My Experience with Peer-Reviewed Qualitative Research

Kiyomi Asahara, Ph.D., R.N.
Graduate School of Nursing Science St. Luke’s International University

I often supervise doctoral dissertations and master’s theses and review qualitative research papers submitted to journals. However, here, I would like to share an experience of having my own qualitative research paper reviewed.

I once resubmitted a paper to the journal that previously rejected it. Usually, I do not do that, but instead, I submit my paper to another journal. The main reason for resubmitting my paper to the same journal on this occasion was that the journal offered many valuable comments for the paper, and I believed that resubmission would lead to the “benefit of people, academia, and practice,” because most people who read this journal were those who I wanted to read my paper. As peer review is a “collaboration among authors, reviewers, and editors,” I thought that it would be a good opportunity for an author, reviewer, and editor to collaborate and share knowledge on the research topic and qualitative research evaluation criteria to help promote the implementation and publication of qualitative research in this specific area of nursing.

There were more than 40 initial reviewer comments on my resubmitted paper, including minor corrections of text and expressions. The paper received many appropriate and precise peer-review comments, which guided my revision of the paper. However, some of the comments were less helpful; for example: 1) “A table should show from what words subcategories and categories were generated,” 2) “The description of the results and the researcher’s interpretation are mixed. The researcher’s interpretation should be stated in the discussion,” and 3) “〇〇 data collection method was not used as the main method, so it cannot be called △△ (methodology).” I felt that some of the comments could not just be accepted and modified as stated. Therefore, in my response letter, I explained why the results had been described as they were and that a description of the themes and categories and their mutual relationships was itself an explanation (interpretation) of the meaning of a specific phenomenon. These explanations should be in the Results section, not the Discussion section. In addition, the methodology was not defined by the form of data collection but was based on the viewpoint from which a specific phenomenon was captured (research question). In my response letter, I added a note on recent research trends using this methodology. In responding to these peer-review comments, I cited many references and conducted a literature analysis to identify published evidence to support my opinions, resulting in a 34-page response letter containing responses to all comments. This was followed by three exchanges with the reviewers, who generally understood my responses. The revisions based on the peer-review comments made the paper more polished, and I thanked the reviewers for their excellent reviews.

For me, the process of manuscript submission and peer review was a difficult but valuable experience. The reviewers understood my (the author’s) position after it had been properly explained. Through the dialogue during the review process, I felt that we were working toward a common goal of creating a better paper and contributing to society, scholarship, and practice. I also believe that sharing the criteria for evaluating qualitative research among authors, reviewers, and editors during this process will ultimately lead to the development of high-quality qualitative research in nursing as a whole, not just in a specific area. In writing this article, I recalled and revisited the duties and manners of authors, reviewers, and editors, that I spoke about at a seminar for reviewers of qualitative research papers in 2017 (Table).

Table. Obligations and manners of authors, reviewers, and editors

Authors should submit a paper that clearly describes their study’s purpose, methods, and results and that provides a discussion of the findings, in accordance with established standards for scholarly papers.
Authors must make appropriate revisions in response to valid peer-review comments.
Reviewers should review submitted papers in a scientific and ethical manner.
Reviewers should respect the conceptual and methodological framework of the paper as established by the author(s).
Reviewers should recognize the limitations of their own knowledge of methodology.
Reviewers should not make biased and arbitrary comments.
Reviewers should provide suggestions for improvement, rather than just comments.
Reviewers should return reviews on time.
Editors should monitor the peer-review process to ensure that it is conducted ethically, and should consider developing improved peer-review guidelines.

Asahara, K. (2018). Manners in peer review. The Japanese Journal of Nursing Research, 51(1), 12-13.
Davis, A.J., Konishi, E., Eto, H. (2002). Ethics of article peer review: rights and obligations of reviewers, authors, and editors. Quality Nursing, 8(1), 49-56.