The qualitative methodology: Preparedness and experiences of journal reviewers

References

• American Psychological Association. (2020). Science of Psychology. https://www.apa.org/action/science
   Google Scholar
• Bajwa, N., Langer, M., König, C. J., & Honecker, H. (2019).What might get published in management and applied psychology? Experimentally manipulating implicit expectations of reviewers regarding hedges. Scientometrics, 120, 1351–1371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03164-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1866–1891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2014). Publishing in high quality journals: Perspectives from overworked and unpaid reviewers. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 39–53. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12528-013-9073-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradbury-Jones, C., Breckenridge, J., Clark, M. T., Herber, O. R., Wagstaff, C., & Taylor, J. (2017). The state of qualitative research in health and social science literature: A focused mapping review and synthesis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1270583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Christenbery, T. L. (2011). Manuscript peer review: A guide for advanced practice nurses. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 23(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2010.00572.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coetzee, M., & Van Zyl, L. E. (2014). A review of a decade’s scholarly publications (2004–2013) in the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1227
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• DeVaney, S.A., Spangler, A., Lee, Y.A., & Delgadillo, L. (2018). Tips from the experts on conducting and reviewing qualitative research. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 46(4), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirette, D. P. (2020). How to be a good peer reviewer. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 8(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1720
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Doyle, L., McCabe, C., Keogh, B., Brady, A., & McCann, M. (2020). An overview of the qualitative descriptive design within nursing research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(5), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987119880234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezer, F., & Aksüt, S. (2021). Opinions of Graduate Students of Social Studies Education about Qualitative Research Method. International Education Studies, 14(3), 15–32. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1287922 https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n3p15
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, E., & Guzel, G. T. (2023). The case for qualitative research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(1), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galdas, P. (2017). Revisiting bias in qualitative research: Reflections on its relationship with funding and impact. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917748992
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gergen, K. J. (2014). Pursuing excellence in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Psychology, 1, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000002
   Google Scholar
• Gergen, K. J., Josselson, R., & Freeman, M. (2015). The promises of qualitative inquiry. The American Psychologist, 70, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038597
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodell, L. S., Stage, V. C., & Cooke, N. K. (2016). Practical qualitative research strategies: Training interviewers and coders. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 48(8), 578–585.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough, B., & Lyons, A. (2016). The future of qualitative research in psychology: Accentuating the positive. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 50(2), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9320-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herber, O. R., Bradbury-Jones, C., Böling, S., Combes, S., Hirt, J., Koop, Y. et al. (2020). What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20, 122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01005-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horbach, S. P. J. M. S., & Halffman, W. W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3(8), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jarzabkowski, P., Langley, A., & Nigam, A. (2021). Navigating the tensions of quality in qualitative research. Strategic Organization, 19(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127020985094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigour in Qualitative Research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7120. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, E. B., Avery, D. R., Hebl, M. R., & Cortina, J. M. (2018). Systematic subjectivity: How subtle biases infect the scholarship review process. Journal of Management, 44, 843–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317743553
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Lipworth, W. L., Kerridge, I. H., Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2011). Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 1056–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.002 PMID:21388730
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, H. Z., Bike, D. H., Johnson, A., & Bethea, A. (2012). Culturally competent qualitative research with people of African descent. The Journal of Black Psychology, 38(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798411414019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks, L. D., Kelley, H. H., & Galbraith, Q. (2022). Explosion or much ado about little?: A quantitative examination of qualitative publications from 1995-2017. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 19(3), 853–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2021.1917740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McSweeney, B. (2021). Fooling ourselves and others: confirmation bias and the trustworthiness of qualitative research – Part 2 (cross-examining the dismissals). Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(5), 841-859. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JOCM-04-2021-0118/full/html
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moser, A. & Korstjens, I. (2017). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 1: Introduction. The European Journal of General Practice, 23(1), 271–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwenhuis, J. (2016a). Introducing qualitative research. In K. Maree (Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 50–69). Van Schaik.
   Google Scholar
• Nieuwenhuis, J. (2016b). Analysing qualitative data. In K. Maree (Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 104–130). Van Schaik.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neil, S., & Koekemoer, E. (2016). Two decades of qualitative research in Psychology, Industrial and Organisational Psychology and Human Resource Management within South Africa: A critical review. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 42(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v42i1.1350
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice (4th edn). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Reay, T. (2014). Publishing qualitative research. Family Business Review, 27(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486514529209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, C., Kumar, K., & Finn, G. (2020). Navigating the qualitative manuscript writing process: Some tips for authors and reviewers. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 439. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02370-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Watkinson, A., Xu, J., et al. (2017). Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers. Learned Publishing, 30(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandelowski, M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholtz, S. E., de Klerk, W., & de Beer, L. T. (2020). The use of research methods in psychological research: A systematised review. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.00001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sharma, M., Sarin, A., Gupta, P., Sachdeva, S., & Desai, A. V. (2014). Journal impact factor: Its use, significance and limitations. World Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 13(2), 146. https://doi.org/10.4103/1450-1147.139151
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ware, W. (2011). Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 23–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812
   Google Scholar