Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on December 9th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 7th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 7th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 14th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

The new version correctly meets all the recommendations of the reviewers.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The submitted article meets several, but not yet all criteria required by PeerJ.

1. Basic Reporting

Positive aspects
 The relevant prior literature is appropriately referenced.
 The structure of the submitted article conforms to the format of ‘standard sections’
 Figures are relevant to the content of the article (nevertheless, see remarks by reviewer 1).
 The submitted article has a clear unity, and includes all results relevant to the hypothesis.

Negative aspects
 There are several problems with the English language. A deep revision is needed.

2. Experimental Design

Positive aspects
 The submitted paper describes original primary research within the Aims & Scope of PeerJ.
 The research has been conducted in conformity with the prevailing ethical standards in the field.

Negative aspects
 The objectives of the study (research question) are clearly defined in section 3. Nonetheless, the authors should state clearer the precise contribution of the work to the existing literature.
 Methods are well described, but it is not certain that another investigator can reproduce them and find the same results. It is not clear how the nurses were chosen to answer the questionnaire. Consider also reviewer 2’s remarks on the statistical inferences.

3 Validity of the Findings

Positive aspects
 Data is statistically sound and the conclusions are supported with appropriated statistical methods.
 The conclusions are clearly stated, connected to the investigated question, and limited to what the results support.
 Decisions are not made based on any subjective determination of impact, degree of advance, novelty, being of interest to only a niche audience, etc.

Negative aspects
 As reviewer 2 states, the authors should emphasize the statistical models used rather than the statistical software output.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The authors develop a study to understand the job satisfaction an intention to quit of nurses employed in Turkish private hospitals. The study is well conducted and the statistical techniques are well applied. The manuscript is well written and organized although some minor grammar errors still exist. The results are interesting to hospital managements and health care policy takers.
It is not clear the adding of this manuscript to the existing literature but the authors can make it more clear to the readers.

Experimental design

The objectives of the study (research question) are clearly defined in section 3.
Nonetheless it is not made clear in the text what is the contribution of this study to the existing literature. In my opinion this should be made clear in sections 2 or 3.
The methods are clear and the ethical standards are guaranteed.
It is not clear how the nurses were chosen to answer the questionnaire.

Validity of the findings

Data is statistically soundable and the conclusions are supported with appropriated statistical methods.

The authors explain the reason why public hospitals were not included (lines 244-245) but the objective of the study is restricted to private hospitals (line 221). The way that it is reason seems to be ambiguous and conflicting: the restriction to private hospitals is a choice for the objectives of the study or is a consequence of the permission requirements needed?

Comments for the author

I suggest the authors to correct some grammar erros (like "The items were addressed nine factors" or "this study was indicated the impact", lines 253 and 514, respectively) and typos (L188; L225: quantify; L239: ward; ...).

It should be "intent to quit" or "intention to quit"?

The authors should use the entire name of the "intensive care unit" and the wards should be consistently written in the text (lowercase or upper case). Section 4.3 and 4.4 should be written in lower case ("acceptability" and "considerations") as the remaining sections. Tables should be written in upper case (e.g., "were listed in Table 2", line 290). Master / bachelor should be consistently written either in lowercase or in uppercase. The name of the journals (references) should all be written in uppercase.

SD should be defined in the text.

The tables should be explained in the text (the significance of each column) and the conclusions/analysis of the table should be complemented with the number of column were the conclusion is based.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comments.

Experimental design

The methodological approach described not presents sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator. And does not allow verify if the statistical inferences presents significant results that could contribute to the literature related to the topic.

Validity of the findings

The justification and the objectives are well defined and explained in the text. Moreover this paper presents a good review of the literature related. The authors should have emphasized the statistical models used and not the statistical software output, once the use of other models or statistical methods could lead to different results from the results displayed here. This paper not presents full estimates of the statistical models. And the analysis of variance, the correlation analysis and the regression analysis involve assumptions that were ignored.

Comments for the author

The justification and the objectives are well defined and explained in the text. Moreover this paper presents a good review of the literature related. The authors should have emphasized the statistical models used and not the statistical software output, once the use of other models or statistical methods could lead to different results from the results displayed here. This paper not presents full estimates of the statistical models. And the analysis of variance, the correlation analysis and the regression analysis involve assumptions that were ignored.
Thereby although useful for decision makers in hospital administration area, in particularly for nursing administration, this work does not have the minimum requirements of a scientific paper ready for publication. It can be seen as a technical report one since it is the direct application of ready questionnaire, available in literature and on the market, and a statistical software output listings. In this way it does not present contribution to literature related to the theme.
Lastly, it must be highlighted: the introduction show the context of the theme; the literature review presents relevant references; there are few figures and tables, important to improve understanding of the text; the methodology approach used to obtain the primary data from the questionnaire is not original; and as mentioned earlier the methodology approach used to analyze the data is not sufficient detail in the text.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

This paper reports the results of a recent survey. The literature review is thorough and a considerable set of relevant studies is cited.
The presentation needs improvement. See, for instance, the excerpts below, (lines indicated):
81 intention sholud be disclosed for strategic managerial decision
82-83 studies on nurses’ job satisfaction and their intent to quit the existing employment is very narrow in Turkey setting
188-189 Cimete, Gencalp, & Keskin (2003)explored job satisfaction is at the lowest among the professional groups in Turkey
238-239 The sample comprised of nurses employed in the pediatric word
480-481 Also, proper steps for nurse education that provides confidence in nursing practice.
505-506 The present study was explored the important factors of job satisfaction among the nurses who were employed in Turkey.
506-508 This study was highlighted the testimony of the rapport between nurses’ job satisfaction and their intention to quit from existing workplaces
508-509 The findings of this study was underlined …
513 nurse mangers are cooperative...
514-515 this study was indicated the impact of demographic variables

Experimental design

The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. It is stated how the research developed might fill an identified knowledge gap.
A questionnaire was developed and its consistency was correctly verified. Though the questionnaire was applied to a limited in space and non probabilistic sample, high technical & ethical standards were applied.
Methods are described with sufficient detail and sufficient information is provided to allow for replication.

Validity of the findings

Although the results are limited to a regional sample, the importance of the factors analyzed and the significance of the correlations found justify publication.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.