questions about how manuscripts are selected for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The Journal of Perinatal Education (JPE) like other scholarly publications is committed to excellence and adheres to the strict process of peer review. We value the importance of peer review, and we are committed to providing a rigorous, ethical review process of all manuscripts submitted to the JPE. Many potential authors ask, what exactly is peer review and how does it work?

Peer review is a critical process in research and academia because it ensures the quality, validity, and reliability of scholarly work before publication to a wider audience. Peer review attempts to provide a level of quality control by identifying weaknesses in the design, analysis, or other potential issues that could compromise the conclusions. This process helps prevent unreliable or flawed articles from reaching the public or influencing further research.

Peer reviewers are selected for their expertise in the field of the submitted manuscript. Their expertise ensures that the published work is valid, credible, and valuable to the readers of the journal. Peer reviewers provide authors with constructive feedback that can help them improve their work. Even when a paper is not accepted, the comments from reviewers often guide authors in refining their methods or presentation.

We invite readers to respond to the contents of this journal issue or share comments on other topics related to natural, safe, and healthy birth. Responses will be published as a letter to the editor. Please send comments to Wendy Budin, Editor-in-Chief (wendy.budin@rutgers.edu).

So, how does the peer review process work? When an author submits a manuscript to the journal, as editor, I perform an initial review to check the paper meets the JPE standard and scope. It is important that potential authors review author guidelines. If there are questions, about whether a potential article is of interest to the readership or appropriate for the journal, authors can submit a query letter to the editor. The most common reason for rejection of manuscripts is that authors did not follow guidelines or adhere to the scope of the journal.

If a manuscript passes the initial screening, the editor assigns it to a few peer reviewers—usually two or three—who are experts in the same or related field. Although there are different types of peer review, the JPE uses a double-blind process. This means that both reviewers and authors are unknown to each other, helping reduce bias. Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript by addressing the following question: Is the work original and significant? Does it add new insights to the field? Does it build on previous work? Does it fit the scope of the journal? Would the readership of the journal find the paper interesting? Is the methodology sound and appropriate? Are the results and conclusions valid, logical, and supported by the data? Is the paper well organized, clear, and properly formatted? Are proper citations or references present? Is the submission written in grammatically correct English? If not, would the author benefit from an English language service or editor?

Reviewers can suggest minor or major revisions or recommend rejection. Once the reviewers send their comments and suggestions back to the editor, the editor will review the suggestions, add additional comments, and share the reviews with the author(s). If revisions are requested, the author will address each of the comments with revisions or justify their original position and resubmit the manuscript. The editor will then make a final decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the author’s changes. If accepted, the paper is prepared for publication as a peer-reviewed publication, meaning it has passed a standard quality check.

The content of all JPE issues published since October 1998 is available on the journal’s website (https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrjpe). Lamaze International members can access the site and download free copies of JPE articles by logging on at the Members Only.

Journals, like the JPE, are always in need of additional peer reviewers. I am often asked, why be a peer reviewer? By participating in the peer review process, you not only help authors improve their papers by providing your expertise, but being a peer reviewer can help you remain up-to-date on current research within your field. Being peer reviewed also helps authors improve their own writing skills. Reviewing often makes spotting your own errors easier.

As a peer reviewer, you can ask the author for clarification on any items that are unclear or need additional explanation. Comments to the author should always be professional and courteous. When possible and appropriate, you can suggest how the author might improve clarity and the overall quality of the manuscript. It is important to remember that as a peer reviewer you are not expected to edit the author’s work. It is not the reviewer’s job to correct grammar or spelling; however, you might make suggestions when meaning is unclear. Authors welcome positive and constructive feedback and often feel their manuscript is improved by the peer review process. Peer reviewers also have the opportunity to send confidential comments to the editor, which will not be shared with the author.

If you are thinking about being a peer reviewer for the JPE, do not hesitate to reach out to me. The workload is manageable. When you receive an invitation to review a manuscript, you can decide if the topic matches your area(s) of expertise. If not, you can recommend someone else who might be more qualified. You always have the option to accept or decline an invitation to review a manuscript. We recognize that many professionals are busy and other commitments may take priority. However, when the time is right, it is a wonderful opportunity to be a peer reviewer. The success of our journal depends on our valuable peer reviewers. Consider becoming a peer reviewer. We welcome you to our team!

IN THIS ISSUE

In this issue, keeping with our practice to celebrate birth with a compelling birth story, we share the birth journey experienced by Tihana Gaspert, as she welcomed her baby into the world at the University Hospital Rijeka. She describes how her midwife, Ariana Rabac, played an instrumental role in making this experience the one she will cherish forever.

Also in this issue, Dr. Cheryl Beck provides valuable information for childbirth educators and other health professional about the life-threatening risk of placenta accreta associated with increasing rate of cesarean birth. Insightful information gathered from blogs written by survivors of placenta accreta pregnancies provided in this article can help guide clinical practice and childbirth education.

Using a qualitative approach, Lunsford and Miller examined disclosure patterns of women who have experienced symptoms of postpartum depression. Findings were discovered using a thematic analysis. According to the authors, this study highlights the challenges that many mothers face when trying to disclose their mental health difficulties to others, like family members, coworkers, and health-care professionals in the postpartum period.

Two additional articles address the important issue of implicit bias and how discrimination can influence the birth experience. In their article describing childbirth educators’ attitudes toward implicit bias and intention to self-monitoring behaviors, Newhouse-Bailey and Ayars determined that most study participants reported they have participated in implicit bias education (IBE) and that participation in IBE was associated with intention to incorporate self-monitoring of implicit bias into practice. This suggests requirements for childbirth educators are justified.

Pickler, Spurlock, and Nist present a finding from their longitudinal cohort study designed to identify predictors of childbirth preparedness, examine associations between childbirth preparedness and experiences of discrimination, and determine effects of preparedness on satisfaction with birth. These authors suggest, by understanding the relationships among childbirth preparedness, experiences of discrimination, and satisfaction with birth, interventions can be developed to decrease maternal morbidity and increase health equity.

As a reminder, we welcome birth stories from our readers. Please reach out to the editor if you have a story you would like to share. We also welcome high-resolution pictures depicting the magical moments of pregnancy, birth, and early parenting.

Biography

WENDY C. BUDIN is the editor-in-chief of The Journal of Perinatal Education. She is also Professor and Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs at Rutgers School of Nursing. She is a fellow in the American College of Childbirth Educators and a former member of the Lamaze International Certification Council Governing Body.