Sarah A. Martin

Can there be a standard for temperature measurement in the pediatric intensive care unit

Temperature measurement is a commonly used assessment parameter when caring for the critically ill child. Interpreting the temperature measurement mode and what constitutes clinically significant thermal instability are poorly defined. Thus, decisions made regarding patient management based on temperature measurement can be challenging for caregivers. Infants and children have unique physioanatomic considerations that impact maintaining thermoregulation. Numerous routes for taking temperature measurements are described including the oral, axillary, tympanic (aural), rectal, skin, urinary bladder, pulmonary artery, esophageal, nasopharyngeal, supralingual (pacifier), and temporal-artery. Numerous studies on temperature measurement have been conducted on children of various ages using a variety of thermometers and routes in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Although there are limited studies reported on the critically ill child, research data pertinent to the critically ill child from subjects in the neonatal intensive care unit, pediatric intensive care unit, operating room, and inpatient units are summarized.

Accept or Reject

For the first time, nurse colleagues presented at the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication in 2009 (Broome, Dougherty, Kearney, Freda, & Baggs, 2009). This achievement illustrates the strides that nursing has made in refining the art and science of peer review. As an author, reviewer, and editor, I find the review process for publication a daunting undertaking. Yet I believe this process is the most important component in publishing quality manuscripts. What is peer review? In the eleventh edition of Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (n.d.), peer review (a process also termed ‘‘refereeing’’) is defined as ‘‘a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field.’’ Peer review has been going on since the early 18th century. It evolved as we know it today after the Second World War, partly in response to the large amount of scientific research generated during this period. Regarding the Journal of Pediatric Health Care (JPHC) review process, authors should anticipate that their manuscripts will be reviewed by the journal editors, in addition to two or three reviewers. What are the types of peer review? I categorize peer review as a ‘‘preview,’’ double-blind, single-blind, selfselected, and open. A ‘‘preview’’ is an author-initiated

Gastrointestinal Comorbidities in an Obese Child

HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS This school-aged child reported to the ED after experiencing an 8hourhistoryof epigastric abdominal pain. He describes the pain as constant and above his umbilicus in the upper quadrants. He denies fever, vomiting, diarrhea, or anorexia, although he reports the pain is worse after eating (pain as a 9/10 on a 10-point scale). For his postprandial pain he has taken PeptoBismol with no symptom relief.

Acknowledging the work of manuscript reviewers.

We extend much gratitude to the 164 peer reviewers of Journal of Pediatric Health Care (JPHC). Times are changing, and editors are under increased pressure to move papers through the review cycle in a timely manner as publishers work toward achieving faster times to editor first decision, editor acceptance of papers, and accepted manuscripts becoming citable articles. Thus, the submission of timely and quality reviews byour reviewer pool is vital to the ongoing success of JPHC. Our reviewers generously volunteer their time, and although intangible benefits may be gleamed from serving in the capacity of a reviewer, reviewers are also faced with increased demands on their time to complete professional activities. Is a ‘‘thank you’’ enough? How can we streamline the work of reviewers and also acknowledge their important contribution? Regardingmonetary compensation, Ware (2008) found that reviewers of biomedical publications were divided in their responses as to whether payment for reviews was appropriate (35% were in favor and 40% were opposed). Nurse reviewers surveyed reported that the best aspect or reward for being a reviewerwas personal learning of the content in the article reviewed (Kearney, Baggs, Broome, Dougherty, & Freda, 2008). Reviewer compensation has also included awarding complimentary subscriptions, use of publisher electronic resources, personal acknowledgement on a journal’s Web site and in print, and awarding continuing education (CE) credit for reviews (De Gregory, 2004). JPHC editors, while facing mounting pressure to move papers through the review cycle and to continue to publish the highest quality papers, have made

After Acceptance: A Manuscript Becomes a Publication

Have you ever wondered what happens to your accepted manuscript before it is published? All manuscripts for the Journal of Pediatric Health Care (JPHC) are submitted on the Elsevier Editorial System (EES). Through the EES, all communications regarding your submission are sent to you as the author, to reviewers, and back to you for revision and re-submission. Once your manuscript is accepted, you receive an e-mail notification from the EES of this accomplishment (on behalf of the editor-in-chief or the associate editor). Upon acceptance, Elsevier registers your article with a unique reference number that is used to track your article throughout the production process. Many people make up the production team, including the journal administrator (JA), journal manager (JM), local supplier manager, copy editor (CE), and journal management supervisor. It usually takes a minimum of 3 months for