Nurse Author & Editor

Finding Your Voice and Writing Well: Situating Others Within the Text

Peggy L. Chinn

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(2), 6

The second big challenge related to “voice” and a good writing style involves how you treat others in relation to your ideas. This article builds on the previous one titled “Finding Your Voice and Writing Well: Situating Yourself within Your Text” in the previous issue of Nurse Author and Editor by addressing how to use second-person pronouns, and other language conventions that are crucial in conveying your respect for people other than yourself.

Good writing appeals to all possible readers and draws them in as a respected member of your audience. When you shift to current standards of good writing that claim your own voice, you inevitably “speak” about and to other people. By addressing others directly, as I am illustrating in this paper, your own voice is clear and explicit. This raises the challenge of pronouns for the others, which in the English language, are gender-specific. Unless you know for sure that the people you are addressing are all men, or all women, the pronouns you use must be gender-neutral and non-binary. The most common solution is to edit the text to the plural, since in the English language plural pronouns are gender-neutral. Other strategies include:

Use the second person, as in, “You can use the second person to avoid sexist pronouns.”
Omit the pronoun entirely, replace it with an article, or with a noun. Instead of, “The researcher can design her study using a table of random numbers,” use, “The study can be designed using a table of random numbers.”
Do not use “she and he,” “her and his,” or the annoying “s/he.” A related strategy that is very annoying is the alternate use of the female and male pronouns in alternate paragraphs or chapters. This not only emphasizes gender binaries, it is also distracting and draws attention to a stilted grammatical style.
Use the singular “they.” Until the mid-1700s when prescriptive grammarians of the English language began to enforce its exclusive use as a plural pronoun, the pronoun “they” was considered to be appropriate as a singular referent (Maggio, 1991). There is still resistance to this convention, but it is now widely accepted for both written and spoken English. For example, “No one in the class was asked to share their private journal.”

Subtle Messages About Other People

One of the most important things you can do to improve your writing and at the same time develop your unique voice is to examine your writing very carefully to detect those spots where you are inadvertently conveying a message you do not intend, and to select language that more accurately carries your message about people. Your messages about other people say much more about who you are than about the other people you are referencing. This is not merely a matter of being “politically correct”—it is a matter of showing your moral commitment to respect the dignity and humanity of other people. Here are a number of principles to examine:

People first. Labels are disabling, and are generally considered inappropriate in good writing. One of the most subtly damaging labels is to use a diagnosis or condition as a label for the person. Therefore, a fundamental rule is to always acknowledge the person first, followed by any descriptive terms that reflect their circumstances, as in, “People who have/are living with diabetes or HIV/AIDS”—not the AIDS patient, or the diabetic.

Labels that convey a derivative identity are so common when referring to women, that often English language speakers do not recognize the loss of personhood that accompanies the use of such labels. Words such as “wife,” “mother,” or “widow,” used in phrases such as “the mothers in this study” are not inaccurate, but in this phrase the women are assumed to be mothers first, not people first. Use instead wording that puts the human persons (in this case women) first, as in, “The women in this study, all of whom were mothers. . . ”

Descriptors and identifiers of others. “People first” implies that something comes after the central idea of “person.” That which comes next are the descriptors that locate people within a context, or that describe something about their unique circumstances, or the common ground that they share with others. Be careful about the descriptor terms that you use; people have the right to define themselves, and to select the descriptors that best identify who they are. For example, if you are writing about people who identify as gender-queer, regardless of your personal identity, you are responsible to acknowledge the range of preferred terms and descriptors used by the people you are writing about. If you are writing about women who are lesbians, recognize that some may prefer to use the word “gay” or “trans*” to self-identify. In order to acknowledge these differences, use a phrase like “women who self-identify as gender-queer, gay, trans*, or lesbian.” The preferred language requires more words, but, reflects a more accurate descriptive language that acknowledges the personhood of the people first, and their right to self-definition.

Hidden bias. Hidden bias occurs when the terms used are neutral and free of bias, but the passage still carries a biased message. For example, the sentence “More women today are living with men without being married” carries a bias against women who are not married (Maggio, 1991). The fact is that the number of men who are living with women in an unmarried arrangement equals the number of women in such arrangements. A more accurate statement would be “More heterosexual couples are living together today without being married.”

Another common example is the non-parallel treatment of ethnicity. The “white and non-white” dichotomy conveys the importance of being white, since everyone else is lumped together in one “non-white” category. Since ancestry and ethnicity are complex dimensions that are becoming increasingly individualized, a preferred approach is to identify ancestral heritage by general geographic origin (for example Asian, African, Pacific-Islander, South American). If a specific cultural, national, ethnic or ancestral heritage is more accurate to the people that you are referring to, use the more specific terminology as closely allied with the preference of the people involved as possible.

Inclusion/exclusion of others. The inclusion/exclusion principle refers to language that is accurate in terms of who is included and who is not included. The descriptor and identifiers described above reach in the direction of being inclusive of all audiences and acknowledging the diversity within that audience. However, in reaching toward inclusion, it is easy to use language that projects a certain point of view on all people. The principle of inclusion/exclusion appears deceptively simple, while in reality, it requires deep reflection and usually several revisions of text in order to achieve precisely accurate language, and to locate alternatives to generally acceptable language.

Consider the following examples:

Abortion rights or reproductive rights. “Abortion rights” usually implies the experience of women who wish to have the right to obtain an abortion, and excludes women who are concerned about the use of abortion as an involuntary means of genocide, or about involuntary sterilization. Even if your intention is to limit your concern only to abortion, if you are sensitive to issues of involuntary abortion, your preferred term would be “reproductive rights.”
Parenting. The term “parent” is assumed to be an inclusive term referring to mothers and fathers. However, all too often, the term is used when the writer is referring to women who are mothers. When all the parents in a situation are mothers, or, when the author is assuming the parents to be the mothers, then the exclusive term “mother” is more accurate. If most of the parents are mothers and a few are fathers, then this proportion should be acknowledged in the text, rather than continuing to use the general term “parent” as if there were equal participation.
False inclusion. A phrase like “participants can complete the instrument in less than 10 minutes” assumes that all participants can read at a certain grade level and are literate in the language in which the instrument is presented. The text may have specified limitations of the instrument, and it may be clear that the instrument is constructed in a given language. But without being specific about just which people can actually complete the instrument in a specified time frame, the phrase is inaccurately inclusive. Here are important examples of false inclusion:
“Immigrants” to the US typically refers in actuality to Mexican, European or Asian people who arrived voluntarily in the country within a relatively recent time frame, without specifying who is included and who is excluded. Often “immigrants” implicitly refers only to people of brown skin who immigrated from the southern hemisphere of the Americas in recent years, when in fact it is inclusive of people arriving also from Europe, Asia (including southeast Asia), Australia, or New Zealand in any time period.

There is no English term to acknowledge people who were forcibly brought into the country, including those forced as slaves, including those forced to a new country as a sex slave. The term “immigrant” does not linguistically include these groups, and they are groups who are often ignored. Be specific as to who you are including, where they arrived from, and within which time frame. What else do you assume about the group? Are they all English-speaking, first generation, in the country legally?

The commonly used phrase “people of color” emerged in the English language in an effort to put people first, to avoid the obviously biased “non-white” term that casts “white” experience as the norm. However, the phrase still privileges white people by implying that anyone who is not white is “of color,” and homogenizes all people who do not claim a European ancestry and sustains a false inclusion based on ethnic or ancestral heritage.

Sex and Gender

There is persistent confusion in the English language concerning sex and gender. “Sex” refers to a person’s biological characteristics of male or female. “Gender” refers to socially and culturally acquired roles that are dominantly feminine or masculine (Eliason & Chinn, 2015). The fundamental grammatical rule in using these two terms is one of accuracy. If you are writing about biological characteristics, then use the terms male or female. If you are writing about acquired social and cultural roles, you can accurately use the term “gender.” The terms “man” and “woman” are generally considered to be related to gender roles but are usually also assumed to reflect sex. If you are including people who consider themselves gender non-conforming, or gender-queer, you need to include these non-binary alternatives as well.

Non-sexist language, or language that does not carry a bias or stereotype based on sex or gender, requires the use of gender and sex-neutral terms when possible, and accurate use of specific terms referring to men and women, girls and boys, females and males. There are a number of issues to be aware of in order to achieve accurate non-sexist use of language.

Point of reference. The most common sexist error is the assumption that “male” and “men” (usually white, middle or upper-class) are the norm, or the point of reference. The phrase “equal opportunity” is a quintessential example from early feminist literature, and persists in many venues today. The question, “Equal to whom?” reveals the bias inherent in the phrase. For example, the phrase “equal access to education” most often would imply that women (or other disenfranchised groups) are being granted access to educational opportunities that previously were reserved for (white) men. The access that men have enjoyed is considered to be the norm toward which the disenfranchised group would aspire. Generally, this is considered to be a “good thing.” However, upon closer examination, feminist scholars for decades have raised questions concerning the nature of traditional education, the sexist bias that persists in these very institutions, and the desirability of conforming to the patriarchal norms inherent in these institutions (Nightingale, 1852/1979; Woolf, 1966).

Gender and sex-free language. Gender and sex-free terms are those that can be used for either men or women, males or females. Some such terms, however, also carry general assumptions about gender or sex, such as secretary, teacher, or nurse (assumed to be women), and doctor, lawyer, or merchant (assumed to be men). Generally, these terms are now preferred as generic gender-free terms without any sex-qualifiers, except when sex or gender is important to the meaning of the text. Such terms as “male nurse” or “woman doctor” are unacceptable. The test of such terms is to consider the symmetrical phrase “female nurse” or “male doctor.” If the symmetrical term is ridiculous, then both are ridiculous.

Gender-fair language. When sex or gender is pertinent and appropriate, gender-fair language should be used. Gender-fair language involves the accurate, symmetrical use of gender-specific language for both men and women (Maggio, 1991). For example, consider the symmetrical structure of this statement: “The survey showed that men are comfortable with a nurse who is female, while women are less accepting of a nurse who is male.” Notice the use of the “people first” principle, instead of the unacceptable sexist term “male nurse.”

Gender-specific language. Gender-specific terms are neither good nor bad in themselves, but they need to be used accurately. Use “businessmen” if all the people you refer to are men. “Businesspeople” is a preferred gender-neutral term if indeed the gender of the people include both men and women in approximately equal numbers. However, since “business” people still typically arouse images of male persons, and since it remains true in most contexts that the majority of those to whom the term refers are still men, it is likely to be more accurate to use the more wordy phrase “business men and women” which also emphasizes the fact that women are indeed business people.

Pseudo-generic language. Pseudo-generic terms are those that are used as if they refer to both men and women, but in fact they do not. The context of the writing typically reveals the error. For example, the phrase “clergy who are permitted to have wives” reveals that the author actually uses the generic term “clergy” to refer to heterosexual men. A more inclusive phrase would be “clergy who are permitted to have spouses or domestic partners.”

A more subtle context that reveals the author’s bias occurs when the generic term is used for several passages, and then a gender-specific passage occurs that reveals the fact that the generic term really only referred to men or women all along. This has been common with the supposedly generic use of the term “man.” If the author indeed were to mean both men and women, then when women enter the picture, they would not need to switch to the gender-specific use of the term “women,” but inevitably, they do.

The same shift is common in lay texts that use the term “parent.” Initially, it may seem that the author means mothers and fathers. However, along the way a passage will single out fathers, revealing the underlying pseudo-generic use of the term “parent” when in fact the author meant “mother.” Usually an extended reading of the text reveals the bias, or, if you substitute the term “woman” for the term “man” or “father” for the terms “parent” throughout the text, the bias becomes quite clear.

Feminine endings. Endings added to words to indicate female sex or gender are particularly damaging, in that they perpetuate the assumption that the male is the norm, specify a person’s sex when it is irrelevant, and imply a diminutive, “cute” sense of the term. The inappropriateness of the feminine ending is often revealed when one considers the term that is considered male, or generic. Often, the parallel term carries a vastly different meaning, such as “governess,” compared to “governor.” Other parallel terms are not as dramatic in their vastly different meanings, but convey a gender-specific role that is less than favorable for women, such as “seducer” compared to “seductress.”

Conclusion

To write well, you need to find your own voice. This is a far greater challenge than simply writing with first person pronouns, or expressing your own opinions. It is a complex challenge for all of your writing. Your “voice” tells your readers who you are as a person—the way you view other people in the world, and how you view your own self. The messages are subtle, but they carry messages of utmost importance that form the public image of who you are, what you stand for, and the values you bring to your work.

References

Chinn, P. L. (2003). Feminist approaches. In J. Clare & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Writing Research: Transforming Data into Written Forms (pp. 61–84). Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone, and imprint of Elsevier Science Limited.
Eliason, M. J., & Chinn, P. L. (2015). LGBTQ Cultures: What Health Care Professionals Need to Know About Sexual and Gender Diversity (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Maggio, R. (1991). The Bias-Free Word Finder. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Nightingale, F. (1852/1979). Cassandra: An Angry Outcry Against the Plight of Victorian Women. New York, NY: The Feminist Press.
Woolf, V. (1966). Three Guineas. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

About the Author

Peggy L. Chinn, PhD, RN, FAAN is the Editor-in-Chief of Advances in Nursing Science, author of a few books, and manager or co-manager of several websites/blogs, including INANE. She is an Author-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor.

NAE 2017 27 2 6 Chinn

The post Finding Your Voice and Writing Well: Part II appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

YouTube for Nurse Authors

Jessica Nishikawa

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(3), 1

Introduction

Access to scholarly information has traditionally been limited to journals and textbooks which are costly and limit dissemination potential, especially internationally and to those outside of academia. This has given birth to a growing open access movement, highlighting the need for free, high-quality, online information. YouTube, the video sharing service, might not be traditionally considered an open access resource, however it shares similar characteristics in its ability to encourage globalization of free information.

Social media and constant Internet connectivity have changed the way we communicate and interact personally and professionally. Today’s information consumers require online, up-to-date, accessible, and accurate information (Cartledge, Miller, & Phillips, 2013; Pearson et al., 2015). Many components of nursing education and practice have undergone significant changes in information technology in order to meet these demands. Professional journals have moved to web-based interfaces for desktop and mobile use, and many have an established social media presence.

YouTube continues to be one of the most frequently accessed sites on the Internet. As the largest searchable online video repository, YouTube is home to billions of user-generated videos covering nearly every subject imaginable. Its popularity creates a unique opportunity for nursing professionals to disseminate scholarly information to a global audience.

The content quality of information for patients, professionals, and students on YouTube is varied. Most studies support that fact that less than 50% of videos on YouTube provide accurate information (Azer, 2014; Beydilli et al., 2015; Camm, Sunderlan, & Camm, 2013; Delli, Livas, Vissink & Spijkervet, 2015; Rittberg, Dissanayake & Katz, 2015; Tanwar, Khattar, Sood, & Makkar, 2015). Content quality improves when videos are published by professionals (Delli et al., 2015; Tanwar et al., 2015). As nurse authors contribute scholarly information via YouTube, the quality of videos will (hopefully) increase and information consumers will have better access to more accurate information. This article explores the benefits and challenges of using YouTube as a dissemination platform and encourages nurse authors to consider its use.

Author Experience

In August 2012, working collaboratively, a graduate student posted six of my health assessment videos to YouTube. To date they have been viewed over 2.5 million times. Multiple international education centers have requested copyright permission to distribute to the videos to health professionals and students. This success prompted me to publish ten additional videos between October and November 2015. To date these videos have received approximately 200,000 views, originating in 144 countries. The largest viewer base, totaling nearly 75% of views, was made up of the United States (50%), United Kingdom (6%), Saudi Arabia (5%), Canada (5%), Australia (4.5%) and Egypt (4%).

Advantages to YouTube Publication

Audience. There are considerable advantages to using YouTube as a platform for dissemination. Arguably the largest is the enormous audience potential. Nurses, students, and patients are utilizing YouTube for professional and personal sources of information (Napgal, Karimianpour, Mukhija, Mohan, & Brateanu, 2015). As the largest searchable online video repository, YouTube is home to billions of user-generated videos covering nearly every subject imaginable (YouTube, 2017a). Over a billion users from across the world watch millions of hours of videos each day (YouTube, 2017b).

The popularity of YouTube creates a unique opportunity for nursing professionals to disseminate scholarly information to a global audience. This is evident in the YouTube activity surrounding the outbreak of Ebola virus in 2014 that affected large populations of people in West Africa and made a small, yet noticeable appearance in the US healthcare system. By December of that year, the 86 most popular YouTube videos on the topic of the Ebola virus had a combined 22 million views. Much of the information in those videos was misleading and incorrect (Napgal et al., 2015), and none of the videos were developed by nursing professionals. Nurses play a key role in educating the public during health crises. YouTube is a valuable tool and could help nurses reach hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Timely Publication. While peer reviewed journals seek to publish timely and accurate information, the process for researchers to collect data and analyze findings; compose a clean manuscript; submit for publication; and await peer review, revisions, and subsequent re-review takes time. Publication of textbooks takes even longer and information may be 3 to 5 years old before it is in print. Other dissemination platforms can greatly reduce the time to make the content available to an interested user. Once an author is familiar with YouTube, a publication can be produced and ready for dissemination within hours or days, rather than weeks and months. For example, each of the health assessment videos that I developed took approximately 15 hours to create and post.

The creative component of video editing, such as adding graphics and other special effects, can cause delays. However, researchers have found the quality of information in the video to be more important for viewers than sound or production quality (Napgal et al., 2015). Authors publishing to YouTube should take care in the preparation of the information to ensure accuracy, but do not need to labor over the video aesthetics.

Access. Another compelling reason for nursing professionals to publish scholarly products on YouTube is to contribute to the repository of free, ubiquitous educational information. Here service and scholarship meet to create a meaningful and rewarding experience. With the rising cost of health education and textbooks, creating a library of high quality, free material, accessible to any user with connectivity, benefits students, patients, and the general population of information-seekers.

Financial. Authors who require monetary incentive to publish can enable YouTube’s monetization feature, which allows advertisements to appear before and during the video. Advertisements played on popular videos can result in a significant payout for the rights holder (YouTube, 2017a). However, the type of videos uploaded by nurse authors, educators, and researchers are not likely to generate the rapid views needed to result in substantial compensation. Monetization of scholarly work on YouTube has also received criticism for the lack of control over the advertisements played (Lemon, 2014).

Promotion. In many US academic centers, the definition of scholarship is being re-examined. Publications in peer reviewed journals are still considered the gold standard; however well-developed YouTube publications should be included on the professional CV and can fulfill institutional requirements for scholarship, service, and teaching. One could reasonably argue that the transfer of knowledge is greater with YouTube publications than with a peer reviewed article.

