Learning from/in the process

Much has been written, and written well, commending the value of peer review as a formal professional development or quality activity.  But these notes are personal and particular to my practice as an educator – this piece is about what peer review has meant in writing six professional development articles for Nursing Review in 2012.  My brief was to draft an article as a structured learning exercise, and provide finished copy after peer review.  The final product appeared in Nursing Review as ‘Reading, Reflection and application in Reality’. RRR for short.

Nursing Review makes no claim to be a peer reviewed publication, and the peer review process for RRR was not like that for an academic journal in which reviewers are anonymous and have no contact with the author, the process being mediated by an editor. Ultimately, an editor’s goal is to take delivery from the author(s) of a piece of writing that will do its job in the publication, and in this case the Nursing Review editor reviewed the article ‘as writing’, entrusting a critique of the content to peer reviewers, and leaving the business of arranging peer review to me.

I looked to my professional network for people with expertise in the topic and approached them directly.  (One reader who emailed to say that the just published RRR would be useful for her postgraduate class unknowingly introduced herself as a reviewer for the next article, which happened to align with her research interests!).  At the completion of the six RRRs, there’s much I would do differently, but I would not do without a group of colleagues around me, and I would not do without that particular group.

But does it work to have people you know critique your work?

It worked for me, in three ways:

• First, asking people you know to be peer reviewers meets a pre-condition in accepting feedback – it comes from someone you trust and respect for their expertise.
• Secondly, as the ‘ask’ was for a colleague’s time and critical thinking (both valuable commodities in short supply) it helps to make the request from a professional or friendship connection. 
• Thirdly, outlining the scope of what was required was hopefully helpful in focusing the feedback and limiting the reviewer’s sense of responsibility:  Is it clear what I am trying to say? Are there any points which could be made better? Does it flow - is there a logical development in the line of argument? Given your knowledge of the topic, are there any mistakes or omissions? 

For me, the most important reason for seeking peer review was ‘to get it right’ – my personal standard of work. And as nurses would read the article as a learning activity I felt obliged ‘to get it very right’. Since most topics were new for me, I needed the check of others much more familiar with the subject area.  Without that oversight, I could not feel confident.  In some ways, this was about seeking feedback to keep me safe in my practice.  Even the briefest reply, amounting to a tick, was helpful in knowing that there was nothing ‘wrong’ to correct from that reviewer’s perspective.

What became obvious – because some of my reviewers certainly did tell me what was more and less useful, or needed more work – was that the exercise of seeking critique improved the quality of my work significantly (though quality is for the reader to judge).  When a frank and thoughtful comment highlighted an area for improvement, it also significantly increased the quantity of my work.  I discovered that the work of refining and improving gave me much more pleasure and reward than the head-hurting process of surveying the literature, determining an angle and then drafting the article.  Working with my colleagues’ comments was to be in their company, and to be in the give-and-take of a stimulating conversation - which is a lovely thing when working alone.

In essence, having peers review my work is about safety and quality in my practice. It is a process that has made me a beneficiary – and the readers of RRR – of the expertise, goodwill and generosity of our professional community.  And so, this becomes an open letter of thanks and appreciation to the colleagues and friends who gave their critique and comments so readily, and in such a timely manner given tight timeframes. I appreciated your support, and most especially, your understanding that writing is not an easy thing.

The last RRR article, ‘Talking about safe practice’, connects with a dialogue about the place of colleague conversations and feedback processes for professional development.  These few paragraphs are about the immeasurable value of peer review to me in the RRR project itself.  I commend you to try for yourself what seeking colleagues’ comment can mean for your own practice – I have been the recipient of amazingly supportive, yet incisive, feedback that helped me do my job so much better. 

Thank you.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
An editor’s work is invisible to the reader.  But the writer knows where in a piece of work an editor's suggestions (or stipulations!) lie, and both know where the writer improved upon the improvement that the editor offered.  As with the peer reviewers’ comments, Nursing Review editor Fiona Cassie’s contributions were often a prompt for a more thorough reworking. And that has been true of this piece, where Fiona kindly and helpfully commented as my ex-editor and colleague.