Running head: PEER REVIEW 1

Peer Review: Preparing to Launch: How can we Better Prepare our Students for Practice
Reality?

Jean A. O’Connor

State University of New York Polytechnic Institute

PEER REVIEW 2

Master’s Position Paper - Peer Review Form

Title of the Paper you reviewed: Preparing to Launch: How can we Better Prepare our Students
for Practice Reality?

Yes No General Questions about the topic: Is the Content:

X Relevant to nursing/ nursing education?
X Timely?
X Written at the appropriate level for the intended audience?
X Is this a new topic or new idea?
X If not, is it a known idea, but presented in a different way?
X Are the cited references applicable to the paper?
X Does the title sound interesting and capture your curiosity?
X Was APA formatting followed in the paper
Yes No Questions related to Substance of Paper
X Does the introduction adequately prepare you to understand the content
X Does the body of the work flow in an understandable fashion?
X Are headings and subheadings used appropriately?
X Is the paper well organized?
X Are key or new concepts well defined or explained?
X Does the paper add examples to demonstrate key ideas?
X Does the background include unnecessary information?
X Does the conclusion support or recommend future topics or research?
Yes No Overall comments
X Would you rate this paper as Very Good to Excellent?
X Do you believe the information is this paper applies to nurse educators?
What additional comments or suggestions do you have for this author?
Notes: Check the title above the introduction, it is missing.
PEER REVIEW 3

I had the pleasure of reviewing the master’s position paper Preparing to Launch: How can we

better prepare our students for practice reality? I was able to discern the author’s position on the topic

in the introduction. The author’s introduction also outlined the main points of the paper, which included

the belief that novice nurses are leaving the profession at alarming rates, that this may be due to a lack

of preparedness upon graduation, and that simulation may be the solution to this problem. “This paper

will discuss the potential value of increased use of simulation experience to better prepare novice

nurses for the reality of practice” (p. 2).

This paper identified the practice-education gap, and the simulation solution in a clear and

cogent manner as evidenced by the following passages, “As a result of limited clinical education

opportunities, it is difficult for nursing students to make connections between classroom knowledge and

bedside practice…Given the difficulty in providing meaningful clinical experiences, alternative methods

such as simulation have shown increased value” (pp. 3-4). The evidence for learning section was well

supported, but the sentences were broken up by references, which caused me to go back and re-read it.

The author provides strong evidence to support simulation when clinical experiences are lacking, “The

study showed that there was no significant difference in knowledge or clinical performance when up to

50% of clinical experience consisted of simulations under specific circumstances indicating quality

experiences” (p. 5).

Overall I found this to be a well-written, cogent paper. My one suggestion would be to perhaps

utilize the evidence that simulation can substitute up to 50% of clinical hours in your literature review. I

would also suggest you look at the title above your introduction.