At this time, there is not a professional standard on how to include YouTube publications on a CV. My recommendation is to reference them with other scholarly presentations. According to the publication manual of the American Psychology Association (2009), YouTube video citations should be in the following format: Author last name, first initial, middle initial [username]. (Year, month date). Title of video. [Video File]. Retrieved from URL. When including a reference in a CV, maintain the same format. For example:

Nishikawa, J. (2015, October 07). Are nurse practitioners doctors? Understanding the practice doctorate in nursing. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1ULRWGVeog.

Disadvantages to YouTube Publication

Arduous. Planning, recording, editing, and publishing a video to YouTube may seem arduous, even for technologically-competent nursing professionals. Initiating the first step is the largest barrier to producing YouTube publications. Once overcome, creating a channel and uploading a video is not as difficult as you might think. There are, in fact, hundreds of YouTube videos to assist you to get started.

Potential Copyright Infringement. Authors should be cognizant of licensing and copyright ownership if using content, images, or background audio that is not personally owned. It is the author’s responsibility to ensure the information is retrieved from Creative Commons licensing or Public Domain. This is a more critical concern when the author has enabled the monetization feature and has the potential for capitalizing on the property of others.

Quality Concerns. Unfortunately, because of the user-generated nature of YouTube, it is not regulated for accuracy and correctness. The YouTube video ranking determining the order in which the videos are displayed is based on a complicated algorithm of views, likes, comments, and minutes watched. These rankings have not been shown to correlate to video quality (Camm et al., 2013). Clinically-useful videos can be buried amongst a number of misleading and inaccurate ones. Although publishing to YouTube is a great first step, sharing the link across other social media platforms and email allows intended viewers to find the publication.

Conclusion

YouTube offers a unique and effective platform to disseminate information. However, the majority of the videos currently available are lacking in content quality (Azer, 2014; Beydilli et al., 2015; Camm et al., 2013; Delli et al., 2015; Rittberg et al., 2015; Tanwar et al., 2015). The responsibility to publish quality, accurate information is the obligation of the professional making the video. Equitable time, effort, and care should be used in making and editing YouTube publications as would be necessary for publishing an article for print.

Students, colleagues, and patients are growing increasingly savvy with Internet and web interfaces. As user characteristics change, so should the way information is delivered. To share, inspire, and educate, authors must be adaptive to change and open to different platforms for dissemination. YouTube is a phenomenon that is not going away. Improving the quality of the scholarly material on YouTube starts with purposeful publications from nursing professionals.

References

Azer, C. (2012). Can YouTube help students in learning surface anatomy? Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, 34(5), 465-468. doi: 10.1007/s00276-012-0935-x.
Beydilli, H., Serinken, M., Eken, C., Elicabuk, H., Dal, O., Acar, E., … Yaylaci, S. (2015). The validity of YouTube Videos on pediatric BLS and CPR. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health: The Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2015.0037
Camm, C. F., Sunderland, N. & Camm, A. J. (2013). A quality assessment of cardiac auscultation material on YouTube. Clinical Cardiology, 36(2), 77-81. doi: 10.1002/clc.22080
Cartledge, P., Miller, M., & Phillips, B. (2013). The use of social-networking sites in medical education. Medical Teacher, 35(10), 847-857. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.804909
Delli, K., Livas, C., Vissink, A., & Spijkervet, F. K. L. (2016). Is YouTube useful as a source of information for Sjögren’s syndrome? Oral Diseases, 22(3), 196–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12404
Lemon, T. (2013). Concerns about academic publishing on YouTube. Academic Medicine, 88(9), 1194.
Napgal, S. J., Karimianpour, A., Mukhija, D., Mohan, D., & Brateanu, A. (2015). YouTube videos as a source of medical information during the Ebola hemorrhagic fever epidemic. SpringerPlus, 28(4), 457-461. doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-1251-9.
Pearson, D., Bond, M. C., Kegg, J., Pillow, T., Hopson, L., Cooney, R., Garg, M., Khadpe, J., Runyon, M., & Patterson, L. (2015). Evaluation of social media use by emergency medicine residents and faculty. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 16(5), 715-720. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.7.26128
Rittberg, R., Dissanayake, T., & Katz, S. J. (2016). A qualitative analysis of methotrexate self-injection education videos on YouTube. Clinical Rheumatology, 35(5), 1329–1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-015-2910-5
Tanwar, R., Khattar, N., Sood, R., & Makkar, A. (2015). Benign prostatitis hyperplasia related content on YouTube: unregulated and concerning. Recenti Progressi in Medicina, 106(7), 337-341. doi: 10.1701/1940.21092
YouTube. (2017a). Statistics. Retrieved June 6, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html
YouTube. (2017b). Making the most out of YouTube. Retrieved June 6, 2017 from https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3309389.

About the Author

Jessica Nishikawa, DNP, NP-C in an Associate Professor at Hawaii Pacific University College of Health and Society and a Nurse Practitioner at Straub Clinic and Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. Click here to follow her YouTube channel.

NAE 2017 27 3 1 Nishikawa

The post YouTube for Nurse Authors appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Publication Metrics

Jamie L. Conklin and Marilyn H. Oermann

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(3), 2

Are you familiar with the metrics used to describe the impact of journals and your work? How are others using your articles in their own research, teaching, and clinical practice? The goal of this article is to describe various publication metrics and how to access them. One way to categorize these metrics is by journal, article, and author.

Journal Metrics

Journal metrics, such as Impact Factor and CiteScore, measure the frequency with which all articles within a journal are cited.

Impact Factor

Definition: the ratio of citations to articles in a journal in the current year to the articles published in that journal during the previous 2 years. Impact factor is based on the number of times articles in a journal are cited in other journals indexed in the Web of Science database.
Access: reported in Journal Citation Reports™ [requires subscription]
Directions: Type in the journal name of interest, and if it is indexed, click on it within the results to view the impact factor and other metrics.
Notes: Web of Science includes two journal indexes, the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). There are only 116 nursing journals in the SCIE and 114 in the SSCI, so the best journal for your manuscript may not be indexed. Click here for more information about Journal Citation Reports™.

CiteScore

Definition: The average number of times, in the past 3 years, that documents have been cited in Scopus. Documents include articles, conference proceedings, editorials, notes, news items, and other content.
Access: reported for free on journalmetrics.scopus.com; also available through Scopus [requires subscription].
Directions: Type in the journal name of interest, and if it is indexed, you will see the CiteScore and related data.
Notes: CiteScore is a new journal metric introduced recently by Elsevier for journals indexed in Scopus. The Scopus database includes twice as many journals as Web of Science and many more nursing journals. For more information about CiteScore and nursing journals, see Oermann and Conklin (2017).

Eigenfactor Score

Definition: The number of times in the past 5 years that articles from the journal were cited in the Journal Citation Reports. The Eigenfactor score considers which journals have contributed these citations and removes journal self-citations.
Access: reported for free at Eigenfactor.org; also reported in Journal Citation Reports™ [requires subscription]
Directions: Type in the journal name of interest to view the Eigenfactor Score.
Notes: Click here for more information on advantages of this metric and FAQs.

Article Metrics

You can search for citations of your articles to determine who has cited them and in what journals and other types of publications your work has been cited. Cited reference searching can be done in:

Web of Science

The Web of Science database requires a subscription. Change the “Basic Search” to “Cited Reference Search” above the search box. Type in your name and click “Search.” Alternately, type in the title of your article and click “Search.”

Scopus

Scopus database requires a subscription. Type in the title of your article and click “Search.” The “Cited By” column shown on the right side shows the number of citing articles. Alternately, you can search for yourself as an author. To do so, change the search option from “Documents” to “Authors” above the search box. Type in your name and click “Search.”

CINAHL Complete

The CINAHL database requires a subscription. Click on “More” in the blue bar at the top of the page. Choose “Cited References” from the menu. Enter your name in the appropriate box, and click “Search.” CINAHL will return articles that you authored. Then check the boxes next to the articles for which you want to find citing articles. Click “Find Citing Articles.”

Downloads and Views

You can also track article impact by identifying how frequently an article has been viewed or downloaded. Many journals now report these statistics. Other places to find this information include:

AltmetricExplorer

Definition: Altmetrics indicates the number of times your article is viewed, downloaded, saved, and discussed by others in social media, news outlets, online policy documents, and more. The dissemination of your article online is shown by the Altmetric donut, which provides a visualization of the attention of your article in news outlets, blogs, tweets, Facebook, and others. Altmetrics is intended to supplement citations not replace them.
Access: Find your article at the website of the journal in which it was published and look for the Altmetric donut there. Find other free tools, including an Altmetric Bookmarklet, at https://www.altmetric.com/products/free-tools/. Some institutions, publishers, and funders provide subscription access to AlmetricExplorer.

Mendeley

A free reference management system, Mendeley also has a detailed breakdown of your statistics (citations within Scopus, views within ScienceDirect, readers within Mendeley) by article, including trends. You can sign up to receive these Mendeley Stats.

Author Impact

You can report the impact of your research and scholarship through cited reference analysis discussed earlier: who is citing your work and in what journals? Most importantly, how are your research findings, teaching innovations, practice initiatives, and other work being used by others? Track your citations through the literature to learn about your impact. There also are metrics to assess your impact in a field.

h-index

Definition: The h-index was developed to assess an author’s impact by measuring the citations to an individual’s most cited articles. It was first described by Hirsch (2005), who defined it as an individual having h papers with at least h citations. For example, if you have published 10 articles and each of those has been cited at least 10 times, then your h-index is 10. When you publish your 11^th article, to increase your h-index, all 11 top cited articles must be cited at least 11 times.
Access: Find your h-index in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. The h-index will vary depending on the database you use.
Web of Science Directions: Log into Web of Science (requires subscription). Perform an Author search for your name. When reviewing results, click “Create Citation Report” on the right side. Your h-index will then display on the right. Note that you can use checkboxes to remove items you do not want in your citation report. Your h-index in this database will likely be lower than in the other databases because there are fewer nursing journals in the Web of Science.
Scopus Directions: Log into Scopus (requires subscription). Select the Authors search option above the search bar. Insert your name (if you have a common name, include additional initials). You also can search by your ORCiD (Watson, 2017). Look for your Scopus Author results and click your name to go to the “Author Details” page. Your h-index is on this page. Record your Scopus ID for use with future h-index searches.
Google Scholar Directions: Download Harzing’s Publish or Perish (http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm). Search for your name, and your h-index will appear at the top of the page. Publish or Perish uses the Advanced Scholar Search in Google Scholar. Alternately, you can create a profile of your articles in Google Scholar Citations.

g-index

Definition: The g-index was suggested in 2006 by Egghe. With your articles ranked in decreasing order of number of citations, the g-index is the largest number of highly cited articles for which the average number of citations is at least n. In comparison to h-index, g-index gives more weight to highly cited articles.
Access: Download Harzing’s Publish or Perish (http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm). Search for your name, and your g-index will appear at the top of the page.

Conclusion

Nurse authors should be aware of the various types of metrics that can be used to evaluate journal, article, and author impact, as well as understand these metrics’ limitations. For example, journal metrics measure the frequency of citations to a journal not to the quality of articles and value of the information to readers. Therefore, the best journal for submission of your manuscript may have a low impact factor and CiteScore, or may not even be indexed in those databases to have an impact factor or CiteScore.

Through cited reference analysis, you can track your articles to determine who is citing them and in which journals and other types of publications they are being cited. Are other nurses and health care professionals using your research in their own studies? Is your research being transferred into the clinical practice literature? What educators are using your teaching innovations and in what ways? Cited reference analysis can answer these questions and others about your scholarship. You also can assess your impact in the field with metrics such as the h-index. These are a few of the more common publication metrics. Use them wisely.

References

Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Oermann, M. H., & Conklin, J. L. (2017). CiteScore and nursing journals. Nurse Author & Editor, 27(2), 3. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/NAE-2017-27-2-3-Oermann-Conklin.pdf
Watson, R. (2017). Grow your ORCiD profile. Nurse Author & Editor, 27(2), 2. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/NAE-2017-27-2-2-Watson.pdf

About the Authors

Jamie L. Conklin, MSLIS, is Research & Education Librarian and Liaison to the School of Nursing, Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives, Durham, North Carolina, USA. You can email her at: jamie.conklin@duke.edu

Marilyn H. Oermann, PhD, RN, ANEF, FAAN, is Thelma M. Ingles Professor of Nursing, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina, USA. She is Editor of Nurse Educator and the Journal of Nursing Care Quality. Email: marilyn.oermann@duke.edu

NAE 2017 27 3 2 Conklin Oermann

The post Publication Metrics appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Writing for The Conversation

Roger Watson

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(3), 3

If you have not heard of The Conversation, I would urge you to check their website before reading on. The Conversation is an online newspaper but with a specific authorship; it is written exclusively by academics. The motto of The Conversation is “academic rigour with journalistic flair” and this describes the contents of The Conversation perfectly. In this podcast you can hear how the editor of The Conversation describes its mission. The aim of The Conversation is to provide a platform for academics to write articles that the public can and will read. Access to the contents is free and The Conversation is supported by universities, industry, and individuals. There are different versions of The Conversation for different countries: Africa, Canada, Australia, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and a global The veracity of the credentials of those who write for The Conversation is assured as they should possess a valid university email address. Anyone—even if you have not written for The Conversation—may put up a profile where you can add a photograph, describe your interests and provide links to your web profile and social media links.

There is no limit to what can be written about in The Conversation and some choose to highlight their own work and some comment on current affairs. The articles in The Conversation appear as blog-like entries; they are concise, readable, and informative. Readers of The Conversation can register for a daily email bulletin; this is supplemented by a weekend bulletin. There is also a periodic, well produced, entertaining, and informative podcast called “The Anthill” which allows editors to explore some of the more topical subjects covered in The Conversation in-depth and by interviewing authors.

As an editor, I have used it to promote interesting articles from the Journal of Advanced Nursing. It is an effective way to publicize recent work. “Hits” on The Conversation are tracked and will contribute to Altmetric scores of articles and may even increase citations. I think authors and editors should be paying more attention to The Conversation and at the Journal of Advanced Nursing we specifically encourage authors to consider promoting their work this way. Towards that end I produced a YouTube with some guidance about writing for The Conversation.

The process of writing for The Conversation begins with “pitching,” which involves writing and submitting a structured piece about your topic. In the pitch, you indicate the topic area, its currency in terms of importance and why it will be of interest. The pitch will then be sent to a specialist editor who will decide whether your pitch is worthy and, within a few days, you will have the outcome. Don’t expect to have your first few pitches accepted—you may be lucky—but my experience and that of colleagues is that it takes a few attempts to get past the pitching stage. While the rejections may seem brutal, the editors offer helpful comments on why the pitch was declined and how to improve a pitch in future. One way of increasing your likelihood of acceptance is to consult someone who has already been published in The Conversation. If you use the search facility on The Conversation webpage you can then find others in your university who have published with The Conversation and who may be able to give you advice. Once you have a profile you will receive monthly updates on The Conversation statistics for your university.

If your pitch is accepted then you will be given a relatively short deadline to write your piece; this will be accompanied by specific instructions on the length of your article and how it should be written. The Conversation aims for high readability at the level of an educated school leaver and to achieve that you are advised to avoid jargon and acronyms, to use short words and short sentences and not to end with the old academic refrain of “further research is needed.” You should provide weblinks to support your main points. If you have any presentations such as podcasts or YouTubes to support your story then these should be provided. You may be asked to suggest an informative image to head your article. Once written you can submit and check the readability score; there is no reason why this should not be 100%.

The piece will then be edited and fact-checked and, be warned, the subject editors really are experts. The piece will finally be checked by the editor of The Conversation prior to publication. Once published it is easy to promote your piece using social media as links are provided. You should let the publicity and media office of your university know about your article. The process does not end there as there is the facility on The Conversation webpage for readers to comment. The comments are not always complimentary but any insulting or inappropriate comments are moderated and removed by an editor. However, when people have commented, especially in the early days after publication, you should take time to respond. You should always respond with gratitude that the person has taken the time to read and comment. If the comments are adverse or negatively critical, do not lose sleep over this; if you can refute the points do so politely. If unable to refute the points, simply concede that this may have been a point you should have considered or will consider in future.

The Conversation editors are very keen to meet academics and they will visit your university and run workshops and meet individuals to discuss ideas. Check with your media team to see if they plan any The Conversation visits; if not, then you may wish to suggest one.

In conclusion, The Conversation is an interesting forum in and of itself, but it also provides authors and editors new avenues for writing, sharing expertise, and promoting their publications.

About the Author

Roger Watson, PhD, FAAN, FRCN is Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Advanced Nursing; Editor, Nursing Open, and Professor of Nursing, University of Hull, UK. He is also a member of the Authors-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor. Contact Roger by email: r.watson@hull.ac.uk and follow him on Twitter: @rwatson1955. His ORCiD ID is orcid.org/0000-0001-8040-7625

NAE 2017 27 3 3 Watson

The post Writing for The Conversation appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Editorial Independence and the Society Editor

Jan Odom-Forren

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(3), 4

The subject of editorial independence is discussed often when editors meet—whether the journal affiliation is with a society or owner-publisher. Editors with society journals have specific hazards as they maintain editorial independence. The society boards have been known to push for crossing the editorial independence line—whether misguided or not. Possibilities include the society board campaigning for certain members as part of the editorial advisory board; advocating for specific individuals as guest editors; or asking the editors to publish inappropriate manuscripts from industry when money for the society budget is on the line. Past society editors have discussed society boards who wanted the editor to waive having peer review for manuscripts from a “famous” author or from society board members or society boards who wanted to fill the editorial advisory board—and not necessarily with qualified persons. Professional organizations may want information published because of a financial relationship with industry or the Board of Directors may attempt to influence content. Editors with more experience are typically able to manage being “bullied” or “pushed around” by the society and know how to draw the line. But newer editors or those intimidated by the society may not know how to respond.

What is Editorial Independence?

Editorial independence is critical to the integrity of the journal (Mason, 2006). The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Council of Science Editors (CSE), and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) assert that editorial freedom requires that editors have “full authority over the entire editorial content of their journal…” (WAME, 2009; CSE, 2012; ICMJE, 2016). Their recommendations on editorial freedom include the freedom for editors to express critical but responsible views about all aspects of medicine without fear of retribution. Both editor organizations point out the importance of independence from industry influence with editors’ approving ads that are placed in the journals and determining appropriate conflict of interest statements. Editorial independence means that editors are free to evaluate content, to determine timing of publication, to publish a critical but responsible view without retribution, to select the editorial board, and to be free from industry influence. On the other hand, owners (societies, publishers) can dismiss editors, but dismissal should be for substantial reasons, such as scientific misconduct, failure to perform based on objective criteria, or inappropriate behavior, e.g. criminal activity. Guidelines suggest dismissal after evaluation by an objective panel of experts to prevent dismissal for reasons linked to editorial independence only. Publishers also have statements of editorial independence. For example, the Elsevier statement on editorial independence emphasizes their adherence to “intellectual freedom and editorial independence” and separation of editorial decision making from the commercial aspects of the business (Elsevier, 2017).

Society conflicts with editorial independences have occurred. Most notably, the Canadian Medical Association Journal has twice dismissed editors leading to concern from the scientific community. In 2006, Dr. J. Hoey was dismissed without cause after an editorial critical of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) for censuring a report regarding difficulties of obtaining Plan B drugs from pharmacists. Then again in 2016, CMA fired the editor and the Journal Oversight Board that had been put into place in 2006 to prevent this type of occurrence from happening again. The end result was damage to the credibility of the journal and worry regarding lack of separation of content and membership affairs with no plausible justification for dismissal of the editor (Kelsall et al., 2016; Kassirer, 2016).

Ethical Distress

In a survey describing editorial independence in medical journals owned by professional associations, Davis and Müllner (2002) found that 23 of 33 editors stated they had complete editorial control, while 10 felt pressure from the organization. In a survey of 88 nursing editors, Freda and Kearney (2005) found that 56 of the 88 editors had faced an ethical dilemma. Of the eight categories of ethical issues found, the most frequent issue was problems with the association/society/publisher. Examples provided by the study participants were publishing controversial topics, resisting dictates from society members, and dismissing editorial board members. Pressure concerning advertising for the journal was the second most listed topic. This could include articles submitted that were sponsored by industry or those that promoted a product, or advertisers who wanted feature articles to appear with product advertisement. Of interest, some editors believed they faced an ethical dilemma when determining whether to publish articles that might be seen as inflammatory, such as those with a political view. Other concerns were duplicate publication and plagiarism, difficult interactions with authors, and authorship.

Nursing Editors as Gatekeepers

As early as 1997, Blancett described nursing editors as the “gatekeepers of nursing knowledge” (p. 16). She based that description on the fact that nursing editors are responsible for submission, development and publication of scientific knowledge pertaining to the profession. It is beyond the scope of this article to describe in detail the many tasks that comprise the editor’s role. Blancett (1997), however, discusses those technical tasks in detail and points to two personality characteristics important to an editor: a love of reading and grasp of English grammar, composition, and spelling. Beyond the technical tasks of editing, the nurse editor is a nursing leader which requires excellent communication skills and an ability to the see the profession with a broader lens.

Hazards of Editorials

In one study, nursing editors agreed that two of the most important aspects of their roles were to maintain scientific and editorial quality and provide vision and direction for the profession (Kearney & Freda, 2006). One way that nursing editors can fulfill that role is with editorial opinions written as the voice for the profession. Interestingly, there has been little written about nursing editors and the editorials they publish. So it is really unknown as to whether most journal editors associated with societies write editorials that are narrow in scope to the specialty or whether the editorial can take a broader view of the nursing profession or healthcare as a whole. My latest interest in editorial independence came about as I received a letter to the editor from a society member unhappy that I had broached the issue of “gun control” in our society journal (Odom-Forren, 2016). This reader did not believe our nursing journal was the appropriate venue for the subject. I had purposely not used the term “gun control,” but instead focused on “gun violence” as a public health issue. To respond to the letter, I searched for information that might be helpful to explain editorial independence to our members as well as others who may read the response.

As editors of a society journal, we do walk a tightrope with editorials on controversial topics. For example, most nursing societies are a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and that alone limits the political discussion from “political campaign activity” or, in other words, support or opposition to a particular candidate (IRS, 2016). However, a society editor can still advocate voting in elections, educate members about the issues, and update members on how the nursing profession relates to an election.

Editorials are probably fraught with the most hazards associated with editorial independence. Mundane editorials on publishing in the journal or the latest nursing report typically cause no angst, but also provide no debate or discourse. When writing an editorial for a society journal do we present a narrow perspective or a broader perspective when needed so that we do provide that voice for the profession? Recommendations for editors suggest that we have leeway to provide discourse that might even be against society issues. In 1855, Wakely, who founded and was editor of Lancet wrote an editorial about factory workers who were polluting London….”reeking in putrid grease, redolent of stinking bones, fresh from seething heaps of stercoraceous deposits” (p. 634). Wakely (1855) was looking at health through a broad lens and wrote without mincing words.

Prevention of Conflict

Various editorial organizations have suggested guidelines that will work to prevent conflicts in the area of editorial independence. WAME (2009) suggests that editors should have conditions of employment in writing, including authority, responsibilities, reporting relationships and how to resolve conflicts. The policy on editorial freedom should be shared with readers. That is why most of us have a statement that opinions expressed by the editor do not represent the publisher or society views. CSE (2012) suggests that societies and editors should have a signed contract to detail editorial independence and other responsibilities of the editor. CSE goes on to state that the contract should include the editor’s duties, job description and performance measurements and a mechanism for resolving conflicts. ICJME (2016) suggests that editors seek input from reviewers, editorial staff, editorial board and readers to support decisions and any controversial editorials. My co-editor and I of our society journal share the decision to publish and then give a “heads up” to society leadership when we believe an editorial or article may cause some controversy. Using this approach, we have had no problems to date with editorial independence.

Editorial independence is a privilege that gives the editor the liberty to publish an opinion, not only on specific specialty or nursing issues, but on significant social and political issues (Kassirer, 2016). Societies should allow their journals to be a platform for debate on issues that pertain to the specialty or profession. This provides a forum to highlight opposing views and displays an openness to discourse by the organization (Michael, 2015). As I said in my response to the author of the letter to the editor, “Only through debate and discourse are relevant ideas promulgated and promoted, and importantly, relevant change initiated” (Odom-Forren, 2017, p. 4).

References

Blancett, S. S. (1997). Nursing journalism leadership. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 22(1), 16–22. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9397840
Council of Science Editors. (2012, March 30). 2.5 Relations between editors and publishers, sponsoring societies, or journal owners. Retrieved August 14, 2017, from https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-5-relations-between-editors-and-publishers-sponsoring-societies-or-journal-owners/
Davis, R. M., & Müllner, M. (2002). Editorial independence at medical journals owned by professional associations: a survey of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(4), 513–528. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12501720
Elsevier. (2017). Editorial independence. Retrieved August 14, 2017, from https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/editorial-independence
Freda, M. C., & Kearney, M. H. (2005). Ethical issues faced by nursing editors. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 27(4), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945905274906
Internal Revenue Service. (2016, September 13). The restriction of political campaign intervention by section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Retrieved August 14, 2017, from https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501-c-3-tax-exempt-organizations
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2016). Recommendations: Journal owners and editorial freedom. Retrieved August 14, 2017, from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/journal-owners-and-editorial-freedom.html
Kassirer, J. P. (2016). Editorial independence: painful lessons. The Lancet, 387(10026), 1358–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30089-7
Kearney, M. H., & Freda, M. C. (2006). “Voice of the profession:” Nurse editors as leaders. Nursing Outlook, 54(5), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2006.04.002
Kelsall, D., Patrick, K., Stanbrook, M. B., Sibbald, B., Flegel, K., Russell, E., … Walji, M. (2016). Upholding the integrity of your CMAJ. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal de l’Association Medicale Canadienne, 188(6), E113–4. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.160283
Mason, D. J. (2006). On freedom of the scientific press: can you trust the information you read in nursing journals? The American Journal of Nursing, 106(5), 11. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16639224
Michael, A. (2015, April 30). Ask The Chefs: What is editorial independence and how does it impact publishing? Retrieved August 14, 2017, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/04/30/ask-the-chefs-what-is-editorial-independence-and-how-does-it-impact-publishing/
Odom-Forren, J. (2017). Reply. Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing: Official Journal of the American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses / American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses, 32(1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2016.12.005
Odom-Forren, J. (2016). Gun violence: A public health and nursing concern. Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing: Official Journal of the American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses / American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses, 31(4), 285–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2016.06.003
Wakley, T. (1855). Editorial. The Lancet, 1, 634–635.
World Association of Medical Editors. (2009, July 25). The relationship between journal editors-in-chief and owners. Retrieved August 14, 2017, from http://www.wame.org/about/policy-statements

About the Author

Jan Odom-Forren PhD, RN, CPAN, FAAN, is Co-Editor , Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing and Associate Professor at the University of Kentucky College of Nursing in Lexington, Kentucky. Contact Jan by e-mail: Jan.Forren@uky.edu.

NAE 2017 27 3 4 Odom-Forren

The post Editorial Independence and the Society Editor appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Resources for Nursing Editors, Authors, and Peer Reviewers

Geraldine S. Pearson and Kristen Overstreet

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(3), 5

At the most recent International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) meeting in Denver, Colorado, we presented a poster summarizing resources for editors, authors, and peer reviewers. This poster generated lively discussion and there were many ideas about adding to these resources and finding a way to share the information on an ongoing basis. All comments were much appreciated and used to create this article and list of resources. Readers are invited to comment at the end of this article and add to the information we present.

Objective

Although a large variety of resources exist, nursing editors may not be aware of where to find them; therefore, each person ends up doing her or his own research which is time consuming and inefficient. Here, we provide readers of Nurse Author & Editor with a collated list of useful resources, separated into topic areas, that we have found to be accurate and easy to use, and will help you improve the quality of your journal(s). The resources are meant to be shared and used with authors and reviewers who request additional information as they work on manuscripts.

Ethical Issues

Committee on Publication Ethics

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was established in 1997 in the United Kingdom and now has over 11,000 members worldwide from all academic fields. COPE gives advice, support, and education on all aspects of publication ethics, in particular how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. Many nursing journals are published by companies that are COPE members. Even if a journal is not a member of COPE, the resources are free and readily available on the website (http://publicationethics.org/resources). Reviewers note that COPE has practical and timely information that is easily accessible. Flowsheets guide editors, authors, and publishers who need to make difficult decisions about potential misconduct or unethical situations. COPE discussion forums provide interactive sessions where expert advice is offered and best practices developed. Outcomes from the forum sessions are posted on the website.

The publisher, Elsevier, provides a nice resource on Publishing Ethics, with duties of publisher, editors, reviewers, and authors all clearly spelled out. This link is the starting point for a deep dive for exploration.
- https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/publishing-ethics
Another resource from Elsevier, this site has information on publishing and resource ethics and includes lectures, videos and interactive courses.
- https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/pages/63//ethics/Publishing-ethics.html
When misconduct occurs, issues are brought to the attention of editors and publishers. What happens then? Corrections are made or in more serious cases, articles are retracted. Keep up-to-date on all manner of scientific misconduct at Retraction Watch. You can subscribe for free. Content is updated several times daily.
- http://retractionwatch.com
From the Council of Scientific Editors (CSE), this white paper from 2012 provides guidance for editors, authors, reviewers, and sponsors on roles and responsibilities related to publication ethics.
- https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/

Resources for Improving Reporting of Research

EQUATOR Network: EQUATOR-network.org

From the website:

The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines.

It is the first coordinated attempt to tackle the problems of inadequate reporting systematically and on a global scale; it advances the work done by individual groups over the last 15 years.

The site includes a library for health research reporting, guidelines for reporting research, and a number of toolkits. At present, there are 362 reporting guidelines at the site. Some of the more well-known that appear in nursing journals are:

CONSORT – Randomized Trials
STROBE – Observational Studies
PRISMA – Systematic Reviews
CARE – Case Reports
SRQR – Qualitative Research
STARD – Diagnostic/Prognostic Studies
SQUIRE – Quality Improvement Studies
SPIRIT – Study Protocols
AGREE – Clinical Practice Guidelines

Resources for Managing Research Integrity

Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct produced by the Office of Research Integrity, from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Although the document was first produced in 2000, the information is still relevant.
- https://ori.hhs.gov/images/ddblock/masm_2000.pdf
Also from the Office of Research Integrity, an online learning tool on image processing in science, with guidelines and guidance on what is appropriate and what is not. There are a number of videos at the site which are extremely helpful, including one directed specifically to journal editors.
- https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.html
From the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)—resources for authors on declaring conflicts of interest.
- http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities–conflicts-of-html
Also from ICMJE, guidelines for defining roles of authors and contributors.
- http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-html
From the journal Anesthesiology, this helpful one-pager gives brief guidelines of how and when to obtain permission to reuse material.
- http://anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/public/aspx
iThenticate is a tremendous resource on issues such as plagiarism and ethical transgressions. They have a number of white papers, research reports, and infographics. This link is just a starting point to explore the site.
- http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/papers

Resources for Authors

From Editage, this link has a helpful infographic on the Top Ten Avoidable Mistakes of an Author:
- https://www.editage.com/insights/top-10-avoidable-mistakes-as-an-author
All authors should have a digital identifier and ORCiD is the leading source to provide one. From the website:

ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between you and your professional activities ensuring that your work is recognized.

There is no charge for an ORCiD ID. To learn more and register:

https://orcid.org/
KUDOS allows authors to mobilize their research for greater impact and visibility. Registration is free at the site:
- https://www.growkudos.com/
If you are searching for a publication outlet, visit the Directory of Nursing Journals, which is a joint effort between the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) and Nurse Author & Editor. This is a vetted “white list” which means that all journals have been reviewed and approved for inclusion–there are no predatory journals on the list.
- https://nursingeditors.com/journals-directory/

If you are an editor and would like to have your journal reviewed for inclusion in the Directory, use this link:

https://nursingeditors.com/journals-directory/request-a-journals-directory-listing/

Resources for Editors

Another resource from Elsevier, this legal guide provides resources specifically for editors:
- https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/legal-guide-for-editors
The Council of Scientific Editors (CSE) has a number of short courses, helpful for both novice and seasoned editors.
- https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/cse-short-course-descriptions/
Elsevier has a newsletter for editors; subscription is optional and free.
- https://www.elsevier.com/connect/editors-update

Resources for Peer Reviewers Conducting Scholarly Reviews

Wiley provides guidance to peer reviewers in this helpful website.
- https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/index.html
Taylor and Francis, another publisher, also provides helpful resources to reviewers at this website.
- http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/reviewers-guidelines-and-best-practice /
Peer reviews take time and thought. Journal editors have always appreciated the contributions of their peer reviewers, but except for a possible “thank you” in the journal there has not been a consistent way to recognize their work. Publons is trying to change that. Spend some time exploring the website and see what Publons can do for you as a reviewer.
- https://publons.com/home/
Peer Review Week occurs every year in September: this year it is September 11-17, 2017. The Peer Review Week website provides a resources page where you can find how-tos and tutorials, best practices and guidelines, and research related to peer review. Begin your exploration here:
- http://www.pre-val.org/prw/

Blogs and Newsletters

There are lots of helpful blogs and newsletters that publish content useful to editors, authors, and reviewers. The following is a brief list of some of our favorites. If you have others that you read regularly and find useful, please post in the comments!

International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) Blog
- https://nursingeditors.com/blog/
Nurse Author & Editor—you are reading it right now! New content posts on the 5^th and 20^th of every month. Open access and reviewed; you can subscribe at the site to receive notices of new articles. Subscription is free.
- http://naepub.com
The Society for Scholarly Publishing has the Scholarly Kitchen Blog. There are 20 “chefs” who post content on an almost-daily basis. You can subscribe (for free) to be notified of new articles.
- https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org
Wiley Exchanges Newsletter—another newsletter-type blog with helpful articles for all involved in publishing: authors, editors, or peer reviewers.
- https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/
The International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE) has a website, newsletter, conferences, and discussion forum. Some resources require membership but you can read articles for free at this link:
- http://www.ismte.org/page/SharedArticles

Conclusion

In summary, these resources are the beginning compilation of resources predominantly for editors. They can have utility for any nurse author or peer reviewer who seeks more information about the complexities of publishing ethical research and clinical information in reputable journals. We hope to grow this resource and make it readily available to all.

About the Authors

Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, RN, FAAN, is the Editor of the Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. She is Associate Professor, University of Connecticut School of Medicine and Director, HomeCare Program at the University of Connecticut Health Center. Geri is also the co-chairperson of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Contact Geri at GPEARSON@uchc.edu.

Kristen Overstreet is a Senior Partner at Origin Editorial (origineditorial.com) the managing editor for the Journal for Nurses in AIDS Care (JANAC) and the Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. She is the immediate past president of the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors and was the founding editor of the society’s newsletter in 2008. You can contact Kristin at kristen@origineditorial.com

NAE 2017 27 3 5 Pearson Overstreet

The post Resources for Nursing Editors, Authors, and Peer Reviewers appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Issues of Authorship: Who and in What Order?
Laura C. Hein and Peggy Chinn

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(3), 6

Recently Laura, the first author on this article, asked Peggy, the second author, a “quick question,” expecting a quick response: “APA says authorship is in sequence by contribution. A colleague is adamant that nursing follows a different convention. What is correct for nursing?”

This question from Laura prompted a lengthy dialogue that unearthed the many challenges related to authorship, so we decided to organize our discussion in this format, knowing that it is a persistent and often “sticky” issue to deal with! Authorship confounds everyone involved in writing for publication at one point or another, since it touches on nuances of relationship, and the inherent power dynamics of relationships, in ways that usually remain under the surface and politely ignored! Here we address two fundamental issues in responding to Laura’s question— first the matter of qualifications for authorship, and then the challenge of the order of authors.

Criteria for Authorship

Every person who is named as an author should play a substantial role in the development and publication of a published work. Even though there have been situations in which a person is named as an author without making a substantial contribution, this is no longer acceptable practice in scholarly publications.

As indicated by recent discussions at the annual International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) conference, most nursing journals follow the guidelines from the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) for authorship, and in fact a number require that all authors sign a form verifying they qualify as an author by meeting all four of the authorship criteria. These criteria are:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved (ICMJE, n.d.)

If there are individuals who meet one or more, but not all of these criteria, they should be acknowledged as non-author contributors. A common situation of this type occurs when you have people, such as research assistants who have participated in data collection or data input, but beyond that have not been involved in the writing. Peers who review drafts can also be thanked in the acknowledgements although many will defer and say it is not necessary. Note that you need to have permission from anyone you wish to thank to include their name in an acknowledgement.

Another common situation occurs for authors of dissertations and the members of their advisory committee. It is an ethical breach for faculty to insist on being named as authors, as often faculty actually do not meet all four of the ICMJE guidelines. The ethics of this have to do with the unequal exercise of power by faculty—individuals who are ethically responsible to avoid even the slightest appearance of exploiting students (Kennedy, 2015). Even so, many nursing faculty have fallen into the trap that comes from unethical practices in the basic sciences and in some liberal arts disciplines. Regretfully, there remain faculty in nursing who tell students that they require authorship on any publication from a dissertation they oversee and some even go so far as to suggest that they be the first author. But the bottom line is: student authors of dissertations should always be the primary author of any article based on their dissertation (Nishikawa, Codier, Mark, & Shannon, 2014).

While a faculty adviser may meet all of the criteria for authorship, which suggests that the faculty adviser if actively engaged in writing collaboratively with the student, most dissertation committee members do not. They can be legitimately acknowledged as having made a contribution to the published work, and the nature of their contribution can be stated in the acknowledgements. A committee member who serves to advise on statistical analysis and interpretation, or a member who provides guidance in the implementation of the research method are good examples of contributors who should be acknowledged. Once again, remember that permission is needed to list someone by name in the acknowledgements. In the event that the contributors meet all four ICMJE criteria, then of course they would qualify to be listed as authors. The most important takeaway from all of this is that these issues need to be very clearly and carefully thought through.

The key to addressing the matter of authorship and making sure that careful thought has been given to these issues is to have the conversation very early in any project that is anticipated to result in publication. In faculty and student relationships, this discussion ideally occurs when a student approaches a faculty member to ask them to chair their dissertation or DNP Project. Faculty who are knowledgeable about the ethics and criteria for authorship can take the lead in assuring students that the student owns the right to any papers they produce as a student. But it is also incumbent on students to be well informed on this matter, and to be prepared to have critical authorship conversations with their faculty advisors.

This is not always an “easy” conversation, particularly since often there is an unequal level of power or influence among any group of potential co-authors. Students need to be able to stand up for themselves and articulate the issues relating to authorship. For students who have faculty who insist on being listed as authors without doing the work to meet the ICMJE criteria, this might be a red flag to change advisers, or to at least seek mediation with a seasoned scholar who understands accepted criteria and requirements for authorship.

One factor that facilitates these discussions is having everyone involved in scholarly activities be well informed about authorship, and be clear about the ethical issues of authorship. The person taking the lead in this discussion might start by sharing the ICMJE guidelines, as well as articles published on the subject. By approaching this topic openly and in a spirit of supportive colleagueship, we believe you enhance the chances that your collaboration in this important professional activity will be a positive learning experience for all!

Order of Authors

Decisions about order of authors must be determined by the authors themselves, and the earlier in the process, the better. No other individual or group can address this issue for you! Several editors have reported needing to question the legitimacy of a named author, and a few have had instances when a named author asks to be removed as an author, or a person not named asks to be listed as an author. Editors do have an interest in assuring that all authors are rightfully named as authors, and that those who do not qualify for authorship are not named or are appropriately acknowledged. That said, editors do not get involved in determining the order of authors and will not question you about how names are listed. They expect that you, as the author group, have taken care of this piece of business prior to manuscript submission.

The process of determining the order of authors can vary widely; there are no universal rules that apply in every instance. The circumstances of each specific situation are much more compelling in guiding decisions of how authors should be ordered. The typical general notion in nursing (as much as there is one) is to order authors by their “contributions” to a project. This is very hard to follow, however, since either authors contribute fairly equally, or the nature of their contributions are different and cannot be compared. For example, someone contributes the conceptual ideas and writes a draft, which may be very long, someone else writes the method, which may be very short— how do you determine which is “more”? Here are alternative guidelines that a group of authors can consider:

Use the alphabet! List authors alphabetically by last name, or even reverse-alphabetically.
Rotate first authorship when you know your work will likely result in several publications.
When extent of contribution is relatively equal, place the person who has the most “need” for primary authorship first, such as the person coming up for promotion.
When it is clear who the “mover and shaker” leader of the team is, that person should be primary. But it is often impossible to order the remaining authors by “contribution,” so they can be ordered in any way that is mutually agreeable.

It is important to be aware that ordering of authors may vary by discipline. This is particularly a factor when working on interdisciplinary teams. For example, a study evaluating contribution and author order in JAMA publications found that the highest levels of author contribution were reflected in first authorship, being listed last author, then as second author (Baerlocher, Newton, Gautam, Tomlinson, & Detsky, 2007). As the authors note it is common in medical circles for the last author to be the senior author or the principal investigator—sometimes called “the place of pride.” Nonetheless, this is not a universal rule—it is a convention in some circumstances, but not in all. If you are working with an interdisciplinary team, start by sharing any disciplinary “conventions” that are represented on the team, and decide as a group which, if any of those conventions can serve in this particular instance.

One last bit of advice: when you have authorship conversation(s), make sure that everyone is in agreement, document decisions in writing, and then share the document with the entire group. Unfortunately, people’s memories can become “fuzzy” over time and they may “forget” decisions that were made about authorship. Having it in writing is prudent and can prevent problems further down the road.

Conclusion

Back to Laura’s question and how we determined authorship on this piece: none of the typical conventions really applied! We both clearly meet all four criteria for authorship, and much of the content here was extracted from our email discussion in response to the initial question, and the issues that emerged from that conversation. In the end, Laura prompted this dialogue so we agreed that she would be the first author.

Authorship on scholarly publications has created the best of relationships but also the worst of relationships. We urge anyone reading this article to find a way to discuss the criteria and ethics of authorship in your group of colleagues, providing everyone with the same foundation of understanding for this important dimension of your work.

REFERENCES

Baerlocher, M. O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., Tomlinson, G., & Detsky, A. S. (2007). The meaning of author order in medical research. Journal of Investigative Medicine: The Official Publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research, 55(4), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.2310/6650.2007.06044
International Council of Medical Journal Editors (n.d.) Defining the role of authors and contributors. Retrieved August 22, 2017, from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
Kennedy, M. S. (2015). Inappropriate authorship in nursing journals. Nurse Author & Editor, 25(4), 2. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NAE-2015-25-4-2-Kennedy.pdf
Nishikawa, J., Codier, E., Mark, D., & Shannon, M. (2014). Student faculty authorship: Challenges and solutions. Nurse Author & Editor, 24(4), 3. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NAE-2014-24-4-3-Nishikawa.pdf

About the Authors

Laura C. Hein, PhD, RN, FAAN is an Associate Professor at the University of South Carolina with a focus on national LGBTQ health policy. She serves on the Board of Directors of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality, and is co-chair of the LGBTQ Expert Panel of the American Academy of Nursing.

Peggy Chinn, RN, PhD, FAAN is the Editor-in-Chief of Advances in Nursing Science, author of a few books, and manager or co-manager of several websites/blogs, including INANE. She is an Author-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor.

NAE 2017 27 3 6 Hein Chinn

The post Issues of Authorship appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Transforming the Ultimate Paper: Hints for Authors

Leslie H. Nicoll

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(4), 1

You’ve done it. You finished your research study or scholarly project, written the dissertation/capstone/thesis, had it approved by your advisor/committee, graduated, and received your degree. Congratulations! Your “ultimate paper” is on file in the university repository where it will be seen by…basically no one. Your next step, then, is to take the results of your hard work and get it published in a scholarly journal where it will get the attention it deserves. But where to begin?

I have helped many “dissertation transformers” be successfully published. One challenge is figuring out a process that builds in success from the outset. Receiving a rejection letter is discouraging, especially when you thought you wrote a good manuscript that would be positively peer reviewed. People often contact me for help at this point in the process—and I have seen firsthand the same mistakes that are made, over and over. If you are a “transformer” I hope you will take the following hints to heart, because they will help you avoid some of the common errors that are part of the publication journey.

(NB: For writing clarity, I am going to use the terms “research study” or “dissertation” throughout, but the advice applies to any type of ultimate scholarly project that is presented in a specified format, going by the name of capstone, thesis, or something else.)

You Are Not Writing “From”

Mistake number one is when someone tells me, “I am writing an article from my dissertation.” No, you are not. You are writing a manuscript that reports the findings of the research study that you did. This might seem like a small point, but conceptually, it makes a world of difference. Your study, and its findings, is your starting point. That is the information you want to share with others.

Your first round of sharing was with your advisor and committee. Your dissertation was written according to university guidelines, with its structure clearly specified—typically five chapters—and the content that was to be included in each chapter. When it was finished, your dissertation was probably 100-500 pages in length, with a table of contents, several appendices, and a reference list of dozens, maybe even hundreds, of citations.

You may have read other dissertations, but I can guarantee that you have never read a dissertation in a nursing journal.

The problem with thinking you are writing “from” your dissertation is that puts you into “cut and paste” mode, and the outcome is, invariably, a manuscript that is too long, unorganized, and not formatted according to the journal guidelines. My advice is to put your dissertation away and focus, instead, on selecting the right journal to report your findings and then writing your manuscript to conform to its guidelines.

Journal Due Diligence

Journal selection is critical, and this is the second mistake that I commonly encounter. Instead of carefully choosing a publication outlet, all too often the author meticulously writes a first draft and then, when it is done, says, “Now I will figure out where to send this.” Think about that for a minute. Does that sound like a strategy for success? What if you decided you need to buy a blue suit and then walked into the first store you came to—would you be surprised if there weren’t any blue suits for sale at the drug store?

People challenge me on this—“I did a research study, so I am going to send it to a research journal.” Okay—which one? Or, “My study was about nursing students, so I am going to send it to an education journal.” Again, which one? Having a vague idea of a type of journal is not a strategic selection process. It’s like saying, “I am going to buy a blue suit, so I am going to the mall.” You could still end up in the drug store!

“Journal due diligence” is a term I coined several years again (Nicoll, 2012). It comes from the banking and investment industries and refers to thoroughly vetting an entity before making a loan, buying stock, or whatever. For a journal, the process is the same—you begin with a macro assessment to find a list of potential journals, then delve more deeply to find the best fit for your topic. Just like you wouldn’t invest in a shady company, your manuscript, which represents an investment of hundreds of hours of work, deserves the most suitable publication outlet you can find.

You probably have a working knowledge of potential journals to consider. Write them down and then think bigger. For example, if your study was about nursing students then education journals would clearly be on your list. But is there another angle from which you could consider your study? In what context or situation did you study the students? Their knowledge about wound care? Their experiences caring for patients at the end-of-life? This could point you to other types of journals to explore.

Personally, I find the journal due diligence process to be fun. I like learning about journals that are new to me and I am constantly surprised at the variety of publications that exist in the scholarly literature. If you aren’t sure where to begin, remember that Google is your friend. The Directory of Nursing Journals, a collaborative effort between this publication and the International Academy of Nursing Editors is another good starting point. As every credible journal has an online presence, it is easy to do this research from your desk or kitchen table.

Once you have a list of possible journals, visit the journal website. The first document you want to study carefully is the “Information for Authors” (IFA) because that will answer many questions up front and will help you eliminate journals from your macro list. The IFA will tell you who reads the journal and the types of articles that are published. If you are writing a research report and the journal doesn’t publish research (many don’t), then obviously, that’s not a good fit. Cross that journal off your list and move on.

For journals that survive the IFA test, then begin to delve a little more deeply. Look at the table of contents, the editorial board, the publisher—can you picture your article in this journal? If you find yourself nodding yes, then take the time to read several articles. The goal is to have an “Aha!” moment where it suddenly becomes clear that this journal could be a potential publication outlet.

I recommend that after this micro assessment, you have a shortlist of three potential journals: Number One, Solid Second, and Distant Third. In the unfortunate event that Number One doesn’t work out, you can move on quickly to Solid Second for a new submission. I have created a worksheet you can use for your due diligence—it is attached to this article as a PDF that you can download. Take the time to fill it out for your shortlist of three journals. It’s not busy work—I have had more than one person tell me that this is a very helpful exercise from which they learned a great deal.

Be Honest With Yourself

Okay, this one is tough but it is important. Mistake number three comes in when people have stars in their eyes and think they have done groundbreaking research—and they haven’t. You need to be honest with yourself about the quality of your work. I am sure you spent countless hours and shed more than a few tears getting to the point of finishing your dissertation. You believe in the work you did and your findings. Your committee approved it and you graduated, so that is another sign that it meets a quality standard. Right?

Not necessarily. There is a difference between your hard work and the quality of your study. There is also a difference between what the university will accept and peer review by a scholarly journal. Advisors and committees certainly want students to produce first-rate work that merits publication, but at the same time, they want students to graduate in a timely fashion. There are other factors at play, too. A dissertation is generally seen to be the starting point of a research career and as such, may meet a “very good” but not “excellent” standard. Likewise, your committee has experienced your research journey with you and has insight that may not be apparent to outsiders (peer reviewers) who read a manuscript devoid of this context.

Let’s take an example. Your plan for your study was to have 100 participants with a certain condition complete your battery of questionnaires. The hospital you selected for participant recruitment assured you that 25 people per month were admitted who would meet your criteria. Knowing that, you planned on enrolling 100 participants in 4 months, but just to be safe, you allotted 6 months to data collection. Then, 9 months on, you have only recruited 26 people to be in your study, which works out to be 3 people per month, a far cry from 25! At this rate, it could take you the better part of 3 years to recruit enough participants. What do you do?

Your committee, knowing what you have gone through, agrees that you can end data collection with 26 participants. In the process, you have learned a valuable lesson about participant recruitment. This is all good. But, unfortunately, it has introduced a flaw into your study that cannot be overlooked. This is a fact: when a manuscript is submitted as a research report to a journal, then it will be reviewed at a gold standard. Research elements that are not up to par, such as a sample that is too small, are a basis for rejection. Once again, what to do? Let’s consider all options, even those that are unethical and not recommended.

Falsify and Fabricate Your Data. Lie about the number of subjects—write that you recruited 100 people. Fudge the findings. This may seem like a tempting option. Unfortunately, chances are high that your lies will be uncovered, your manuscript rejected or retracted (if it makes it to publication), and your research career will end before it has even started. You may become a celebrity in RetractionWatch. To be clear: don’t do this.

Publish in a Predatory Journal. Keep searching for a journal that will publish your research as written. As Smith (2010) has noted, “Everything can be published somewhere.” Unfortunately, “somewhere” may not be a quality publication outlet; nursing is not immune to the phenomenon of predatory journals (Oermann et al., 2016). My colleagues and I read several hundred published papers in predatory journals for our study reviewing the quality of articles found therein (Oermann et al., 2017). More than three-quarters of the articles were presented as research reports in IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Analysis, Discussion) format. Further, 96.3% of the articles were rated as average or poor. Of the dozens of articles I read, I had the clear sense that many of these were “pendulum” publications (Nicoll & Chinn, 2015)—papers that had been rejected by quality journals with good peer review processes. With rejection and discouragement, the author turned to a predatory journal. It was easy to see what the problems were, and they ran the gamut, whether in sample size, design, instruments, data analysis, over-reaching conclusions, or just plain boring research questions that added nothing new to nursing knowledge. So—if your article has been rejected by one (or two or more) mainstream research journals and you are trying to figure out next steps, please do not fall into the trap of a predatory publication. Your article may be “published,” but it will not be indexed or discoverable; the citation on your CV will not be an asset and may even become a liability. Once again, to be clear: don’t do this.

Reconceptualize Your Article. This is the hardest—but best—solution. Re-think your article to be something other than a classic research report, such as a case study, which uses your findings to inform the discussion. You need to “wrap your head around” a whole new way of thinking about what you did, and this takes mental energy and creativity. You may need to grieve a little, too. Publishing in a well-known research journal may have been a goal and giving up that dream may hurt. On the other hand, an article that provides evidence for practice and informs clinicians and their work may have much more utility in the long run. It is all a matter of perspective.

To begin this process, I suggest going back to your list of journals and looking at published articles, this time focusing on those that are not research reports. What types of articles are there? What might work for you? Love (2015) is a good example of a reconceptualized research report. While it is still presented as a study, the emphasis is much less on the design and instead focuses on the experiences of the participants before and after a college merger. The flaw—if you can’t see it—is that she had two participants who were essentially outliers. She took their comments as a basis for discussion and compared/contrasted them to the other participants, rather than reporting themes, which is the more traditional approach in a qualitative study. This was a strategy to reframe the study successfully, remaining true to what was done but also presenting it in such a way as to re-focus the emphasis.

Conclusion

When you do the hard work of a scholarly project that merits a degree, you need to close the loop to disseminate your findings through presentations at conferences and publications in the scholarly literature. In the academic setting, you had an advisor and committee to help you move your project from initial idea to successful completion. The next step—writing a manuscript for publication based on your work—may be challenging. Without a committee for guidance, you may feel a bit adrift. Don’t see this as a problem; instead, turn it into an opportunity. Look to resources that are available to you for help, be honest with yourself about your work, and be strategic about selecting a journal. When you consider these factors, you will greatly enhance your chances for publication success.

Work Sheet Due Diligence 3 Journals

References

Love, G. (2015). Faculty attrition as an outcome of a college merger: Lessons learned. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 10(3), 138–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2015.03.002
Nicoll, L. H. (2012). Manuscript Success: A Systematic Approach to Publishing in the Professional Literature. Portland, ME: Bristlecone Pine Press.
Nicoll, L. H., & Chinn, P. L. (2015). Caught in the trap: The allure of deceptive publishers. Nurse Author & Editor, 25(4), 4. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NAE-2015-25-4-4-Nicoll.pdf
Oermann, M. H., Conklin, J. L., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L., Ashton, K. S., Edie, A. H., … Budinger, S. C. (2016). Study of predatory open access nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 48(6), 624–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12248
Oermann, M. H., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L., Ashton, K. S., Conklin, J. L., Edie, A. H., … Williams, B. L. (2017). Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005
Smith, R. (2010). Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Research: BCR, 12 Suppl 4, S13. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2742

About the Author

Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN lives in Maine with her husband, two adult children, and three rescue pets. She keeps herself busy as Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Author & Editor, and CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. She provides advice and consultation to dissertation transformers and others who want to publish in the scholarly literature. Two days per week she works at the Portland Community Free Clinic. Click here to send a message directly to Leslie.

NAE 2017 27 4 1 Nicoll

The post Transforming the Ultimate Paper appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Reporting Guidelines: Tools for Preparing your Manuscript

Marilyn H. Oermann

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(4), 2

Your research is not complete until you disseminate the findings in the peer-reviewed literature. By reporting your findings, they are available for others to critique and, if appropriate, to use in their own settings. Dissemination is critical to build evidence for clinical practice, teaching, and policy, among other areas. Your findings should be disseminated even if they are contrary to what you expected.

What are Reporting Guidelines?

The research report you prepare for dissemination is the key for others to understand what you did and found. Your manuscript needs to accurately report the study and to be complete, including the specific methodology you used. Yet research shows that many published research articles are not complete, and because of that, they limit readers from evaluating how the research was done and the reliability of the findings (Simera et al., 2010). Reporting guidelines have been developed to improve the quality of research reports submitted to peer-reviewed journals. These guidelines help ensure you include in your manuscript all key areas about your study, do not omit critical information about the methodology, and present the findings with enough detail for others to interpret accurately. Reporting guidelines indicate the minimum information and order to present it for a complete and clear report of methods and findings (EQUATOR Network, 2017). Reporting guidelines are typically in the form of a checklist, list of content areas to include, or flow diagram, so you write “a clear and transparent account of what was done and what was found in a research study” (Simera et al., 2010, p. 2).

Reporting guidelines are used in addition to the Information for Authors for a nursing journal. Some nursing journals list specific reporting guidelines to use when preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal. For example, the Journal of Nursing Care Quality indicates that SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) should be used when preparing a manuscript on a quality improvement (QI) study. Even if the Information for Authors of a journal does not specify using reporting guidelines, you can still refer to them when preparing your manuscript. The guidelines will remind you about essential information to include and in what order.

Three Important Guidelines for Nurse Authors

Over the years many guidelines have been developed for reporting different types of research. Three guidelines that I think are essential for all nurse authors to be aware of are:

CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). CONSORT is an evidence-based set of recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials. At the CONSORT website (click here), you will find a checklist and flow diagram to guide you in preparing your manuscript.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). PRISMA includes a checklist for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. There also is a flow diagram for use in reporting the review process and studies included at different steps of the review. At the PRISMA website (click here), you can download a template of the flow diagram in Word for use in documenting the review process. While PRISMA was intended for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, it can be used for integrative and narrative literature reviews. More journals are regularly asking for a complete report of how the literature review was conducted; my recommendation is to use PRISMA for all literature reviews. Your manuscript may not be a review paper, but if you include a literature review section, you should report how you conducted that review: the databases searched and years covered, search strategy, process and criteria for selecting studies to report, numbers of studies at various phases of the review, and so forth. Conduct the literature review following the PRISMA guidelines and prepare a flow diagram of the review so you have it if needed.
SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence). The SQUIRE guidelines were developed for preparing manuscripts on QI studies. They are valuable when planning the study as well as reporting the findings. Every student in a doctor of nursing practice program should be aware of and use SQUIRE if they are doing a QI study for their scholarly project. You can find information about SQUIRE at the website (click here).

The EQUATOR Network

There are literally hundreds of reporting guidelines now available. My advice is to search for guidelines at the EQUATOR website (click here).This is a portal with 377 reporting guidelines for easy access by authors. The website also includes a library with links to articles on health research reporting, toolkits on writing research papers and selecting appropriate reporting guidelines, courses you can take, and information for peer reviewers and editors.

Reporting guidelines can be used when planning a study to ensure you consider key components and record the specific information you may need later. They are also valuable when writing the manuscript so it is complete and accurately reports the study. Bookmark the EQUATOR website so it is handy for your next project.

References

EQUATOR Network. (2017). Reporting guidelines for main study types. http://www.equator-network.org/ Accessed September 24, 2017.
Simera, I., Moher, D., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: Reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Medicine, 8. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-24

About the Author

NAE 2017 27 4 2 Oermann

The post Reporting Guidelines appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Achieving Great Grammar

Jennifer Chicca and Teresa Shellenbarger

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(4), 3

Many students and nurses have good ideas that could be shared with colleagues through publication. Unfortunately, they may not pursue publication. Potential authors offer a variety of reasons for not writing including a lack of time, having trouble refining a topic, being misinformed about the writing process, or fearing rejection (Oermann & Hays, 2016). For potential authors who overcome these barriers and prepare a manuscript, they may still face writing challenges that can interfere with the quality of their writing and ultimately, they may not be successful with the publication process. One problem that some writers face is poor mastery of grammar rules and improper writing and English usage (Miller, Russell, Cheng, & Skarbek, 2015). They may struggle with essential writing elements such as proper subject-verb agreement, sentence structure, use of passive voice, pronoun agreement, or other important grammar rules. Additionally, novice writers may also lack self-efficacy, or belief in their ability to succeed regarding scholarly writing (Miller et al., 2015). Potential authors may need assistance in ensuring the quality of their scholarly work and need to gain confidence in their grammar and writing skills. There are some relatively simple ways to overcome these obstacles with the assistance of some writing resources. This article will identify some helpful grammar and writing resources including commonly used grammar applications (apps) and other supportive writing services. It will also compare a select number of popular grammar apps and offer additional suggestions when considering using grammar apps.

Grammar Apps

The advent of Web 2.0 has led to the proliferation of apps that can be used on cell phones, computers, or other technology devices. Apps that are useful to writers are available to assist with productivity, organization, referencing, communication, and other writing problems. The following section of this article will focus on grammar checking writing apps or programs.

Before selecting a grammar app, it is important to consider your writing needs and writing approach. Ask yourself what writing challenges you face and what your writing needs are for a grammar app as the programs can vary. You will also want to select a writing app that is compatible with the technology you use.

When choosing an app, it is important to consider the following:

What are my writing needs, i.e., what am I using this app for?
How often will I need to use this app?
What platform do I plan to use the app on (mobile phone, tablet, computer, web browser)?
Does the app have the platform I need for my operating system? Mac users need to pay special attention to this question since not all app platforms are Mac compatible.
Is it important that the app has a feature that allows me to practice grammar and writing skills and/or helps me learn from my mistakes?
Do I plan to use the app with the Internet?
What is the cost?
What features are available?
Are there tutorials or guides available to help me learn how to correct grammar problems?
How easy is it to use?
How accurate and comprehensive is the grammar checking?
Am I able to make decisions about the grammar suggestions offered or are the changes automatically made to the document?
What type of support is offered?

There are a variety of grammar checking apps available for use. Commonly used writing apps include: Grammarly, WhiteSmoke, Ginger Software, Writer’s Workbench, LanguageTool, GrammarCheck, After the Deadline, Online Correction, Paper Rater, SpellCheckPlus Pro, and the Hemingway App (Singla, 2017; Skrba, 2017).

Some of these apps are free while others do have an annual cost and are available for purchase. Some of the popular apps available for purchase include Grammarly, WhiteSmoke, Writer’s Workbench, and Ginger Software. Grammarly and Ginger Software have basic, free versions which are limited in features. These apps were compared by cost, platforms, interface, capabilities, features, and support. Table 1 summarizes the comparison of the four apps. Overall, the apps meet different user needs.

Additionally, a sample paragraph was created that contained multiple common grammatical and writing errors to compare app features. To evaluate the programs, the free or basic versions of Grammarly and Ginger Software were compared. Overall, the basic versions were very quick and did well, especially with spelling and contextual spelling errors. However, the apps did miss some other grammatical errors. For example, missing punctuation, additional punctuation, and run-on sentences were not consistently identified in the analysis. Broadly speaking, free versions of grammar checking apps seem appropriate for basic or beginner needs, but lack some advanced features. They may be useful for writers who wish to use the app as a double check for editing and proofreading. Some writers may find that the free versions meet their grammar needs, while others may wish to purchase the more advanced versions which will allow for use of more grammar review services.

Other Considerations

In addition to how you will use the app, consider the cost. Will the app be used enough to justify the expense? Free, website based (WSB) only apps are a good alternative for basic or beginner needs. In these apps, you type in your paragraph directly on the app website and get instant feedback. Grammar checking features in free, website based apps are similar to the free versions of popular apps; refer to Table 1: “Features.” However, WSB only apps do not have any additional platform options, such as Grammarly’s free platforms for Microsoft Office, Windows, and Chrome browser extension. Below is a list of free, WSB only apps that are currently available. All you need to do is paste your text into a box on the website and get immediate feedback.

LanguageTool
GrammarCheck
After the Deadline
Online Correction
Paper Rater; also has a premium version available for $7.95/month
SpellCheckPlus Pro
Hemingway App; also available in a desktop version.

Other Grammar Help

In addition to grammar apps, writers may also want to consider other possible grammar and writing support that may be available. If you are a Microsoft Office user, Microsoft Word has some built-in capabilities to assist you with spelling and grammar. You can select the review tab and then select spelling and grammar to identify potential errors in your document.

Also, if you are a student, the college or university you attend may have resources that can provide writing assistance through campus writing centers or labs. These services, offered either in person or online, may vary. Typically, they provide students with individual assistance as they craft ideas and finalize writing. Speaking with someone about a paper may help to refine ideas and identify problems. Writing center staff or tutors may also be able to provide feedback on sentence-level writing concerns, citations, or formatting. Often having support from these campus services can help to instill confidence for beginning writers and improve the quality of the work.

For authors that are not students, some companies offer human proofreading and editing for a fee. Editors can be hired to review your documents and offer writing suggestions for improvement. Another option is to find a writing peer. You can exchange papers and provide editing and proofreading suggestions for each other thereby enhancing the quality of your final product. Or, consider consulting with a high school or college English teacher who can assist with editing.

For international/English as a second language (ESL) writers who struggle to use proper English grammar, they may find it helpful to seek out other editing services. One such service is offered by Editage. For a fee, this company offers English-language editing and publication support. They also offer plagiarism detection and advanced and premium editing services. If relying on a paid editing service it is important to talk with others who have used this service to determine their satisfaction and recommendations.

Remember these grammar services, whether delivered in person or with an app, whether offered for free or for a fee, provide writing suggestions for your consideration. Ultimately, it is your decision to either accept or reject these suggestions. Hopefully using such writing options will help your improve your work and increase your chances of successful publication.

Conclusion

When sharing ideas, it is vital that messages are clear and error-free. Apps and other writing support can help identify writing problems, as well as teach some basic grammar and writing skills to ensure a clearly written document. Proper grammar and writing may also enhance self-efficacy and writing confidence may develop. Remember that all apps and other writing supports are helpful but are not perfect. Nothing replaces careful review and proofreading to ensure a quality paper. However, we hope the suggestions made in this paper will help authors get the support they need to write correctly and clearly.

References

Miller, L. C., Russell, C. L., Cheng, A., & Skarbek, A. J. (2015). Evaluating undergraduate nursing students’ self-efficacy and competency in writing: Effects of a writing intensive intervention. Nursing Education in Practice, 15, 174-180. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2014.12.002
Oermann, M. H., & Hays, J. C. (2016). Writing for publication in nursing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Singla, A. (2017). 7 best online grammar and punctuation checker tools 2017. Retrieved from https://www.bloggertipstricks.com/online-grammar-checker-tools.html
Skrba, A. (2017). Best of the best: Online grammar and punctuation checker tools 2017. Retrieved from https://firstsiteguide.com/grammar-checker-tools/

About the Authors

Jennifer Chicca MS, RN is a Graduate Assistant and PhD Candidate at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA. She is an experienced nurse, and has worked in nursing professional development and with undergraduate and graduate students in a variety of roles and settings. Contact Jennifer by email: j.chicca@iup.edu.

Teresa Shellenbarger PhD, RN, CNE, ANEF is a Distinguished University Professor and the Doctoral Program Coordinator in the Department of Nursing and Allied Health Professions at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA. She is an experienced nurse educator and author. She currently serves as an Author-In-Residence for Nurse Author and Editor and regularly contributes articles about writing. Contact Teresa by email: Tshell@iup.edu.

NAE 2017 27 4 3 Chicca Shellenbarger

The post Featured: Achieving Great Grammar appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Standalone Interviews Do Not Equal Qualitative Research

Tom Christenberry

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(4), 4

Knowledge development flying under the flag of science is extremely widespread (Eisner, 1981). Nurse scientists, whether engaged in quantitative or qualitative studies, commit to systematic and rigorous research methodologies. Observance of well-defined and orderly scientific methodologies limits the possibility of bias influencing a study’s outcomes (Pannucci & Wilkens, 2006). In addition, adherence to sound scientific methodologies restricts the likelihood of “non-science” creeping into the realm of credible science.

Recently, nursing journal editors have detected a trend in submitted manuscripts in which authors are equating information from non-scientific work with knowledge developed from scientific work. The trend has been particularly noticeable when non-research interviews are considered scientifically comparable to qualitative research. Consider the following examples:

Example 1: Authors submitted a manuscript in which they described provision of a stress reduction intervention (mindfulness meditation) for people whose spouses have Huntington’s chorea. Following the intervention, quantitative data were collected. Three months later the authors contacted the spouses to conduct an interview to determine what they thought of the mindfulness intervention (e.g., Was it effective in reducing stress? Were they still meditating?). In the manuscript, the authors presented the spousal interview as qualitative research. The interview, in this case, was not a qualitative research interview but instead was a specific evaluation of a clinical intervention.

Example 2: Faculty in a Bachelor of Science in nursing program decided to implement a “flipped classroom” approach to teaching medical-surgical nursing. Six months post-graduation, the faculty contacted the cohort of 23 students for a follow-up interview about their satisfaction with the flipped classroom experience. In the resulting manuscript, the faculty couched the interview findings in qualitative research language by stating that themes of “satisfaction” emerged and data saturation was achieved. The claim of qualitative research themes emerging is dubious because participants were asked direct questions about flipped classroom “satisfaction.” In addition, even if saturation was not achieved, the authors had no option but to end the interviews because there were no more participants to sample. Again, this is not an example of a qualitative research interview but rather, a course evaluation interview.

The authors, in both examples, are to be commended for continuing evaluation efforts related to each project. Too often, nursing interventions are implemented without long-term evaluation of outcomes. Well-developed and meaningful non-research questions provide important information about specific interventions and other topics.

Comparing non-research interviews with qualitative studies is somewhat understandable because interviews are often integral components of qualitative studies (Sanjari, Bahramnezhad, Fomani, Shoghi, & Cheraghi, 2014). However, a stand-alone non-research interview does not constitute a qualitative study. Interviews, which are not part of a well-developed qualitative research design, are typically stylized engagements aimed at eliciting evaluative information about an identified topic. Contrariwise, qualitative interviews are comprehensive and rigorous research endeavors designed to identify participants’ perceptions about a specific phenomenon and enlighten readers about opinions, attitudes, and behaviors regarding the phenomenon.

Characteristics of Non-Research Interviews

Non-research interviews are independent of qualitative research traditions and are intentionally designed to proffer limited amounts of information. Non-research interviews require a clearly defined purpose to elicit specific responses of interest about the interview’s topic. Interview purposes include: 1) identifying intervention improvement opportunities, 2) assessing participant satisfaction with an intervention, 3) collecting specific information about participants, such as demographic or clinical variables, and 4) assessing participant change in specified attitudes or abilities.

In addition to a clear purpose, non-research interviews, similar to scientific questions, require thoughtful development and must be carefully worded (Patton, 2015). It is important that questions developed for non-research interviews are standardized so that each interviewee receives the same questions, in the same way, and in the same order. Interview standardization is particularly important if the interviewers are novices, students, or others with limited experience. Standardizing the interview questions helps ensure that responses can be aggregated with consistency and that reasonable comparisons can be made among the responses of participants.

Even though non-research interviews may not fit under the domain of either quantitative or qualitative research, the institutional review board (IRB) for protection of human subjects still needs to be consulted regarding review the interview protocol. IRB approval is especially important if the topic of inquiry is controversial or highly sensitive (e.g., remission from opioid drug addiction). In addition, IRB approval must be sought if you plan to present or publish the interview results. Even if the IRB determines that the interview protocol is exempt, keep in mind that this is never your, or the project leader’s determination; it is always in the purview of the IRB.

Many non-research interviews, designed for the purpose of gathering straightforward evaluative information, require a short, fixed time period (e.g., 10 minutes) for administration. Therefore, it is wise to develop highly focused questions to establish interview priorities (Patton, 2015). For example, if you want to know about the timeliness of an intervention, avoid an open-ended question such as, “Tell me about how timely the intervention was given your busy schedule.” Instead, you may want to ask for a rank ordering response such as, “On a scale from 0 to 5 with 0 being the least and 5 being the most, how timely was the intervention?”

Writing the interview questions in advance of the interview and writing questions precisely the way they are to be asked in the interview (i.e., standardized) allows you to construct a credible interview form. Editors and other stakeholders, such as peer reviewers, may ask to review the interview form as a means to assess legitimacy of the interview findings. Standardized interviews are frequently used to gather data in quantitative research. Importantly, unless you have rigorously designed the project as a credible quantitative study, the standardized interview alone does not constitute a research study.

In review, there are four primary areas to consider when writing non-research interview questions:

The exact interview form must be available for review by editors, publishers, IRB, or other key stakeholders.
Standardization of the interview is critical, especially if there is variation among the interviewers.
The interview form should be focused and direct to promote maximum efficiency.
Standardization of the interview form is necessary to enable comparisons among participant responses.

Non-research interviews are used to evaluate interventions or programs that have similar outcomes for all participants. Non-scientific interviews are useful for measuring predetermined effects of an intervention on participants and play an important role in evaluation and other efforts to assess outcomes.

Qualitative Research Interviews

Qualitative research traditions originated in the social and behavioral sciences including sociology, anthropology, and psychology and have been used to optimum effect in nursing science (Alasuutari, 2010; Miller, 2010). Qualitative research is the study of the world from the viewpoint of the person(s) under study. Qualitative research is pluralistic and consists of a variety of credible traditions including phenomenology, history, ethnography, grounded theory and case studies (Patton, 2015).

Qualitative research interviews differ from non-research interviews in important ways. Table 1 lists types of interview questions that are often seen in qualitative research. Qualitative research enables the use of diverse research paradigms. Interview protocols associated with qualitative studies provide in-depth information about the participants’ lived experiences and viewpoints associated with a particular phenomenon. Conducting an in-depth qualitative interview requires specialized interview skillsets, knowledge, and experience.

Table 1. Types of Qualitative Interviews

Notably, qualitative research interviews, regardless of their tradition (e.g., phenomenology, history, ethnography, grounded theory, case study) are highly rigorous scientific endeavors. The rigor of qualitative interviews is directly related to the qualitative study’s trustworthiness. Trustworthiness establishes the worth of a qualitative study by demonstrating that study procedures are appropriate, evidence is sound, and findings are neutral and unbiased. Strategies to ensure qualitative interview trustworthiness are addressed by using criteria from Lincoln and Guba (1991):

Credibility: demonstration of confidence in the truth of the study’s findings
Transferability: reasonable submission that study findings may be applicable in other contexts
Dependability: Demonstration that findings are consistent and amenable to replication
Confirmability: The degree of study neutrality as it is shaped by the study’s participants and not the author’s bias, impetus, or personal interest.

A summary of the four strategies to assist in establishing interview trustworthiness are described in Table 2.

Table 2. Establishing Trustworthiness of Qualitative Interviews (adapted from Lincoln & Guba, 1991)

Conclusion

Qualitative research is complex and requires thoughtful and meaningful development of interview methodologies. Straightforward standardized interview questions are not reflective of the rigorous and systematic processes required to create qualitative research questions. Standardized questions are generally excellent for retrieving specific sets of information about a particular topic. Incontestably, standalone standardized questions do not constitute qualitative research endeavors and should not be disguised as qualitative research in submitted manuscripts.

References

Alasuutari, P. (2010). The rise and relevance of qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(2), 139-155.
Eisner, E. W. (1981). On the differences between scientific and artistic approaches to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 10(4), 5-9.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1991). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, W. R. (2010). Qualitative research findings as evidence: Utility in nursing practice. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 24(4), 191-193.
Pannucci, C. J. & Wilkens, E. G. (2006). Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 126(2), 619-625.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sanjari, M., Bahramnezhad, F., Fomani, F. K., Shoghi, M., & Cheraghi, M. A. (2014). Ethical challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: The necessity to develop specific guidelines. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine 7(14), 1-6. Retrieved October 26, 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263394/

About the Author

Tom Christenbery, PhD, RN, CNE is Professor of Nursing and Director of Program Evaluation at Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, TN, USA. You may contact Tom at tom.christenbery@vanderbilt.edu

NAE 2017 27 4 4 Christenbery

The post Featured: Interviews and Qualitative Research appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Politics and Professional Nursing Journals

Peggy Chinn and Shawn Kennedy

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(4), 5

Professional journals, while dedicated to the concerns of a particular discipline, are published in a cultural and political context that inevitably affects the content of the journal. Nursing journals are no exception and there are multitudes of issues that find their way to the Editor’s desk, presenting a choice of if, how, and when an issue should be addressed in the journal pages. While there is debate concerning the place of political content in professional journals (Glick, Clarfield, Strous, & Horton, 2015), we believe that such content is inevitable for nursing journals since all professional nursing content touches on, or is touched by matters of social, cultural, and political consequence. Objectivity is simply not possible in light of our professional ethics, standards, and contract with society,

Readers of nursing journals come from all possible political, religious, and value traditions which means that unsurprisingly, any time a nursing journal publishes content that touches on a controversial topic, some readers will cheer, others will remain neutral, and some will object. Nonetheless, as a discipline that is grounded in the value of promoting health and well-being for all, nursing journal editors have a duty to assure that the content of their journals reflect this value, even when the topic is controversial, hotly debated, and perhaps even divisive in political terms.

A host of local, national, and international political matters that influence our discipline are taken for granted, or not recognized, because of assumptions embedded in the cultures in which readers, editors, and publishers live and work. For example, the content of English-language journals published in the United States might reflect the assumption that nursing is practiced in a for-profit environment, where economic constraints operate differently from those in countries where government subsidies ensure healthcare for all. Other issues more clearly rise to the top and are easily recognized as controversial and political. Issues such as gun violence, safe needle exchange, and women’s reproductive rights present a clear dilemma for journal editors who must decide how to proceed when these kinds of issues are at the forefront and clearly relate to the underlying nursing value of promoting health, well-being and self-actualization.

At this particular time in history, with political views deeply divided and with a shrinking common ground from which to work, editors of journals face difficult decisions related to controversial content. The fact is that Editors cannot simply ignore these issues. Ignoring an issue, not speaking out, or taking a stand translates to endorsement of the status quo, which may not be in the interest of health and human well-being and go against our professional ethics. Even when journal content reflects all sides of a controversial issue, it is impossible to treat all sides as equally plausible when it is clear that some choices are harmful to health and our ability to provide high quality nursing care, while other choices prevent harm and promote health and nursing excellence.

Controversial and political content can show up in obvious ways, by deliberate choice, while in other instances it crops up in unexpected ways. Editors can choose, even solicit, opinion pieces or articles that address certain controversial topics. For journals that cover current events in nursing and healthcare, it is inevitable that this coverage will touch on current controversial topics. In other instances, an article on a seemingly “neutral” topic might prompt responses that amplify the controversial issues embedded in the content. A review article on women’s health that includes clinical content on contraception and abortion may become a “hot button” for those who are opposed to these interventions. A research report that addresses health disparities among certain cultural groups might raise heated debate concerning a term used to represent or describe selected cultural groups. An article describing a nursing approach to assessment of a child for signs of physical abuse might appear just at the time a high-profile child abuse case appears in the news, creating an outcry—both positive and negative—from readers who now see this content in light of the case that is in the news.

The extent to which a journal covers controversial content is influenced by the journal’s purpose, the direction and values of the journal leadership, including the editor, associate editors, and advisory board members, and the journal’s historical record that sets a “tone” related to controversial matters. A journal with a specific value stance, such as the Journal of Christian Nursing, is expected to take a certain stand on many issues, and to publish content that addresses controversial issues that arise from its particular perspective. Journals with a focus that does not obviously point to a value stance, such as CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing or the Journal of Nursing Administration, can still encounter issues surrounded by controversy, in this case value issues involved in developing electronic medical records. Journals with a clear clinical focus, such as Heart & Lung: Journal of Acute and Critical Care or Journal of Infusion Nursing are less likely to deal with political issues, but since there are many controversial issues touching clinical practice, the editorial leadership of the journal plays a major role in the extent to which controversy appears in the journal content.

The American Journal of Nursing (AJN), for example, was founded in 1900 at a time in history when world-wide conflict escalated into two world wars. The first editor, Sophia Palmer, had a strong commitment to the early development of the profession and provided editorial leadership to bring controversial issues to the forefront. The journal included content of clinical relevance, as well as content addressing nursing’s place relative to the political issues of the day. As an example, during the first 40 years of the journal, the United States government and a number of other governments worldwide provided education for women to enter nursing as a way of increasing the nursing workforce in their military services. This context created strong controversy within the nursing profession and the editorial leadership of the journal took on the challenge of giving voice to all who either supported, or objected to nurses being involved in war. Palmer’s tone set the stage for AJN’s editorial charge. As the legacy journal of American nursing, AJN’s subject matter therefore has to and should include discussion of all issues that may have an effect on the health and well-being of those we care for, as well as issues related to how we as nurses provide that care effectively. It serves not just its readership, but the profession, covering issues that may be unpopular but important, documenting how nurses think about such issues and how nursing as a profession responds (or not) to pressing issues of the times.

Advances in Nursing Science was established in 1978 when nursing theory and research had become firmly established, but with a very limited number of journals focusing on the development of nursing knowledge. The founding of ANS was heavily influenced by the mid-20th century movements that challenged the assumptions of traditional science, notably critical-social theories and philosophies that emerged in Europe and in feminist movements worldwide. Hence the purpose of ANS was to publish content that met the highest standards of scholarship, and that also brought to light insights challenging the status quo of scientific conduct. This social context called for content that was on the cusp of change. Articles appeared (and still appear) that provide sound rationale for questioning what is taken for granted, and pointing to new directions in the conduct and focus of nursing scholarship that improves nursing and healthcare.

Reader Responses

At this moment in history when political ideologies are deeply divided, and public talk involving controversy lacks substance and often, facts, we believe that it is time for nurses and the nursing profession to step up to the challenge of healing our discourses involving controversy. Hostile, even vitriolic confrontations are a fundamental threat to human well-being; we believe that nurses and the profession can demonstrate healing in our public discourses. Nursing journals, by publishing content that reflects controversy and disagreement can lead the way to demonstrate the art of disagreement. Nursing journal content provides you, the reader, an opportunity to enter into discussions of various points of view and values in a positive and constructive way. In a recent New York Times opinion column, Bret Stephens wrote:

. . . no country can have good government, or a healthy public square, without high-quality journalism — journalism that can distinguish a fact from a belief and again from an opinion; that understands that the purpose of opinion isn’t to depart from facts but to use them as a bridge to a larger idea called “truth”; and that appreciates that truth is a large enough destination that, like Manhattan, it can be reached by many bridges of radically different designs. In other words, journalism that is grounded in facts while abounding in disagreements (Stephens, 2017).

Nursing journals have a duty to provide the “healthy public square” in our discipline, presenting well-founded facts and using reasoned opinion to prompt healthy discussion of vital issues that shape nursing, the quality of care, and the well-being of those we serve. Your role, as a reader, is to enter into the discussion of the issues, bringing to the discussion an open mind, well-conceived opinions and perspectives on an issue, and a commitment to unveil matters of disagreement in a way that informs all of our understanding of the issues. As Editors, we want to hear from you, and welcome your contribution to our larger discussion! Just keep it civil, open, reflecting your eagerness to listen and understand the basis on which our disagreements rest!

References

Glick, S., Clarfield, A. M., Strous, R. D., & Horton, R. (2015). Academic debate: Publications which promote political agendas have no place in scientific and medical journals, and academics should refrain from publishing in such journals. Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal, 6(1), e0003. https://doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10178
Stephens, B. (2017, September 24). The dying art of disagreement. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/opinion/dying-art-of-disagreement.html

About the Authors

Maureen “Shawn” Kennedy, MA, RN, FAAN is Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Nursing and a member of the Authors-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor.

NAE 2017 27 4 5 Chinn Kennedy

The post Featured: Politics and Professional Nursing Journals appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

What Does an Editor-in-Chief Actually Do: The View from the Journal of Advanced Nursing

Roger Watson

Nurse Author & Editor, 2017, 27(4), 6

I recall a television programme about a famous orchestra with a distinguished conductor. The conductor was being filmed putting the orchestra through its paces prior to an important performance and he was asked a question which, I am sure, many have wondered: “Could the orchestra play just as well without you?” to which the conductor replied, “Oh yes, easily.” He turned to the orchestra, tapped his baton on the music stand and told them to play, which they did…perfectly. Frankly, I sometimes wonder if it is not the same for Editors-in-Chief.

Different journals operate different models of editorship and use a range of titles. Sometimes, “Editor” and “Editor-in-Chief” are used. Here, I am referring to an Editor-in-Chief who is responsible for a team of editors and who is not necessarily involved in the daily work of dealing with reviews and reviewers or, generally, corresponding with the authorship of their journal. This certainly describes what I don’t do at Journal of Advanced Nursing, but what is it that I—or any other Editor-in-Chief with a similar role—do?

When I do writing workshops around the world I am often asked what the “chief editor” does and my reply is invariably: maintaining copy flow; ensuring quality in what is published; and promoting the journal internationally. Of course, I do not do this alone and work with an excellent team—editors and publishing staff—without whom copy flow and quality would be impossible. I know my editing and publishing colleagues also do a great deal to promote the journal. So, in terms of the above aspects of editorial work, the team could probably function perfectly well without me. I do filter what goes forward to editors as I am the first to see submissions but this is not rocket science. We are inundated with submissions—which is good—and we have the luxury of selecting those which look most interesting, clearly fit the scope of the journal and which are written in accordance with out guidelines. I also sign off all the accepted manuscripts from editors and edit the final manuscript and correct the final proofs. Again, it is not inconceivable that another member of the team could do this. Perhaps the one difference here is that I take sole responsibility for what is published; this is not shared.

Beyond that is where my job as Editor-in-Chief has some unique aspects. I am in almost daily contact—sometimes several times daily—with the publisher about a wide range of issues. I keep a distance from the reviewing processes of the journal so that I can deal, independently, with appeals against editorial decisions. These are infrequent but remarkably time consuming. Investigating alleged breaches of publication ethics is also in my domain and, while not common these can also be very time consuming. Such is the length of the investigations that it is very rare not to be dealing with at least one case at any given time.

The above are tangible examples of the management and administrative work of an Editor-in-Chief but the less tangible aspect of the role is leadership and vision. These involve keeping abreast of developments in academic publishing and having views, for the publisher and for the audiences I frequently address across the world, on these developments. Essentially, it is a matter of deciding what should be implemented in the journal to keep us up-to-date and ahead of competitors in our procedures and processes, especially related to international standards in the field. Sometimes these decisions are subtle, such as updating our author guidance; sometimes they are quite significant such as our periodic decisions at JAN not to accept particular categories of manuscript which are no longer being cited.

The work of an Editor-in-Chief is composed of regular, daily aspects which ensure that authors receive the best possible service in terms of rapid decisions and equitable treatment. However, some aspects are very varied and infrequent. The role of Editor-in-Chief of a major journal in any field is a considerable privilege and one which, generally, commands respect in your profession. Sometimes we do not get things right, but one of the major qualities of any Editor-in-Chief must be an ability to learn from mistakes, quickly make amends when things go wrong, and to ensure that mistakes are not repeated. The reputation of a journal, a team of editors, and a publishing house is in your hands.

About the Author

Roger Watson, PhD, FAAN, FRCN is Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Advanced Nursing; Editor, Nursing Open, and Professor of Nursing, University of Hull, UK. He is also a member of the Authors-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor. Contact Roger by email: r.watson@hull.ac.uk and follow him on Twitter: @rwatson1955. His ORCiD ID is orcid.org/0000-0001-8040-7625

NAE 2017 27 4 6 Watson

The post Editor-in-Chief Role: View from JAN appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

The Manuscript Option Dissertation: Dissemination and Challenges

Marion E. Broome

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(1), 1

Introduction

Dissemination of a student’s dissertation findings is always a goal of doctoral (PhD) students and their faculty committees. In most cases the dissertation is the culmination of an average of four years engaging in an in-depth study of an important research problem. The dissertation committee is composed of four to six faculty members from several disciplines whose expertise in theory, methods, and analytics support the student’s area of study. In general, members of the committee will ultimately participate in publications derived from the work, and are expected to meet the criteria for authorship described by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; www.icmje.org).

Traditional dissertations vary in length but typically consist of 5-8 “chapters” and may be anywhere from 75 to 300 pages long…sometimes more! In nursing, the most common structure is five chapters, as follows:

Chapter One, an introduction describing the problem or gap in knowledge, scope, significance, research aims or questions;
Chapter Two, containing a review of extant literature and if appropriate, a theoretical framework;
Chapter Three, a methods chapter which describes the design, hypotheses or research questions, sample, procedures, and analytic approaches used in the study;
Chapter Four, primarily concerned with reporting the findings; and
Chapter Five, consisting of the discussion and recommendations.

Graduates who choose the traditional dissertation format must then decide post-graduation how they will distill the findings from the dissertation into publishable papers, which is always a challenge. An alternative format for reporting dissertation findings, most commonly called the “manuscript option dissertation,” or the “three article dissertation” (Robinson & Dracup, 2008) has both advantages and disadvantages for the PhD student/candidate/graduate (see Table 1). The manuscript option dissertation is gaining traction is schools and colleges of nursing in the US and internationally. This article will discuss issues to consider in deciding “yea or nay” for the traditional versus this alternative format.

Why the manuscript option dissertation?

The manuscript option format for a dissertation is not new. Other disciplines, such as geography, sociology, and some sciences, have been using the format for many years. The primary rationale for many schools of nursing who have chosen to use the manuscript option was the recognition that publishing scholarly papers is a lifelong skill for doctorally prepared nurses who assume academic positions, as well as those who work in magnet designated health systems. Graduates who publish while in their PhD program and also have manuscripts either “ready to go” or under review are more competitive for assistant professorships or post-doctoral fellowships. In other words, they are ready to hit the ground running.

Types of manuscripts from manuscript option dissertations

The first paper published from a manuscript option dissertation is usually submitted during the student’s second or third year in their program. Common topics these initial manuscripts often are:

Theoretical framework, if original
Concept analysis
Systematic review
Methodology
The protocol for a clinical trial
Pilot study findings

A review of several school of nursing websites that allow a manuscript option dissertation (University of Texas at Austin, Indiana University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) reflect some common principles for papers that will be accepted. In particular, papers included in the dissertation must be judged as publishable quality by committee and each paper must be substantially related to the topic of the dissertation. In some schools, at least one paper should actually be published; at others none are required to be published in order to graduate. Additional guidelines state no other student can be included as an author and that the PhD student must be first author of the manuscript. Committee members are often co-authors on the various manuscripts once submitted for publication. Finally, most agree that any revisions of manuscripts submitted need to be approved by members of the committee. Interestingly, outside of nursing, there are disciplines that do not allow multiple authors or require justification for authorship.

Examples of manuscripts from manuscript option dissertations are listed in Table 2. In most schools of nursing, at least two of the papers must be data-based. Therefore, the student must discuss with their advisor and committee what would be appropriate findings to report in the data-based papers and determine who is interested in working on the manuscripts for submission to a journal. Often different members of the committee, with specific expertise (for example, in the method or analysis), would be author(s) on one paper but not on a second. However, all members can participate actively as co-authors, and the order of authorship would reflect their expertise and depth of involvement.

Potential challenges to consider for a manuscript option dissertation

The conceptual organization of the “dissertation report” is different, with three of the five “chapters” consisting of manuscripts in either the final word-processed or PDF document which was submitted for publication, or a manuscript that is “suitable for publication.” In some schools or colleges using this format, faculty have less skill and experience publishing research reports. They may lack awareness of issues surrounding copyright which sometimes leads to confusion on the part of the student or committee when working with editors and publishers of scholarly journals. If the paper has already been published, then the student needs to obtain permission to include the final version in the dissertation. If this permission cannot be secured, then final word-processed or PDF document of the manuscript should be included in the dissertation (Baggs, 2011). Editors and publishers are working to understand copyright issues in this area and certainly want students to be successful in sharing their results, so realize we are all are on a learning curve in this area.

There is always the potential for overlap across some of the papers, especially in the methods section. Committees should carefully plan with the student which paper should be submitted first. Some journals (or reviewers) ask authors to publish all their data in one paper, despite page limitations, making it difficult for students to select those journals as appropriate outlets for dissemination. The ethics about order of co-authorship should also be considered and discussed among committee members with the student early on in the research process (Gross, Alhusen & Jennings, 2012).

Occasionally doctoral students and/or graduates call or email an editor asking for advice as they plan for dissemination of their dissertation. In my experience, it is very difficult to report all of the findings of a dissertation level research project in one manuscript and provide a thorough explanation of the methods and findings. To give the most helpful advice, the editor should ask for all abstracts of the planned manuscripts as well as those already accepted for publication. Any significant overlap should be identified and discussed with the author. I always advise authors to make it clear to the reader that the manuscript is reporting findings that were part of a larger study and cite the other paper(s). Of course the aims, most of the review of the literature, all of the findings and discussion should be different for each manuscript. I find providing this advice, and usually referring authors to several other journals as well as my own if appropriate, saves time and encourages dissertation results, which in the past sat on a shelf far too often, to be disseminated.

References

Baggs, J. (2011). The dissertation manuscript option, internet posting and publication. Research in Nursing and Health, 34(2), 89-90. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20420
Gross, D., Alhusen, A., & Jennings, B.M. (2012). Authorship ethics with the dissertation the manuscript option. Research in Nursing and Health, 35(5), 431-34. DOI: 10.1002/nur.21500
Robinson, S. & Dracup, K. (2008). Innovative options for the doctoral dissertation in nursing. Nursing Outlook 56 (4), 174-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2008.03.004

About the Author

Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN is the Ruby F. Wilson Professor of Nursing and Dean, School of Nursing at Duke University. She is Editor-in-chief of Nursing Outlook: The Official journal of the American Academy of Nursing and the Council for the Advancement of Nursing Science.

2018 28 1 1 Broome

The post Featured: The Manuscript Option Dissertation appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Reference Letters and the Specter of Publications in Predatory Journals

Jacqueline K. Owens and Peggy Chinn

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(1), 2

In the course of your professional duties, you may be asked to provide a recommendation or review the scholarly work of a peer. Nurses in academic or editorial roles often serve as peer reviewers either because they have knowledge about the area of scholarship of the person under review, or they serve as a blind reviewer for submitted manuscripts or activities demonstrating scholarship. Writing review letters or serving as a peer reviewer of manuscripts is prompted by a desire to serve the discipline. The intent is to provide expert commentary that assists decision-makers to render an informed conclusion about the outcome under consideration.

Recently each of us, external to our roles as editors, agreed to serve as a reviewer for nurse faculty under consideration for promotion, tenure or retention, only to subsequently discover a difficult situation. Knowing the rigor inherent to the academic review process, we had every reason to expect that the person’s achievements had already undergone internal scrutiny, putting forward this individual as worthy of consideration for promotion, tenure, and/or retention. However, these individuals had published articles in journals identified as predatory, disreputable publications. This article describes our experiences and offers potential considerations and solutions to this uncomfortable dilemma.

External Reviews

External reviewers serve the purpose of providing expert assessment of an individual’s record of scholarship, with evidence of contributions to the discipline beyond local boundaries. These are never cursory reviews; external reviewers are called upon to provide specific analysis and rationale supporting the quality and significance of the person’s work, and the potential of this person to continue to make significant contributions to the discipline.

As the term “external” suggests, reviewers may or may not have personal experience or knowledge of the individual under review, but they are in a position to provide an assessment from the perspective of the broad disciplinary community. These reviewers are selected because they are not directly involved with the individual in their workplace. However, because external reviewers are selected for their expertise and familiarity with a given area of scholarship, it is not unusual for them to already know about the person’s work. They may have encountered the person in some professional capacity, such as in the context of a professional organization, as a former student, or other past association. Letters of review always include a statement summarizing any prior association or knowledge about the person under review in order to establish the extent to which the reviewer is “external.”

The Review Process

Scholars in the local setting have already vouched for the person by forwarding the dossier to external review. Thus, reviewers typically expect to find an abundance of evidence in the dossier supporting a well-qualified candidate for promotion, tenure, or retention. The institution often sends the criteria on which the person is being assessed; occasionally they simply ask for an assessment of the dossier in consideration of general expectations for rank typical in similar institutions.

As reviewers, we first approach the task by examining the personal statement in which the individual typically, and rightfully, highlights the good things they have accomplished to deserve a positive review. We examine the curriculum vitae (CV) to assure it reflects the details in the personal statement, and note any aspects reflected in the CV that the personal statement does not show. We look for evidence that the person’s work is widely recognized; that other scholars draw upon the work of this person; and indications that the person’s influence is reaching national and international audiences. We may read student and peer evaluations of teaching, if they are included. And finally, we read the published articles submitted in the dossier. If we find any “red flags” we examine the material again to be sure we have not missed anything.

Our Red Flag: Predatory Publications

Given the exhaustive, rigorous process that occurs to the point to external review, we rarely find red flags. When we each (independently) recently found ourselves in the situation of discovering articles published in predatory journals, we were stunned. We completed our reviews, as described below. Likely we would have not addressed this further had we not shared our experiences during discussions at the annual meeting of the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE). We then realized that this is not an isolated situation.

INANE members first brought the problem of predatory publishing in nursing to public attention in 2014 when we published a collaborative statement about predatory publishing (INANE “Predatory Publishing Practices” Collaborative, 2014). We participated in the INANE-led initiative to write editorials about this concern in our respective journals (“Editorials Published: Open Access & Editorial Standards,” 2014). We have written, led workshops, and lectured at various gatherings to alert faculty to the challenges and confusion surrounding legitimate open access publishing, predatory publishing, and the important distinctions between these digital-age phenomena (Nicoll & Chinn, 2015). All of these efforts over the past 3 years, however, have only scratched the surface to educate nurses about unethical publishing practices.

When we made this discovery during our external reviews, each of us had similar experiences and reactions. Our overall assessment of the dossiers we reviewed provided evidence of accomplishments that were worthy of a positive review. This included the articles published in predatory publications. But the fact that these articles, even though worthy, were published in what we also call “illegitimate” or “disreputable” publications casts serious doubt about the person’s record of accomplishment.

Predatory publishers like, and eagerly accept, articles that lend credibility to their enterprise, but this does not diminish the fact that this is a serious problem for the author(s) of such articles. There are several serious concerns. First, in all likelihood, the article has not undergone the rigorous peer review prior to publication that assures readers that experts in the subject matter and methodology have found the work credible and authentic. This vetting is vitally important for the integrity of the literature in the discipline, and incredibly significant in terms of possible patient outcomes if the work ultimately influences nursing practice. The published work, while available on the journal website at the time of publication, is not properly indexed or archived; it may vanish from view at any moment. There is no long-term assurance it will remain available to an interested reader.

Given these concerns, the red flag escalated to a dilemma. In our role as external reviewers, we are expected to affirm that the person under consideration for promotion, tenure, or retention is engaging in scholarship and producing scholarly work expected to influence the discipline in a positive way now and in the future. Even if we are convinced that the published work is sound and important, we know that because of where it is published, the article likely will never be discovered by other scholars searching the literature for information on this topic. Affirmation of this work lends credibility to questionable published practices that have been deemed unethical by many (INANE “Predatory Publishing Practices” Collaborative, 2014) and serves to diminish the trustworthiness each nurse places in the body of published literature.

Our Solutions

Each of us reached the painful conclusion that in all good conscience, we must address this issue in our letters of recommendation. We include here (see below) excerpts of our responses in the hope that these examples can be useful to others making this same discovery during review work. A tactful and thoughtfully composed response can provide an excellent opportunity to educate others who may be unaware about the concerns inherent to unethical predatory publishing practice.

Example 1 (Chinn)

I am concerned that one of the publications appears in a journal published by a deceptive or predatory publisher . . . . In my view, this publication could qualify for publication in a credible journal, but the problem of predatory publishing is still not well understood and many nursing scholars remain vulnerable to making this choice in the quest for publication. For more information on this problem see “Caught in the Trap: the Allure of Deceptive Publishers.” Also refer to the recent “early view” article titled “Quality of Articles Published in Predatory Nursing Journals” in which the authors (of which I am one) explain the hazards of publishing in these journals, noting that there are occasional articles of high, even excellent quality. In my assessment Dr. ______’s article, it falls in this category. While there is a trend for promotion and tenure committees to disregard publications in predatory journals, I highly recommend that this concern not be seen as a barrier in her promotion and tenure consideration. In part, this is due to the timing of this publication when the problem of predatory publishing is still emerging as a concern in nursing, and in part because the published article does have merit. However, it is important for the College faculty to be aware of this issue, and assure that future publications for all nursing faculty appear only in journals that assure sound editorial practices. For more information about delineating adequate publishing outlets see “Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals” and most recently “Cabell’s New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review.”

Example 2 (Owens)

I do have some concern with the 20XX publication, “[removed].” The [journal name] is published by [publisher name]. This publisher is listed on Jeffrey Beall’s List of [predatory] Publishers indicating that it is a potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher. I did also confirm with Mr. Beall via email that this journal is one of a fleet of journals offered by predatory publisher, [publisher name]. The term “predatory publishers” was created by Beall, an academic librarian whose focus of study is unethical, open access publishing practices. Beall has created a blog that lists both predatory publishers and standalone predatory journals, called Scholarly Open Access; it can be found at https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/. Briefly, some major concerns related to predatory publishing include lack of appropriate and credible peer review, discoverability, and archiving. Mr. Beall’s excellent work has enlightened many related to the concerns of predatory publishing. However, in my conversations both as a faculty member and a journal editor, it is evident that even a great many well-respected, senior scholars in many disciplines are unaware of this practice. These publishers have become increasingly sophisticated in the presentation of the journals, and it is sometimes very difficult to detect predatory practices.

I could not locate this journal in either of the two most commonly used database indexing services in healthcare, MEDLINE, or the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). This is likely because of predatory status of the publisher. The potential outreach of [person under review]’s work is significantly diminished if it cannot be located in the major databases used in healthcare. In sum, I believe that [person under review] conducted credible post dissertation work and has good information to share with researchers and clinicians interested in [topic]. However, it is my opinion that at best, this is not a top-tier journal, and at worst, it is likely a journal using unethical, predatory publishing practices (per Mr. Beall’s, and my own, evaluation).

NOTE: At the time of this review, Beall’s Lists were the most current resources related to predatory publishers. Beall’s lists have been removed and are no longer a current resource; however, there are resources available in the literature to identify red flags for unethical publishing practices and predatory publishers.

Conclusion

Having engaged in discussions at INANE meetings around the concerns of predatory publishing for several years, we understand that there remains a long way to go before these issues are clearly understood. This problem is not going away—it is growing. Even still, it was startling to discover nursing scholars presenting work published in disreputable publications as part of dossiers for promotion, tenure, and retention.

Should you, as an external reviewer, encounter the dilemma of writing a recommendation for a person with a publication in a predatory journal, or perhaps a national or global level presentation at a conference sponsored by one of these publishers, we hope that this article will inform your response. The profession of nursing has been at the forefront of education about predatory publishing (“Editorials Published: Open Access & Editorial Standards,” 2014). It is important that nurse leaders and scholars continue this effort whenever the occasion arises. As education about unethical publishing practices continues, it will soon no longer be acceptable to claim naïveté on this matter and unknowingly publish in a disreputable journal. The time is approaching when it will be only reasonable to assume that an author has deliberately chosen this option, disregarding the potential devastating effect on the credibility of all scholarly literature (Kolata, 2017).

References

Editorials Published: Open Access & Editorial Standards. (2014, November 9). Retrieved November 14, 2017, from https://nursingeditors.com/inane-initiatives/open-access-editorial-standards/editorials-published-open-access-editorial-standards/
INANE “Predatory Publishing Practices” Collaborative. (2014). Predatory publishing: what editors need to know. Nurse Author & Editor, 24, 1. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/predatory-publishing/2014-24-3-2/
Kolata, G. (2017, October 30). Many academics are eager to publish in worthless journals. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html
Nicoll, L. H., & Chinn, P. L. (2015). Caught in the trap: the allure of deceptive publishers. Nurse Author & Editor, (4), 4. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NAE-2015-25-4-4-Nicoll.pdf
Oermann, M. H., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L., Ashton, K. S., Conklin, J. L., Edie, A. H., … Williams, B. L. (2017). Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005

About the Authors

Jacqueline K. Owens, PhD, RN, CNE is Editor-in-Chief, OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing and Associate Professor and Director, RN to BSN Program, Ashland University, Ashland, OH, USA. She is also a member of the Authors-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor.

2018 28 1 2 Owens Chinn

The post Featured: Reference Letters and Predatory Journals appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

What Does an Editor Do? Creates a Succession Plan

Teresa Shellenbarger and Patricia S. Yoder-Wise

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(1), 3

Through a variety of sources such as those published in Nurse Author & Editor, many readers know the basics of what an editor does (Miller & Burke, 2017; Watson, 2013; Watson, 2017). These activities include receiving and reviewing manuscripts, deciding which ones are sent to reviewers and who those reviewers should be. The editor also considers what reviewers say and makes a final decision about the author’s next step. Sometimes that means synthesizing disparate views or it may involve softening a message so the author can “hear” what to do next. Editors also work with the publisher to consider aspects of publication including marketing, circulation, reader analysis, and journal usage.

Having been an editor for several years, I, Pat Yoder-Wise, decided several years ago to be active in developing the next generation of editors. As a result, Nursing Forum created a Deputy Editor position that allowed for mentoring and ensuring that the next cohort of editors would develop the essential skills to be ready to assume an editor role in the future. The title, Deputy Editor, was proposed by the first person to occupy this role, Maria Shirey. The intent was to show this was a distinct role within the Review Board; the expectation was that the deputy editor would eventually accept the role as an editor for a publication. Maria has done this and is now the Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Healthcare Quality. At Nursing Forum, we once again have a distinguished author with prior editorial board experience, Teresa Shellenbarger, serving as Deputy Editor and assuming a joint role to review and update the work of the journal and be guided in development of critical skills.

Just as in healthcare, academia, and professional organizations, succession planning comprises an important part of the strategic vision for an editor and journal. Major life events such as illness, changes in work roles, or even an expansion in journal demands are other reasons to consider the development of future leaders who can carry on the journal work if needed. Carefully considering who can follow in leadership positions ensures that qualified people are available to fill those important roles, promotes consistency during transitions, offers stability in operation and management of journal activities, and possibly decreases the amount of time needed for a successor to take over (Branden & Sharts-Hopko, 2017). This opportunity to develop the talent of others and cultivate their knowledge, skills, and attitudes allows editors to “pay it forward,” offer responsible stewardship, and feel they are contributing to the future of the journal and development of others (Marshall & Broome, 2017).

Factors for Editors to Consider

The goal of selecting a deputy editor is to develop individuals with a career aspiration of being an editor with additional skills to make that person more successful in a future selection process. Additionally, the intent is to have someone well versed in the ongoing operations of a journal, in this case Nursing Forum, so that they could readily assume the editor role, even for a provisional time. Thus, this developmental activity is a combination of creating an interim staffing agent and a leadership succession plan. An editor will want to consider a variety of factors to select a deputy editor, including choosing the right person who is suitable for the role, with respect to timing, work relationships, and expectations.

The editor will want to seek an individual who is emerging as a potential leader in publication. A good deputy editor is likely someone who has an understanding of the review process used by journals, publication experience, and prior editorial board involvement. One place to begin the search is to look at the journal’s pool of board members and reviewers. Reviewers who provide quality reviews that are sensitive to authors, submit them in a timely manner, and offer well-written, thoughtful, and constructive feedback when critiquing manuscripts become prime candidates. Board members who offer useful suggestions or raise insightful questions regarding journal operations could also be considered. Having an established professional network is also helpful for the deputy editor as this can be used to recruit potential contributors and reviewers. Lastly, publication history is important because the deputy editor should be someone who has experience as a successful author. Having this beginning understanding of the various roles associated with journal publication provides a solid foundation from which to build. If the deputy editor is missing any of these experiences, learning opportunities may need to be provided to gain this understanding.

Another key factor to consider in the selection of a deputy editor is the professional working styles of those involved. It is important to have or develop a relationship that allows for open communication, mutual respect, and exchange of ideas and information. Editors may also want to consider individuals who provide a complementary skill set. If the editor tends to be a big picture thinker and faces challenges managing details, then a deputy editor who brings those strengths can be helpful. Also, having two people who approach problems or issues in a different way may be more effective than working in isolation and only seeing one viewpoint.

Clearly specifying the roles and expectations for the deputy editor is important to ensure understanding of the responsibilities that come with the job. The editor needs to realize that this is a mentoring relationship and activities that have been typically addressed solely by the editor may now require collaborative decision making. Processes need to be explained so that the deputy editor can see the full scope of editing activities and understand rationales for decisions that are made. The editor also needs to be willing to accept critical review of journal operations as the deputy editor may bring forward new ideas or challenge existing processes. Regular and ongoing contact, either via phone conference or in-person meetings is essential for discussion of various aspects of the work. Critically important is the fact that the deputy editor has to feel free to speak up regarding learning needs, problems, and new ideas.

The Role of the Deputy Editor

Various activities comprise the role of the deputy editor. Although the deputy editor eventually can assume all of the work of an editor, our initial work at Nursing Forum focused on review of the mission statement and aims and scope for the journal. This allowed for both the editor and deputy editor to shape the ongoing vision for the journal for the board’s consideration. We also reviewed the Guidelines for Authors to make them more comprehensive as more specific expectations have evolved for various manuscript formats. For example, there has been an increase in clinical trial reports being submitted to Nursing Forum but guidance for preparing these manuscripts was not mentioned in the Information for Authors. These developments allowed us to collaboratively craft the guidelines for future journal submissions. This type of work needs to be reviewed by the broader board membership for their views so they can provide further input on the comprehensiveness of the work and a revalidation of the mission, aims, and scope of the journal. Once this initial work is completed, we will ask the Editorial Board to review what we have done and offer further advice.

Other activities for the deputy editor include recruiting additional reviewers and editorial board members and examining the peer review process and reviewer activities. Jointly, we make decisions about manuscript acceptance, communicate those decisions to authors, and compile content for each issue. The deputy editor is involved in planning for editorial board meetings and interacting with board members. The deputy editor can also help to promote the journal and increase journal visibility either through personal connections, conference attendance, or using social media so that potential authors consider publication with the journal. Monitoring the influence of the journal through metrics and providing insight into the impact and performance patterns of the journal is another aspect of the deputy editor role. Working collaboratively with the editor and publisher to understand the “behind the scenes” operations of journal publication is also a very important learning experience for the deputy editor.

Other journals and editors may want to consider the deputy editor position as a way to mentor the next generation of editors to ensure they will have necessary experience to advance journal publication. This unique approach provides the deputy editor with a nurturing and supportive learning environment that cultivates growth while allowing the editor to share insight and experience. Sharing expertise in this collaborative way has shown to be beneficial and contributes positively to ongoing publication and scholarship.

References

Branden, P. S. (2017). Growing clinical and academic nursing leaders: Building the pipeline. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 258-265. doi: 10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000239
Marshall, E. S., & Broome, M. E. (2017). Transformational leadership in nursing. New York, NY: Springer.
Miller, E. T., & Burke, S. (2017). INANE editor best practices. Nurse Author & Editor, 27(1), 1.
Watson, R. (2013). What are editors for? Nurse Author & Editor, 23(4), 5.
Watson, R. (2017). What does an editor-in-chief actually do? The view from the Journal of Advanced Nursing. Nurse Author & Editor, 27(4), 6.

About the Authors

Teresa Shellenbarger, PhD, RN, CNE, ANEF is a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Nursing and Allied Health Professions at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA. She is a member of the Authors-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor and has recently become the Deputy Editor for Nursing Forum.

Patricia S. Yoder-Wise, RN, EdD, NEA-BC, ANEF, FAAN is President of The Wise Group and Professor and Dean Emerita, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (Lubbock). She is the Editor-in-Chief of Nursing Forum and The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing and a member of the Authors-in Residence for Nurse Author & Editor.

2018 28 1 3 Shellenbarger

The post Featured: Succession Planning for Editors appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

I Say “Introduction”; You Say “Background”

Roger Watson

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(1), 4

I think the Introduction and the Background to an academic paper are different things and both essential. Some journals do not specify either; some only specify one. My journals, Journal of Advanced Nursing and Nursing Open, specify both and I am often asked to explain the difference. Let’s dive in!

Introduction

First, whether or not a journal specifies either or none as main headers, it is still in the gift of the author to provide Introduction and Background as sub-headings. The Introduction comes first and is a relatively short section of the manuscript—I recommend no more than 500 words—which sets the study you are reporting in its widest context. The context can be: policy; practice; education; or previous research. The Introduction should anchor the study in the mind of the reader (remember, the first reader is the editor and the next ones are the reviewers) as being relevant, justified, and likely to provide useful information. Therefore, the Introduction is the place to say why the study was important, what it addressed and why you did it. There is no need to support statements in the Introduction with too many references; one or two key references such has government policy documents related to nursing and a seminal piece of research related to that are all that is required. If you can introduce an international element to the Introduction, then this will increase the value of your manuscript in the eyes of the editor and reviewers—especially in journals that purport to be international. The study you carried out may well have been national, local, or confined to one clinical centre; but think how you can make your study of interest to someone in another country—how may it address their situation?

Background

Where the Introduction sets your work in its widest context, the Background is the place to begin to focus on what, specifically, you investigated. Essentially, the Background is a literature review—but not a systematic literature review. You have the luxury of being quite selective (but balanced) here and to use the available literature to justify your work. Keep in mind that it is very important to synthesize the research in this section. You don’t want to have a laundry list of research articles with a one paragraph synopsis of each one. As Shellenbarger (2016) notes, “Synthesis requires decision making, analysis, evaluation, and creation of new material, all rather high levels of thinking.” Summarizing the literature effectively is a skill that can be learned and takes constant practice to do well.

It is assumed that you know the literature well and have found a line of enquiry which has led to your specific research question. Therefore, the Background should follow naturally from the Introduction and, while you can continue to cite, for example, policy or research documents, you should be explaining here what is already known about your topic and what gaps remain to be filled. Naturally, that should lead you to state clearly what gap your study intends to fill. Having “set the scene” for your work, the Background should end with your research question and this should, logically, be derived from the knowledge of, and gaps in the existing literature. By “research question” I mean an “interrogative statement ending with a question mark.” A research question is not a re-statement of the aims or objectives of the study. A research question is essential as it lets the reader know exactly what it is you investigated. It is also important because your design and, subsequently, your methods should stem directly from your research question(s).

All that follows from the Introduction and Background is a mirror-image of those sections. The design and methods should reflect—directly—the Background section. The Results section, the most focused and pivotal aspect of a manuscript, precedes the Discussion which should then reflect, partly, the Background but, ultimately, the Introduction. Some of the literature you will bring into the Discussion will be from the Introduction and Background sections, so this final section of the manuscript will refer back to the ideas and the problem raised in the Introduction and provide the reader with an impression of whether or not and to what extent you have addressed the issues. In the Discussion you will compare and contrast your findings with the prior literature that you cited, mostly found in the Background. Were your findings congruent with prior research? Were there findings that were discordant? Both of these questions should be thoughtfully discussed and conclusions drawn based on evidence—both what you learned from your study as well as findings reported previously. Last, how do your findings extend what was previously known?

Keep in mind that the Discussion should be the most interesting section of the paper and is the part where you can most freely write about your ideas, thoughts, and conceptualizations without having reference citations at the end of every sentence. Still, keep in mind that you cannot go off wild flights of fancy and you need to keep everything grounded in the context of prior research and what your study provides as new knowledge.

Conclusion

The opening sections of an academic article are as important as the opening lines of a novel, so craft these well. Read them over yourself, especially after the manuscript is complete. Ensure that you are introducing what you actually wrote about and not what you thought you were going to write about; this may have changed in the process of writing the manuscript. Finally, have someone else read your Background and Introduction and see if they “grab them” and convey what the article is really about. If not, then be prepared to edit it until it does.

Reference

Shellenbarger, T. (2016). Simplifying synthesis. Nurse Author & Editor, 26(3), 3. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NAE-2016-26-3-3-Shellenbarger.pdf

About the Author

2018 28 1 4 Watson

The post I Say “Introduction”; You Say “Background” appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

From Doc to Post-Doc to Career: The Transition from Nursing Student to Nursing Scholar

Thomas Lawrence Long

Nurse author & Editor, 2018, 28(1), 5

The new assistant professor came to me with several questions: How do I extract material from my dissertation to write journal articles? How do I select the journals to which I submit my manuscripts? She had earned her PhD at one Ivy League institution and had secured a tenure-track position at another. She was my consulting client at an annual clinic hosted by the Council of Editors of Learned Journals.

This conversation prompted the first of what would become several of Long’s Axioms of Higher Education:

Graduate school prepares you . . . for graduate school.

I was surprised that her doctoral mentors had not explained this basic feature of the scholar’s profession although I understood how she might feel reluctant to ask her senior colleagues for advice. The transition from doctoral student to research scholar is not easy, and graduate school and the profession often do not make it easier. The premise sometimes seems: If you have to ask, you don’t belong here.

For nurses in academia the challenge may even be more complicated. Most doctoral students in arts and sciences fields have followed a seamless and unbroken trajectory from baccalaureate degree to master’s degree to doctoral program (and perhaps to a post-doctoral fellowship). By the time they have been appointed to their first full-time faculty position they are only 35 to 39 years old.

Nurse researchers, in contrast, have had interrupted studies: perhaps entering nursing with an associate degree, later moving into a bachelor’s degree before returning to practice, eventually pursuing a master’s degree and then back into practice, and finally undertaking a doctoral program.

By the time nurse researchers have graduated with a doctorate, they are about 49 (Fang, Bednash, & Arietti, 2016), and the average age of an entry-level assistant professor is 51 years (Notre Dame College, 2015).

In the nine years that I have provided writing support services in the University of Connecticut School of Nursing’s Center for Nursing Scholarship, I have had the opportunity to coach and encourage doctoral students and junior faculty across this threshold. These observations represent some of the common challenges.

Being a professor is not the same as being a doctoral student.

Doctoral students’ writing projects are clearly circumscribed by a course syllabus and the semester with their specifications and deadlines, but professors’ research projects and manuscripts rely on the skill and self-discipline of the new professor. While the tenure clock imposes an ultimate deadline and a tenure mentor may nudge and cajole, there are no short-term deadlines for submitting grant applications and research manuscripts. Cultivating a regular, even daily, writing habit (Silvia, 2007) is essential to this endeavor. Based on research by Robert Boice (1987), Paul Silvia’s How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing provides a way to achieve this goal.

Writing for courses is not the same as writing professionally as an academic.

One of your doctoral program faculty may have complimented a paper that you wrote for a course by encouraging you to revise and seek publication, but a course paper is not a journal article manuscript. Journals have conventionally defined genres (e.g., the systematic literature review, the integrative literature review, the case study, the research article), and your job as an academic writer is to learn those genres. The best way to do so is by reading current issues of journals in your specialization and paying attention to the kinds of writing published there. The same goes for PhD or SciD dissertations and DNP capstone projects. They require significant revision in order to be ready for editors’ and reviewers’ eyes. Carter-Templeton (2015) has carefully laid out what is required here and Nicoll (2017) also provides useful advice.

What you have to say may be less important than showing how you have listened to what has already been said.

Almost every scholarly article represents the state of knowledge in its review of the literature (often labeled as a manuscript section, Review of the Literature). This representation should not be perfunctory or superficial. You may think that what you have to say is the most important part of the manuscript, but in some ways it is not so. You need to show that you have been paying attention to a scholarly conversation that has been going on long before you entered the scene. Demonstrating your knowledge of that conversation and respectfully but clearly pointing out its gaps is the foundation for what you have to say.

Dozens of published manuscripts do not make a program of research.

A program of research consists in identifying unmapped territory and then systematically filling in the details of this terra incognita. I have seen how this works through years of conversations with my colleague and co-author Cheryl Tatano Beck when she has described how she moved from researching post-partum depression to researching traumatic labor and delivery’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to researching secondary PTSD among nurses in labor and delivery. She has also literally written the book on it: Developing a Program of Research in Nursing (2015).

Corollary to the above:

Dozens of interests and interesting ideas do not make a program of research.

As a friend of mine says, “Until you publish your data, you’re just a lab rat.” Remain focused, write manuscripts, submit manuscripts (which only need to be very good, not perfect), revise manuscripts according to editors’ and reviewers’ suggestions, resubmit manuscripts, and start all over again.

Find a mentor who will hold your hand . . . and hold your feet to the fire.

You do not have to know everything (as humane senior colleagues will allow), so knowing whom to ask for help and knowing when to ask for help are essential during the transition from doctoral student to scholar.

CONCLUSION

Making the transition from student to scholar can be challenging but remember–many have gone before you. Look to colleagues for advice and support, read widely, and be focused on the pillars of an academic career: teaching, scholarship, and service. Scholarship can be a stumbling block for many but remember that your doctoral program provided beginning skills in research and writing. Building on these and remaining focused on the new phase of your professional career can help you to be successful.

References

Beck, C. T. (2015). Developing a program of research in nursing. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
Boice, R. (1987). A program for facilitating scholarly writing. Higher Education Research and Development, 6, 9-20.
Carter-Templeton, H. (2015). DNP project to manuscript: Converting a DNP scholarly project into a manuscript. Nurse Author & Editor, 25(1), 2. http://naepub.com/student-authorship/2015-25-1-2/
Fang, D., Bednash, G. D., & Arietti, R. (2016). Identifying barriers and facilitators to nurse faculty careers for PhD nursing students. Journal of Professional Nursing, 32, 193-201.
Long, T. L. (2015, May). Long’s axioms of higher education. The Long View. http://thelongview.tv/2015/05/10/longs-axioms-of-higher-education/
Notre Dame College. (2015). Today’s nurses tomorrow’s educators. http://online.notredamecollege.edu/nursing/todays-nurses-tomorrows-educators/
Silvia, P. (2007). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

About the Author

Thomas Lawrence Long is associate professor in residence in the University of Connecticut’s School of Nursing, where he provides writing support services in the Center for Nursing Scholarship. He is the co-author, with Cheryl Tatano Beck, of Writing in Nursing: A Brief Guide (Oxford University Press, 2017). He is also an Author-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor.

2018 28 1 5 Long

The post Featured: From Doc to Post-Doc to Career appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Publons: The Solution to Several Long-Standing Problems

Roger Watson

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(1), 6

As an editor – and I edit two journals – I am aware that one of the major difficulties of the role is finding reviewers for manuscripts. I am also aware that many people who purport to be reviewers for my journals may be registered on our system but have never done a single review. On the other side of the counter, in my “day job” as a university academic, I receive a frequent and regular flow of requests to carry out reviews for a wide range of journals. I have always carried out this work conscientiously; I see it as a necessary and reciprocal aspect of my role. However, I am also conscious that I have less and less time to do this and, sometimes, I wonder if my time could not be better spent. After all, the workload is unmeasured, unrecorded, and uncredited. In parallel, where once I heard my less experienced colleagues exult that they had been sent a manuscript to review, I now hear them questioning why they should bother. Academic life has changed and there is much less time now than there was, say, 20 years ago, to devote time to what was once considered to be a normal aspect of our jobs.

Enter Publons

Publons is an innovation that addresses most of the problems around reviewing raised above. Publons does not make the process of reviewing easier for reviewers, but it does help editors find reviewers and it increases the visibility of the work done by reviewers. As explained on the Publons webpage:

Publons helps you get the recognition you deserve for keeping watch over science and research. Easily import, verify, and store a record of every peer review you perform and every manuscript you handle as an editor, for any journal in the world, in full compliance with all editorial policies.

The pedigree of Publons is good and if you need any convincing then look at the list of reputable publisher partners which includes: Wiley, BMJ Open, Springer Nature, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Wolters Kluwer, American Psychological Association, Sage, The Royal Society, Taylor & Francis, Royal College of Surgeons – and many more.

Publons offers training in reviewing and this is a good feature; I often hear new academics – the ones who want to do reviews – complain that they do not receive any education or training in how to provide peer review of a manuscript. The Publons Academy, provides this service, about which Publons say:

…our free online course, teaches you how to critically review a manuscript with tips and advice from Nobel Prize winners. You’ll practice your new skills by writing reviews of published papers. You then invite your supervisor to provide feedback on your reviews and endorse your skills so we can start matching you with top journal editors looking for reviewers.

Once you have registered with Publons, a personal dashboard is created where you can provide your profile and upload a suitable image. As part of the registration you can choose to login with a social media account such as Facebook or an academic profile page such as ORCiD – I would recommend the latter. If you want to know more about ORCiD, read one of my previous pieces in Nurse Author & Editor (Watson, 2017). Within the profile you can indicate your research area which helps others to find you. You can also register your reviews and, if you are an editor, your editing activity. If you have been sensible and used ORCID to create your profile, then you can easily pull in your publications to your Publons dashboard. There is also the possibility of scoring – anonymously – other publications which you can find using a doi and then you can also see how others have scored the publication. However, probably the most important and unique aspect of Publons is the registration of reviews and the ability, then, to demonstrate this for staff appraisals, for example. It is merely the fact that you have reviewed that is recorded; details such as the article and your review are not shared. The journals partnered with Publons make the process easy by prompting you about the possibility to register a review and they provide a link whereby the process is automated. Publons remains relatively new, having been launched in 2012 but by 2017 more than 200,000 researchers had joined. I strongly recommend all researchers to register.

Reference

Watson, R. (2017). Grow Your ORCiD Profile. Nurse Author & Editor, 27(2), 2. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/NAE-2017-27-2-2-Watson.pdf

About the Author

2018 28 1 6 Watson

The post Featured: Publons: An Overview appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Mythbusters: Self-Embargo

Leslie H. Nicoll

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(2), 1

Editor’s Note: This is the first article in an occasional series where the author will take on a myth that exists in writing and publishing and either “bust it” or confirm its veracity. If you have a myth that you would like us to tackle, use the contact form to send it to Nurse Author & Editor and we will get to work. Thanks in advance—I look forward to hearing from you!

Selecting the right journal for article submission, review, and potential publication is key for a successful writing endeavor. Editors routinely reject articles that are not the “right fit” or do not meet the purpose of the journal. When I work with an author on a manuscript, my very first question is, “What journal have you selected?” Many times, the author will answer, “Well, I think Journal X is the best fit, but I can’t send it there because I had an article published/reviewed/rejected in that journal last year.”

That got me wondering—where does this notion of “self-embargo” come from? For the journal I edit, CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, I have many repeat authors and I have never told anyone to wait some amount of time (months, a year) before submitting to the journal again. But my journal represents a particular specialty and there are not many other informatics journals in nursing, so maybe my point of view is skewed. Thus I turned to my editor colleagues to learn if they tell authors to wait before submitting to the journal again. The answer was a resounding NO.

I asked the question on the email update list of the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE). This was certainly not a scientific study, just an informal poll—but the answers were very clear. In their comments responding to my question, the editors made three distinctions: fit, frequency, and time frame. Regarding fit and time, DaiWai Olson, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neuroscience Nursing very succinctly said, “If the article fits the journal—the article fits the journal. There should be no waiting period.” Gloria Donnelly Editor of Holistic Nursing Practice also noted that her journal does not have a restriction of frequency of same author submissions. She wrote, “Because we are a specialized journal, we occasionally get submissions from previously published authors. This has posed no issue for the journal.”

Shawn Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Nursing noted a benefit of repeat authors: “Since they have already been through our editing process, they know what to expect. Always easier for both authors and editors!”

Shawn also noted that even with repeat authors, the process takes time and it is likely that a good 9 to 12 month period that will elapse before a second article appears in print. Marion Broome, Editor-in-Chief of Nursing Outlook agreed, when she wrote, “We often have authors who publish their work in the journal multiple times—although not often in the same year.”

So, the consensus was that you do not need to “self-embargo” an article because you have previously submitted to or published in a specific journal. Editors are fine with hearing from you again. However they did have two caveats: salami slicing and variety of publication outlets.

Salami Slicing

“Salami slicing” or “salami publication” refers to taking data from one study and turning it into several different publications. A very extreme example that recently came to my attention helps to illustrate this phenomenon: the Archives of Iranian Medicine published 33 papers about one study, a survey of the mental health of the Iranian population. There are two summary papers that reported the overall findings, and then 31 additional papers, each reporting the findings of an individual province in Iran. Want to guess how many Iranian provinces there are? Blogger Neuroskeptic (2018), who wrote about this situation, also noted that the articles have a great deal of overlapping text, which further complicates the issue by delving into the area of self-plagiarism.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides guidance on salami slicing with this advice: “Salami publication is where papers cover the same population, methods, and question. Splitting up papers by outcomes is not legitimate” (COPE, 2005). Interestingly, they note that it is an editorial decision as to whether to publish or not—it is not an ethical issue. So even though the Iranian example seems extreme, it was within the purview of the editor to publish the 33 papers.

That said, the INANE editors do not seem to hold that view; several commented that if they received multiple articles from the same author(s) in a short period of time, they would be alert to salami slicing and would reject “sliced” articles.

To close the loop, COPE makes the distinction between salami and redundant publication: “Where there is a two-thirds overlap, it is a redundant publication” (COPE, 2005). Again, returning to the Iranian example—I have not read all 33 papers but if the overlap is great, as Neuroskeptic (2018) suggests, then perhaps the papers should not have been published. But, the rationale for rejection would be for duplicate or redundant publication, not salami slicing.

Variety of Publication Outlets

While the INANE editors, overall, seemed to be comfortable with publishing multiple papers from the same author(s), they did note that faculty authors might need to have a variety of publication outlets to meet requirements for promotion and tenure. This decision is not driven by the journal but by the academy and as Teddie Potter, Executive Editor of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies noted, “The Academy is full of quirky rules when it comes to tenure.” Marion Broome, who in addition to her editorship with Nursing Outlook is also the Dean of the School of Nursing at Duke University wrote, “The type of journal and its impact, as well as the individual papers the person publishes is what is most heavily weighted. My advice to junior faculty is that if they want their work to have widespread impact, they [should] give considerable thought to varying their publication venues.”

Conclusion

Let’s start with the myth:

If you are an author, do you need to “self-embargo” an article and not submit to a journal that you have previously/recently submitted to or published in?
BUSTED! INANE Editors welcome articles from prior authors for a variety of reasons:
- They are interested in publishing articles that represent a program of research.
- If the purpose of the article and the journal are congruent, then it makes good sense to select that journal as a publication outlet.
- Authors who are familiar with the review and revision process of a journal have an advantage, which makes the work easier for all involved.
- Even if articles are submitted in quick succession, the reality is that many months will pass before the review and publication process is complete, making it unlikely that they will overlap.

That said, authors need to keep in mind the issues of salami slicing and redundant/duplicate publication. While COPE does not consider salami slicing to be an ethical transgression, INANE editors frown on this practice and are likely to reject a “sliced” article.

Last, for authors in academic settings, particularly junior faculty, it is wise to consult with senior faculty and the Dean or Associate Dean, as appropriate, to create a realistic publication plan. This includes the number of articles to be published with clear expectations of yearly output as well as strategically selecting journals. If a variety of publication outlets is presented as an important criterion for evaluation of a tenure dossier, then this must be kept in mind when planning a dissemination strategy.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the INANE Editors who answered my initial question on the INANE mailing list. Hat tip to Richard Gray, who alerted me to the blog post by Neuroskeptic and the Iranian salami situation.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (2005). Salami publication. Retrieved March 28, 2018 from https://publicationethics.org/case/salami-publication
Neuroskeptic. (2018, March 3). Scientific salami slicing: 33 papers from 1 study. Discover: Science for the Curious. Retrieved March 28, 2018 from https://goo.gl/cGKD6F.

About the Author

Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN lives in Maine with her husband, three rescue pets, and two adult children close by. She keeps herself busy as Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Author & Editor, and CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. She provides advice and consultation to both novice and experienced author who want to publish in the scholarly literature. Two days per week she works at the Portland Community Free Clinic. Click here to send a message directly to Leslie.

2018 28 2 1 Nicoll

The post Featured: Mythbusters: Self-Embargo appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.