Misuzu Gregg, Ph.D., R.N.
Graduate School of Nursing, Meio University
I am often asked to do peer reviews, and as I basically never turn them down I sometimes think, “Oh, another peer review.” Strangely enough, the peer review only tends to come when I am busy. I cannot read it at work, so I take it home; then, I cannot read it at home, so I take it to work, and so on until the review is completed, and I feel depressed. At such times, I try to switch to a positive mood and return to the original purpose of peer review, which is “to publish better papers through collaboration among authors, reviewers, and editors,” and thinking that it is also an opportunity for me to learn. In fact, there has never been a peer review from which I did not learn something.
Almost all the peer reviews I am asked to do are qualitative studies. I try to be careful not to focus too much on research methodology or research methods when doing peer reviews. However, I have taught qualitative research courses in master’s and doctoral programs and supervised and reviewed dissertations for more than 15 years. These experiences make me a person who is “obsessed” with research methodology or research methods. In my qualitative research classes and dissertation supervision or in reviews focused on qualitative research methods, I emphasize the section addressing research methods in the dissertation evaluation criteria. The criteria are from the Leaflet for Creating a Dissertation Guidance Program Using Qualitative Research Methods to Construct a System of Knowledge in Nursing, which is listed in the guidelines on this website. Specifically, the thesis evaluation criteria items are: “The reasons for the selection and appropriateness of the research methods are clear” (item 5), “The research methods are well understood and used appropriately” (item 9), and “Methods to ensure the rigor of the results are described” (item 11). Our instructions to graduate students aim to help them fully understand these items. However, when reviewing submitted papers, there is generally a word limit, so I need to carefully judge how much of the content of the thesis review evaluation criteria should be described as “good.”
As we read from the beginning of a paper, the “research methods” section naturally comes first, followed by the “results” section. If the research methods are difficult to understand, it gives the impression that the entire paper is difficult to understand. In such situations, I try to put the research methods to the side and concentrate on reading the description of the results. This aspect is very different from providing dissertation supervision and examination.
Although it is important that the research methodology or research methods are clear, I do not think it is desirable to give a low evaluation of the overall papers just because I feel this section is inadequate. Therefore, putting the research methods aside, we should focus on the results based on three evaluation criteria in the aforementioned leaflet: “Good quality data were collected” (item 10), “The results are supported by data” (item 13), and “New knowledge was generated” (item 14).
When you read quotations in the results of the paper, you say, “Oh, I see,” which means the paper is a good representation of the phenomenon under study and reflects a high degree of reality in the data. Few peer-reviewed papers are completely consistent with one’s area of expertise. However, it is possible to judge whether the data are good quality even if the paper is outside one’s expertise.
If the results or discussion in a paper generate new knowledge, it is still necessary for the research methods to be clearly written and the rigor of the results to be ensured. However, even if the research methods and rigor of the results are clear, they are meaningless if the results are not interesting. Novelty is the lifeblood of qualitative research, but novelty does not mean that everything is new. Novelty in results reflects whether they offer a new perspective on the phenomenon being studied, and whether that perspective has originality.
When I have finished writing the peer review comments, I try to reflect again on what I learned from the paper. This may seem to be a very subjective peer review, but I think it is important for me to reflect on what I learned from the results to ensure that I am not overly concerned with research methodology or research methods per se.
When I was a student more than 20 years ago, I took a class in which we wrote poems to represent interview data, and I heard a story about dancing to represent research results. I do not think we have to take that leap, but I would like to be a reviewer who can embrace creative research methods while focusing on the research results.