LAUSR

Nursing Open continues to grow, submissions are frequent and regular, and we are putting ever larger issues online. Naturally, the volume of submissions to Nursing Open does not match those to my other journal JAN, but the latter is long established, has a relatively high impact factor and an international reputation. Nursing Open is still new and along with growing the volume of submissions and the size of our issues, reputation takes longer. Another difference I find between Nursing Open and JAN is that finding reviewers for manuscripts is much easier for JAN. My JAN team say that it takes six to eight attempts to find reviewers for JAN manuscripts. At Nursing Open it takes many more and this can contribute to delays in returning reviews to authors. If you are an author who has, or is, experiencing a delay in waiting for a decision on your manuscript then I not only apologize but also want to assure you that the team of associate editors is aware and we do all we can to recruit new reviewers, find suitable reviewers from our pool and to followup with reviewers where they are slow and to replace reviewers who have declined to review. Perhaps you are a reluctant reviewer, you may even have declined to review manuscripts for Nursing Open. If so, I would like to draw to your attention a service that ensures you receive credit for your reviews in a way that is recordable and presentable, for example, at appraisals by academic managers. Publons makes visible your activities as a reviewer, and Wiley—who publish Nursing Open are partners with Publons and fully committed to what it offers. According to the webpage: