Dr. Kimberly Peer is the Athletic Training Education Program Coordinator and Associate Professor at Kent State University.  She holds a Doctorate in Higher Education Administration with a Cognate in Health Care Management.  Kimberly served the NATA Research and Education Foundation's Research Committee and is the associate editor for the Athletic Training Education Journal as well as on the editorial board for the Journal of Athletic Training.  She serves on the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education Ethics Committee and the NATA Ethics Education Project Team.  Kimberly recently completed terms as the Chair of the BOC Standards Committee and as the OATA Past President.  Peer was recently inducted into the Ohio Athletic Trainers' Association (OATA) Hall of Fame in May 2012.  She also recieved the NATA Research Fellowship award in June 2012.  Peer was also awarded  NATA Most Distinguished Athletic Trainer Award in June 2010 and the GLATA Outstanding Educator Award in 2005.  In 2003, she received the NATA Service Award and in 2001, she was awarded the OATA Athletic Trainer of the Year Award.  Dr. Peer was one of three faculty selected from Kent State University as a nominee for the U.S. Professor of the Year Award sponsored by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. This award celebrates extraordinary dedication to undergraduate teaching.  Dr. Peer has published and presented internationally and nationally.  Athletic Training Education research related to ethics education and pedagogy are her primary research areas.  Dr. Peer (co-authored with Dr. Gretchen Schlabach) has the first textbook on ethics in athletic training.

Dr. Kimberly's research interests include Professional Ethics in Athletic Training, Pedagogy.

1. What makes an article top quality? 

Response: A top quality article is one that presents innovative work in an easy to read format. It brings to light the purpose of the project and more importantly addresses the practical/clinical implications of the research.

2. Do you think that journals determine research trends?

Response:I believe that good researchers have a line of inquiry and those research "trends" are reflected in publications. I don't believe that the journal establishes the trend - I believe good research gets published and usually revolves around contemporary issues in the discipline.

3. What makes a good position paper?

Response: A good position paper is well written, comprehensive and practical. It should have a rich discussion of contemporary literature and a strong statement of sound practice guidelines. Further, a good position paper will have an interdisciplinary writing team so that multiple perspectives are addressed to fully embrace the broad approach to the topic at hand.

4. What are the qualities you look for in an article?

Response: First, it must be well written. It is quite distracting to read a poorly written manuscript that has multiple "writing" errors. It must also be strongly anchored in contemporary literature and have a clear statement of purpose. Equally important, the design and analysis must be congruent and appropriate. Lastly, the discussion should not have generalizations beyond the scope of the study.

5. Can you give us a broad indication of the types of themes a scientific journal should cover?

Response:This is dependent on the journal. I believe that research manuscripts - qualitative and quantitative - should be the predominant manuscript types in any journal. I believe that contemporary topics can be addressed in columns and standing columns with column editors is a great way to address hot topics in abbreviated columns that have powerful take-home messages. I am also a firm believer of editorial posts.

6. What sorts of research methods and frameworks do you expect people to use, and how will they balance conceptual and applied research?

Response: As indicated above, quantitative and qualitative researches have a place in the scientific literature. I believe that meta-analyses and reviews of literature are also meaningful if done well. Lastly, in a "health related" journal, case studies or case series are interesting ways to share unique cases and the lessons learned in the management of that particular case. This is a powerful practice piece.

7. How would you describe the journal’s mission and editorial objectives to our readers?

Response: I am not sure that I can answer this objectively. I have reviewed many articles - some really well written - others very poorly written on a variety of topics. I think that at this point - our mission and objectives are not clearly defined (in my humble opinion). I believe it would be in our best interest to clearly define our mission and write objectives to guide the mission. It is hard to review and manage manuscripts when it is not explicitly clear what we are trying to establish as our unique niche in the scientific publication community.

8. If you could be granted dream articles, what would they be on?

Response: Any manuscript in the Sports Medicine field would be "dream articles" for me.

9. Are there any particular areas which you would like to see, or expect to see, collaborate?

Response: I believe that Sports Medicine and Athletic Training are two areas that are underdeveloped for our journal. Young authors are always looking for publication venues and I believe that this journal could suit both disciplines. I believe Sports Medicine is a comprehensive field that directly relates to "Athletic Enhancement" and could be a rich avenue for cultivating publications.

10. How does the research published percolate through to practitioners?

Response: I cannot objectively answer this - I know that many of the manuscripts I reviewed have little practical applications or the applications are very narrow in scope.

11. How can a publisher ensure the authors/readers a rigorous peer review and quality control?

Response: I believe that section editors should be assigned to "Content Areas" and then appoint reviewers from there. This will allow content experts to review specific articles and a second layer of review occurs with the section editor. Having a database of reviewers with three or so specific content areas will create a nice pool of reviewers. The section editor/associate editor can then evaluate the reviews (and quality of reviews for future) and make a determination on the manuscript.

12. Your editorial policy is to be eclectic and welcome perspectives from other disciplines and schools. How does this translate into the types of contributions you encourage?

Response: I encourage young scholars to publish here yet we have had some struggles with reviews. I was quite discouraged on several reviews and the author chose to withdraw the manuscript. This is a tough call when it was approved as a thesis and had two senior authors (myself and a statistician) as co-authors and the reviews were quite unrealistic and contradictory. I am not sure how to answer this question as I have reviewed other articles that were poorly designed and even more poorly written that reviewers approved. I believe this is a struggle for our journal.

13. What do you see as the merits of journals, as opposed to book series, as a means of scholarly communications?

Response: Easy, open access - respected in the academic community.

14. How do you differentiate of Athletic Enhancement JAE) with other journals in the field?

Response: I believe we need to carve out our unique niche in the field. I think we need to have sections and section editors who actively recruit and market publications so that we can generate a wide range of contributions from various disciplines.