The Journal of School Nursing2025, Vol. 41(6) 661–662© The Author(s) 2025Article reuse guidelines:sagepub.com/journals-permissionsDOI: 10.1177/10598405251384561journals.sagepub.com/home/jsn
Every year, The Journal of School Nursing (JOSN) recognizes the invaluable contributions of our peer reviewers in the December issue. This annual acknowledgment has prompted me to reflect on the critical role of peer review in advancing nursing science.
There is no question that improving the health of children and youth depends on the continual generation of new knowledge and practices through rigorous research and scholarly inquiry. The evidence that informs our practice, education, and further research is disseminated through journals—and such dissemination would not be possible without the peer review process. Peer reviewers safeguard the integrity, appropriateness, and rigor of the scholarship we rely upon.
As Drozdz and Ladomery (2024) describe, the origins of peer review date back to the seventeenth century, when subject matter experts assisted editors in selecting which articles to publish. By the late 1800s, journals began engaging external reviewers to evaluate manuscripts and ensure the highest standards of scientific integrity. Today, peer review serves two essential purposes: to help editors decide what research to publish and to provide authors with constructive feedback that both improves individual manuscripts and advances the broader field of science (Aczel et al., 2025).
While the expansion of research and the exponential growth of journals are positive developments, they have created significant challenges for the peer review process. These challenges are well-documented: the need for multiple reviews to mitigate bias; the increasing workload and pressures on researchers, leaving little time to conduct reviews; the lack of formal training on how to perform high-quality reviews; and, most recently, the surge of AI-generated manuscripts, which adds further strain to the system and raises new concerns about research integrity (Drozdz & Ladomery, 2024; Pickler, 2025).
The benefits of serving as a peer reviewer are also well established (Bergren, 2022; Choi & Montayre, 2025; Steer & Ernst, 2021). Resha (2024) noted that both providing and receiving peer reviews were essential to her growth as a scholar and vital to her lifelong learning. Acknowledging how critical peer review is to knowledge advancement, the scientific community has introduced various measures to encourage participation. For instance, Web of Science now allows researchers to publicly track their peer review activities. Reviewers are also encouraged to list their services on annual evaluations and curricula vitae. Yet, despite these efforts, barriers remain. As McDermott noted in a 2015 editorial, many of the reasons reviewers decline invitations—time constraints, competing priorities, and heavy workloads—persist today (McDermott, 2015). In 2025, it has taken JOSN an average of 12 invitations to secure just three reviewers for each manuscript.
It is for this reason that I am profoundly grateful to all the individuals recognized on the following annual Reviewer Acknowledgement page. I know this work is unpaid, time-consuming, and often invisible. I know you are stretched thin in your professional roles, engaged in numerous other service activities, and often receive multiple requests from various journals. I know the quality of manuscripts can vary widely and that you are frequently asked to review multiple revisions of the same paper. And yet, you continue to lend your time, expertise, and thoughtful judgment. Please know that your contributions not only elevate JOSN and nursing science but also—by shaping the type and quality of research that is disseminated—you are helping to promote the health and wellbeing of children and youth around the world. Thank you.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Mayumi A. Willgerodt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9874-3739
Aczel, B., Barwich, A. S., Diekman, A. B., Fishbach, A., Goldstone, R. L., Gomez, P., Gundersen, O. E., von Hippel, P. T., Holcombe, A. O., Lewandowsky, S., Nozari, N., Pestilli, F., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2025). The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122, e2401232121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401232121
Bergren, M. D. (2022). Gratitude for peer reviewers. The Journal of School Nursing, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/10598405211061777
Choi, H. R., & Montayre, J. (2025). Peer review in nursing: A guide for early career scholars. Journal of Clinical Nursing. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.70054
Drozdz, J. A., & Ladomery, M. R. (2024). The peer review process: Past, present, and future. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 81, 12054. https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054
McDermott, R. J. (2015). Contributing to the professional literature must be a 2-way street. Journal of School Health, 85(4), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12247
Pickler, R. H. (2025). Celebrating peer review. Nursing Research, 74(5), 329–330. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000839
Resha, C. (2024). Become a journal reviewer: A vital component of lifelong learning. The Journal of School Nursing, 40(6), 591–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/10598405241267016
Steer, P. J., & Ernst, S. (2021). Peer review-why, when and how. International Journal of Cardiology Congenital Heart Disease, 2, 100083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcchd.2021.100083
1 Editor, The Journal of School Nursing
