Nurse Author & Editor

Integrating Reflection in Writing

Phillip M. Timcheck

nurse author & Editor, 2018, 28(2), 2

Reflection is frequently mentioned in the literature as a learning activity, primarily as a means to engage the mind and to promote learning from previous experiences. Reflection is used in education in a variety of ways, from reflecting on an experience to thinking about how past experiences can influence future decision making. In its common use, reflection involves a degree of thinking beyond a superficial glance at a previous experience, pushing it to critical analysis. Although used and described as a means of learning, reflection, in its typical sense, is not readily considered as a method that can be applied to writing. However, reflection principles are strikingly applicable to the writing process and outcomes.

Self-Review and Peer Conversations

Two reflective concepts that can be used to improve the writing process are self-review and peer conversations (Brookfield, 1998). Self-review incorporates an introspective review of a particular work or process, focusing on the writer’s personal experiences. Peer conversations involve dialogue with colleagues. This dialogue allows peers to offer input and insight into writing, thus giving the writer a diverse view of a topic. These peer conversations about writing can help to garner ideas that may not have become apparent without the influence of other viewpoints.

Reflection involves a review of personal experiences, and self-review is one method to utilize when reviewing writing experiences. Self-review can be incorporated into the writing process before starting a new work. For instance, before starting a manuscript, dedicate time to think about what writing approaches have worked in the past. Use that information to make writing adjustments. Consider your last writing activity, and ask yourself the following questions:

What helped me be successful?
What went wrong?
Where were my struggles?
Where was I the last time my writing was prolific?
What have I done in the past that has helped me get into a writing state-of-mind?

Through self-review, you may learn that certain thoughts or preparatory actions may be integral to bountiful writing, making it an important part of the writing process. This reflection may also provide insight into problematic areas that could be changed.

Although an internal review through self-reflection offers numerous benefits, Brookfield (1998) also discussed the value of peer conversations. Consider the last time you met with a peer to discuss some project you were working on. This interaction may have occurred in a happenstance fashion without much calculated effort. Passing conversations about writing projects can offer some input and at times may work to improve writing. However, having structured and purposeful conversations with colleagues may provide the focus necessary to fully devote attention to the work and aid in manuscript planning; it may be helpful to schedule these conversations. You might consider preparing a short elevator speech about your writing ideas in advance of the conversation. This synopsis can help you to express major objectives and the direction of the writing to your peer and can also help to succinctly convey ideas. Reflecting on the work and then sharing it with others allows for a peer to offer more concise input.

When using peer conversations to improve writing, it is helpful to articulate your writing concerns upfront. These peer conversations can help to illuminate writing problems, highlight areas of concern, and offer insight for areas needing improvement. Additionally, these meetings may stimulate ideas that you had not considered before a draft of a work is completed. From this peer input, you can reflect on the possibility of utilizing the newly gained insight or perspectives while also attempting to connect to the self-review. Additionally, these peer conversations can also help establish new techniques for writing that may not have come about with only introspection.

Reflection-in-Action and Reflection-on-Action

Other reflection experts also offer strategies that can help writers. Schön (1984) introduced the concepts of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action encompasses reflection during an action (Schön, 1984). In other words, a writer reflects on what is happening, connects it to a prior experience, and generates a new understanding on how to move forward in a beneficial manner while an experience is occurring. Reflection-on-action occurs after an experience, allowing for experiential learning and knowledge growth (Donaghy & Morss, 2000).

Reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action can be exceptionally helpful when writing becomes difficult. Taking a purposeful step back and reflecting can help move beyond this troublesome period. It may be beneficial to think back on what has worked in the past to overcome similar circumstances. Revisiting an outline to re-establish direction or re-reading what has already been written can help move writing forward. This approach can also be useful to sustain and improve writing quality. Reflecting while writing can highlight commonplace phrases, words, or sentence structures used on a regular basis. In this way, it is easier to see how these items can be changed to improve writing dynamics. While implementing reflection-in-action, ask yourself the following questions:

How have I made this piece of work stand out from my other works?
How can I make this work better than what I have done before?
What can I focus on to continue to develop my work?
Is this work going the direction I want it to?
How can I make my voice clearer?
Am I conveying my ideas succinctly?
Are there gaps or missing items in my writing?
Have I provided clear transitions between ideas?

Implementing reflective strategies while writing may prove easier to complete during the writing process versus taking a more traditional approach and trying to revise a work once it is fully constructed. At first, reflection-in-action may seem time-consuming and odd, but it certainly offers a unique approach to evaluating and improving writing throughout the writing process. Reflection-on-action should feel much more familiar, as reflecting after an experience is a more typical use of reflection. Critiquing your work after completing writing gives a more comprehensive picture, providing different insights that may not have been evident with reflection-in-action.

Critical Examination

Mezirow (1997) suggests challenging the validity of presuppositions in prior learning and experiences and focusing on moving beyond a surface-level critique. This approach can be used to critically examine writing after completing a draft, allowing for corrections to occur early in the writing process. Upon draft completion, you can step away from the work and move on to other activities such as working on other writing or academic projects, non-academic activities, or recreational activities. This break time allows for some mental distance and offers you the time to think back on what you wrote. Depending upon personal preferences, the caliber of the writing, deadlines, and other restrictions, the amount of time away from writing can vary greatly. It can be simply walking away for a few moments or can extend over multiple days. Before returning to write, carefully re-read prior work and critically examine the message communicated. As the writer, you could reflect on the following:

Consider what worked well. What changes can I make?
What needs further explanation?
What is not clear?
Are my ideas connecting and flowing well?
Is my message being conveyed appropriately?
Does my writing sequence make sense?
Did I accurately answer the prompt/question?
Does the writing align with the purpose or topic statement?

Not only can you reflect on the content of the draft, but it may be helpful to also examine the writing process. Specifically, examine these ideas:

How did I create this work?
What was crucial to me being able to pull all of this information together?
In what ways can I improve?
Is there something I could have done to make this easier?
What was my most productive time? Most productive setting?
What could I have done differently?

In this way, you can reflect upon and evaluate the writing process in a purposeful fashion and distinguish areas of improvement. It may be helpful to record notes and ideas for future writing. This may also help identify frequent writing traps and encourage progressive writing development. After this reflection, you can then go back to the particular piece of work and revise as necessary. This process can be iterative, allowing for significant intervention in both content and the writing process.

Conclusion

Although most of these reflective interventions sound relatively simple and straightforward, using them as writing techniques to improve quality and proficiency can be challenging. Two of the most difficult aspects surrounding reflective practices in writing are the time and effort needed. It is important to stay consistent and emphasize reflection throughout all stages of writing, streaming from development of preliminary ideas, to composing, to the conclusion of a work. It is also relevant to use reflection in a more distant sense after work completion, such as when an article has been reviewed by a journal or when revisions are requested by an editor. Sustaining the critical nature of reflection can also prove difficult as it can be much quicker to only reflect at a superficial level.

The suggested techniques offer viable options to aid writers to continually improve and develop. Dedicating the time to use reflection as part of the writing process and sustaining this effort appears to be the most challenging component of this venture. However, adoption of these reflective principles in writing can certainly provide some additional value to your writing process.

Acknowledgement

Special thanks to Dr. Teresa Shellenbarger for her guidance on the development of this manuscript.

References

Brookfield, S. (1998). Critically reflective practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 18(4), 197-205.
Donaghy, M. E., & Morss, K. (2000). Guided reflection: A framework to facilitate and assess reflective practice within the discipline of physiotherapy. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 16, 3-14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/095939800307566
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning in action. New Direction for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.
Schön, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2-9.

About the Author

Phillip M. Timcheck, MSN, MBA, RN, is Adult Health Instructor in the Division of Nursing at Winston-Salem State University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. He is currently pursuing his PhD in Nursing at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA.

2018 28 2 2 Timcheck

The post Featured: Integrating Reflection in Writing appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Starting the “Discussion” Section of a Manuscript

Roger Watson

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(2), 3

In my work around the world, delivering writing for publication workshops, a frequent question is: “How do you start writing the Discussion section of a manuscript?” It is worth noting that the question is not: “How do you write the Discussion section?” but: “How do you start…?” I have a similar question from my doctoral students about the Discussion chapter of their theses. So, what’s the problem?

I think people have an idea what is in a Discussion section and I assume they have read many of them and seen how others make a start. For some reason, whatever other authors are doing does not seem to “rub off” on them so I would like to suggest a few ideas for starting a Discussion section but also for keeping going and completing it.

Look for Examples

My first idea, mentioned above, is to take a look at several examples of Discussion sections in the journal where you intend to submit your manuscript. There is no particular formula, but one of the best indicators of your likely success is to see what others have done in the past and what has clearly been acceptable to—and accepted by—the journal, and copy that style.

As you look at examples, pay particular attention to the length of the discussion, relative to the other sections of the article. Personally, I think too many authors shortchange the discussion and really, this should be the heart of the entire manuscript. You have laid out the question and the need for the study; described how data were collected and analyzed; and then presented the results. The Discussion is the section where you pull it all together and share your interpretation of what the findings mean and how they can be used by others—in clinical practice, research, leadership, or education. The Discussion is the one place you can share your opinion, backed up by facts, of course—but you have the freedom to say what you think, in your own words.

If looking at examples still leaves you feeling unclear about how to get started, then do what I do in this situation: have a formula and use it.

My Formula

My formula for writing the Discussion section is to begin by inserting two sub-headings: Limitations and Conclusions and then inserting a few page breaks to give you room to write the main body of the Discussion. Then, applying Aristotle’s dictum: “Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them” (which actually applies to giving a speech), use the various sections of a manuscript to do just this. You may well have outlined the study in the Abstract and again the Introduction and Background (that is, you’ve told them what you aim to do and what you did); use the Discussion to tell them again. Many people to whom I give this advice worry about repetition; you do not need to repeat yourself verbatim, but you can repeat the information. Therefore, one way to start the introduction is to repeat the aims of the study and the research question—but to paraphrase it. For example, if the aim of your study was expressed as follows:

The aim of this study was to investigate the best was to start writing the Discussion section of a manuscript and the study was designed to address the research question: Is there a best way to start writing a Discussion?

One way of starting the Discussion section is to re-express this as follows:

This study aimed to investigate the best ways to start writing the Discussion section of a manuscript and, specifically, was designed to address the question of whether or not there is a best way to start a Discussion section of a manuscript.

Then, assuming you obtained some results, you could briefly re-state these. For example, you may have discovered three things about starting to write the Discussion section of a manuscript as follows:

The results of the study show that experienced writers: lay out a standard structure for the Discussion section; start by repeating the aims and research question for the study; then, list the main results and discuss them under a series of sub-headings.

This is precisely what I do and the use of a series of sub-headings relevant to the main results is one way to provide a structure for the rest of the Discussion. This strategy overcomes part of the dilemma between discussing the results discretely and integrating them before drawing to a conclusion. If you treat each result separately then you can refer to the relevant literature, much of which may already be contained in the Introduction. Of course, there may be only one main result, but the same principle applies. Bear in mind that the literature referred to in discussing the results may not be mutually exclusive and some references may be relevant to more than one aspect of the results. Having discussed each of the results you the need a further section—possibly but not necessarily sub-headed—to integrate the various aspects of the results and direct the reader back to the aims of the study you are reporting and the research question. Essentially you need to reflect on the extent to which the aims were addressed and how well the research question was answered. In the Background section you will have pointed to the gaps in knowledge that the study aimed to fill; paraphrase here and evaluate the extent to which those gaps have been filled and what further avenues of investigation may be followed to address any new research questions that arose.

Finally, address the limitations of the study and complete the Discussion with a Conclusion section that looks back over the study and re-sates the main points, without the addition of any new ideas and without the use of references. Journals may have further requirements such as an Implications section; if so then ensure that you create sub-headings for these when you start the Discussion—it is easy to forget.

One caveat about limitations: don’t go overboard. Certainly, you want to be honest and point out problems that limit your findings or generalizability. But I am regularly reminded of how good researchers are at enumerating the problems that plagued their study, while skipping over or minimizing their good work with a very brief discussion. Change that in your writing: your Discussion is the place where you can shine and be proud of your study and its findings while the limitations should be briefly and succinctly stated with a comment of how to minimize these issues in a future investigation.

Conclusion

We all like to believe that our article will be read by thousands, downloaded a few thousand times more, and “tweeted” and “liked” a few thousand times beyond that. But remember, in the whole process of writing a manuscript and especially the Background and the Discussion sections that the first reader of your manuscript is likely to be an editor or editor-in-chief followed by the reviewers. Write your manuscript to convince them that it is worth publishing. Until you have won over that initial audience of 3 to 5 people, you will never have the opportunity to reach far and wide.

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

2018 28 2 3 Watson

The post Featured: The Discussion Section of a Manuscript appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

The Woodhull Study Revisted: Nurses’ Representation in Health News Media

Diana J. Mason, Barbara Glickstein, Laura Nixon, Kristi Westphaln, Sarah Han, Kimberly Acquaviva

nurse author & Editor, 2018, 28(2), 4

Woodhull_Study_Research_Brief

The results of this research were presented at a press conference held on May 8, 2018, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Click here to watch the video of the conference.

For more information on this initiative, visit: go.gwu.edu/woodhull

The post Featured: Research Brief: The Woodhull Study Revisited appeared first on Nurse Author & Editor.

Dealing with the Disappointment of the “Reject” or “Revise” Letter

Peggy L. Chinn

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(2), 5.

“My article was rejected and I have not looked at it since.”

“The Editor said I need to make major revisions to my manuscript, and I just gave up.”

These are real responses to the outcome of letters from the editor about your manuscript—a work that you thought was a truly wonderful product when you sent it in! When I hear these responses, I am bewildered. Then I remember how many misconceptions are floating around about the publishing process, and the fact is that nurses who are seeking publication cannot possibly be expected to come to this already knowing what it takes to be successful.

The “I have never looked at it again” response reflects the very real fact that producing a manuscript requires an investment of the self. You have a certain amount of investment in a submitted manuscript, and to have it rejected, whether flat-out rejected or rejected with major revisions, can feel like a personal attack. But there are many reasons for rejection and for requests for revision, none of which suggest that you never look at it again. You have indeed put in a lot of effort, time, and thought producing your manuscript, and there are good reasons to get back into it and move forward. Here are some of the most common reasons your manuscript might be rejected, or that the Editor might ask for revision, followed by hints as to what to do next.

Common Reasons for Rejection or Requests for Revision

Your manuscript is not a good fit for the journal. This is the most common reason for rejections of manuscripts in the journal I edit, Advances in Nursing Science. Your work might be important, timely, and well written. But if it just does not fit in the journal, it will be rejected. Typically the Editor will state this as the reason, or one of the reasons for rejecting your manuscript; sometimes they also tell you if your manuscript is also worthy of publishing in another journal. But often they send this rejection letter without much of a review, since from the outset it is clear that it does not fit.
Your manuscript is not sufficiently developed, or the content is not developed in a way that readers of this journal expect. Your topic is appropriate for the journal, and again, it may be well-written. But you may have provided content that for the readers of this journal will seem superficial; the editor knows that readers are probably already familiar with what you have written. You may have left out important details that readers expect, or by contrast, you may have given detail and background about the topic that is already known. If the reviewers and the editor see potential in what you have written, and the topic of your manuscript is one that they know will be of interest, they may request a revision and provide some detail about what direction to take in making the revisions. But if your manuscript is simply not developed appropriately, you will receive a letter of rejection, typically with feedback from the review process.
Your manuscript is poorly written. If your use of English language is beyond repair as presented, you are likely to receive a letter of rejection since editors and publishers are not in the business of helping authors with writing at this level. More commonly, reviewers identify a recurring problem such as lack of flow of ideas that leaves the reader unclear about what your meaning, long or confusing sentences, sometimes even problems with grammar and punctuation. If the reviewers and editors believe that the writing problems can be addressed, they will request a revision and give you some idea of what kinds of writing flaws to worry about.
Reviewers have identified problems in the content of your manuscript. If there are flaws in your content that the reviewers believe there is little hope of addressing adequately, the editor will probably reject your manuscript. More often, one or more of the reviewers identify a specific aspect of your content that they believe you can address, and with revision that addresses these issues, your manuscript could be considered again. You might have overlooked important resources in the field, or your explanations or conclusions fall short or are misguided, or that your explanations of some aspect of your content is insufficient or omitted. You might not have explained your method sufficiently, or your discussion is too sketchy. Reviewers might indicate that they disagree with something stated in your manuscript, but they usually provide a basis for this disagreement that they believe should be addressed in your manuscript.

So now – take another look at the manuscript!

Rather than placing the manuscript in a virtual drawer (or worse yet in a virtual trash bin) take whatever kind of rejection or revision letter you received and consider the implications for what to do next. I imagine that there might be an occasion when you do take another look and decide that this is not really where you want to continue to place your energies. However, if you have started down the path of writing for publication, there is never a manuscript that should end up in the trash. It goes into the recycle bin, but you are the “recycler”–it is up to you to move it forward to the next step. Every single published author has experienced both rejection and revision letters, and here are the common things they do to finally get that “acceptance” letter.

If you have a rejection letter, return to your journal due diligence (Nicoll & Chinn, 2015). You can avoid rejections due to a “poor fit” if you determine in advance which journals are the best suited for your topic, and among those journals, what type of articles they publish. If you realize, after you get the rejection letter, that you missed the boat in selecting this journal, then your next step is to re-assess appropriate journals for your manuscript. You will probably need to still make revisions in the manuscript to make sure that your work fits the new journal in all respects—the style of writing, the style and format of the citations and references, the manuscript length—all of these details differ between and among journals, and your submission needs to conform to these requirements for each journal. So find a journal that would be appropriate for your topic, for the type of manuscript you are preparing, and that has an audience you want to reach.
If the review indicates that there are problems with your writing, then dig in and address those problems. This is one of the major benefits that comes from being a successful writer — they have become “experienced” because they have been asked to revise their work many times, and each time have learned how to improve their writing. Go through your manuscript carefully, several times, looking for those writing problems that tend to recur and learn how to “fix” them. If this challenge is just too daunting to do on your own, seek writing advice and assistance. Even if you take time to just read some good sources on writing for publication, you will quickly learn to pinpoint where your writing can be improved and will develop habits that give you better results—not because you always write better the first time, but because you become more skilled at revising your work. In addition to signing up for Nurse Author and Editor, check out the writing resources listed at this publication website. They have all been vetted and I can vouch for their excellence.
If your letter asks for revision, then take a minute to celebrate! You are well on your way, and even though there is never a guarantee that this journal will accept your manuscript if you revise it, the chances are much improved. So dig in and get to work. Take each and every reviewer comment or editorial request and consider how you can address each one. As you make the changes, prepare a “response to the review” document explaining what you have done to revise your work. If the reviewer comment indicates a serious misunderstanding or disagreement with your work, do not simply disregard this as the “reviewer is wrong,” but consider what changes you can make in the text to “speak to” any reader who might end up with this response to your work. Offer a better explanation or clarify what you wrote to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. If you need to completely revamp a section to better explain or to add detail, dig in and do it. If you need to delete content that would best go somewhere else, delete it but make sure your text still has a logical flow. Once you complete your revision, set it aside for just a couple of days, then go back and re-read your revised manuscript, make final changes you notice are needed, refine your “response” document, and send it back to the journal. Do this as soon as you possibly can. If the journal gives you a deadline, of course you want to meet that, but there is nothing wrong with being early—you won’t be penalized for that, although re-submitting late may have negative consequences.

Fundamentally, persistence is the key to publishing success. You might go through two or three (even more) re-submissions of a work you start out with before you are successful. But if you persist, seek assistance when you need it, and stay focused on improving your writing, you will succeed!

References

Nicoll, L., & Chinn, P. L. (2015). Writing in the Digital Age: Savvy Publishing for Healthcare Professionals. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/oxxc7n7
Oermann, M. H., & Hays, J. (2015). Writing for publication in nursing (3rd Ed.). New York: Springer.
Saver, C. (2017). Anatomy of Writing for Publication for Nurses (3rd Ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau.

About the Author

Peggy Chinn, RN, PhD, FAAN is 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.

2018-28-2-5 Chinn

Gold, Green, or Diamond: Which is Best?

Roger Watson

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(2), 6.

With the advent of open access publishing a new terminology has arisen to help people understand the various ways to get their works into print. What are these routes, how do they differ, and how do we decide among them? In the new parlance, these routes are being called “green,” “gold,” and “diamond.” But first, how did we get here?

Open Access

The concept of open access is a direct result of the Internet. Open access means that anyone can read a published piece of work—or view, for example, a piece of art online—free of any restrictions such as having to pay to view it and, often, without any restrictions on how that published piece of work may be used (provided it is acknowledged properly). When something is published open access, the copyright to that piece of work belongs to the creator and they can allow anyone to see it and use it. This is very different from how things used to be in the pre-Internet age.

Gold Route

In the beginning, the only way that an academic piece of work could be published was in, what we now call, “hard copy” or print. The Internet age has necessitated the evolution new terminology. The term hard copy was only necessary to distinguish something from its electronic version, soft copy. To obtain hard copy of a publication, money had to change hands. Either the reader paid to obtain a copy or they obtained a copy through an organization, typically a library, which had paid the publisher to make the publication available to the public. Nevertheless, even though freely available, the publication could not be used as the reader or the library wished. For example, neither could copy the work and distribute by other means; the publisher usually held the copyright which restricted use and re-use of the publication. Following the invention of the Internet and the recent appearance of open access, it is now possible to pay publishers to make published articles open access. This has this has become the gold route to publication.

Green Route

In parallel to the gold route to open access, the green route has evolved. Essentially, the green route is one whereby—legitimately—a version of a published article may be made available free to read and without the author paying for this without contravening publisher copyright. However, not every publisher permits green route to open access for their articles and when they do they are normally restrictions. It is common for publishers to impose an embargo period which can vary between 6 months to 2 years, depending on the subject matter of the journal. With very few exceptions authors are not permitted to make the final published version of their article available by the green route. The green route to publication—free to authors and readers—is not “free,” of course. Online platforms for open access must be created and maintained and this is usually done by universities and research institutes creating online digital repositories.

Diamond Route

The most recent invention in terminology related to open access is the diamond route (sometimes referred to as the platinum route) and, until now, I am sure that most readers have not encountered this method. Until I recently became involved with a journal that operates vie the diamond route I also had not heard of it. The journal with which I am involved as an editor is the WikiJournal of Medicine and this is described as operating the diamond route because no money changes hands at any stage of the publication process. The author does not have to pay to make their article open access and the reader does not have to pay. Nevertheless, nothing is free and somewhere in this process the platform for open access and some other parts of the process are financed. In the case, or example, of the WikiJournal of Medicine the platform for the journal is Wikipedia and some financing is made available from the Wikimedia Foundation. The list of diamond route open access journals is not big; in fact, only one appears to be listed under the Alliance of Diamond Open Access Journals (WikiJournal of Medicine not listed) but this is under the auspices of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association which includes some prestigious publishers.

Conclusion

I posed the question “Which is best?” in the title but this is a question to which there is no clear answer. If you can afford to pay then the gold route affords immediate, unrestricted open access to the final published article in a range of reputable journals; this could be the best—but it can cost thousands of dollars. Green route is open to most people and with the growth of compulsory open access to publicly funded research in Europe and Australia, there has been a significant growth in university repositories. It is early days for diamond route access and many may confuse this with the massive growth in recent years of the predatory publishers who often appear to offer very cheap or free open access publishing. Diamond route yet has to become established as an acceptable way to publish. From my perspective as an editor-in-chief of a “traditional” pay-to-view journal (which does offer gold route), editor of an open access journal, and now an editor of a diamond route journal I can see room for all these models. I fully expect the diamond route to become more popular in the coming months and years. Witness, for example, the growth of Wikipedia; often dismissed as an unreliable open source of evidence, it is now the largest encyclopaedia in the world.

About the Author

Roger Watson, PhD, FAAN, FRCN is Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Advanced Nursing; Editor, Nursing Open; Editorial Board Member of the WikiJournal of Medicine, 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/000-0001-8040-7625.

2018 28 2 5 Watson

Copyright 2018: The Author. May not be reproduced without permission.
Journal Complication Copyright: John Wiley and Son Ltd.

Mythbusters: Society Membership and Publishing

Leslie H. Nicoll

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

Editor’s Note: This is an 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!

“I am a member of X Nurses’ Association, therefore my manuscript will get preferential treatment if I submit to the association journal.”

“I had a poster at the annual meeting of X Nurses’ Association. The journal editor told me to submit a manuscript and she would make sure it was reviewed positively.”

“I know someone on the Board of X Nurses’ Association and she said to submit to the association journal—they really want manuscripts from members.”

In my years of facilitating writing workshops, and also my decade as being the editor of a society journal, I have heard variations on all of these questions. They all boil down to one point: as a society (or association) member, does an author have an extra advantage over other authors in getting a manuscript published? Unfortunately, this question does not have an easy yes or no answer. Let’s review each question individually to see what I mean.

Preferential Treatment

Many people assume that because they are association members, this confers some sort of favored treatment in the review process. I think it is pretty safe to say this is not true, so this particular myth can be busted. Think about it for a minute: you submit the manuscript to the journal. The editor does an initial review. How would the editor know that you are a society member? Perhaps your name is familiar or you mention your association membership in your cover letter. You might even include a photocopy of your membership card (yes, people have done this; I don’t recommend it, however!). While these may be alerts to your member status, they are likely to be brief and not long-lasting in the editor’s mind.

More important, though, is when the manuscript leaves the editor’s desk and goes out for peer review, the reviewers will have absolutely no way of knowing that you are an association member. The majority of journals use some sort of blind review—exactly how strict the “blinding” is can vary. Some journals want you to black out names of institutions or locations and ask you not to include your own name in any self-citations. Others (and I am in this camp) are okay with leaving this type of information intact. I figure that even if a reviewer is able to guess who an author is, that is still not going to influence the review. And, if a reviewer is able to guess who the author is and knows the author is a society member, is that going to change the review outcome? I think that is highly doubtful.

So, let’s bust the myth that as a society member, you will receive preferential treatment in the peer review process. Not going to happen.

Manuscripts from Conference Presentations: Instant Acceptance?

Editors go to conferences and while we are there, we try to drum up manuscripts for our journals. This is part of the job! We always want to have sufficient numbers of manuscripts in the pipeline so that we can be looking ahead and planning journal content. While there are some journals that are widely known and receive many more manuscripts than they could ever accept, for most of us, we cannot simply sit back and wait for manuscripts to pour through the door. We need to do a little recruiting.

If an editor approaches you at a conference and suggests submitting to the journal, be flattered! It means that they have listened to your presentation or read your poster and see that there might be a fit for journal content. It also means that the editor is welcoming new manuscripts. But beyond that…don’t read too much into the invitation. As with the prior question, the editor is not going to abandon the peer review process just because you became acquainted at a conference. If you mention in your cover letter that you met the editor at a conference and now you are following up with a submission, that might jog the editor’s memory, but that’s about as far as it goes. It goes back to the preferential treatment issue, and this question is really a variation on that theme.

So, an invite from an editor at a conference—how do you parse that? My advice: be flattered, follow through with a submission, but expect the rest of the process to proceed as usual. Let’s call this one a half-bust.

Member Manuscripts in General

The third question gets at the issue of manuscripts from association members, in a general way. If peer review doesn’t single out members as part of the process, then is the editor/society interested in having members submit to the journal? Of course they are! Members are the lifeblood of any association and member-authors are extremely important. You just need to think strategically about the way you approach writing for the society publication(s).

First off, many society members are clinicians and may not have a lot of writing and publishing experience. Editors know this but they also know that clinician innovations may be extremely thought-provoking and valuable content for the journal. Therefore, they are interested in helping novice authors be successful. If this describes you, then contact the editor with your idea. Ask for guidance: Does the editor have suggestions for how you could focus your topic? Would it be best as a certain type of article, ie, research brief rather than a full research report? If the editor is encouraging, then reach out to your networks to ensure that your manuscript is as well written as it can possibly be. Ask colleagues for review and feedback, then revise your manuscript before submitting. Too many novice authors set themselves up for failure by submitting poorly written and edited manuscripts that don’t meet journal guidelines. Don’t be that person!

Also, many associations have multiple publications—make sure to do your due diligence and select the right one for your manuscript. For example, the National Association of School Nurses has two journals: NASN School Nurse and the Journal of School Nursing. Both are peer reviewed but JOSN is more research focused while the former is described as “the clinical resource journal.” This double- or triple-publication approach is common, so do your homework and select the correct society publication outlet for your proposed manuscript.

Last, when your manuscript is accepted and moves into the production process, make sure to include your membership information in the “About the Author” bio that you will be asked to write. You should also include any society-associated credentials, such as certification, after your name. Remember that the preferred order for listing degrees and credentials is:

Highest earned degree
Licensure
State designations or requirements
National certifications
Awards and honors
Other recognitions (American Nurses Credentialing Center, 2013).

So, for the member manuscripts in general question, I think it is safe to say that societies/associations definitely want to receive potential articles from their members—these articles benefit the society and its members so it is a win-win. Just don’t assume you are a “shoe-in” and make sure to do your homework to present the best article possible, tailored appropriately for the journal to which you are submitting.

Conclusion

Association membership confers many benefits, including the potential to be a published author in one of its official publications. But approach this opportunity with clear eyes and do not make any assumptions about an easier review or acceptance process. Keep in mind that maintaining a high level of quality for all publications contributes to the integrity of the association and its members—and that includes you!

Reference

American Nurses Credentialing Center. (2013). How to display your credentials. Bethesda, MD: ANCC. Retrieved from: https://goo.gl/2hKtrG

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 3 1 Nicoll

Why Are So Few Nursing Science Papers Retracted?

Richard Gray

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(3), 2

Retraction is an important part of the scientific method. Research that is flawed—because of error or fabrication of data—is removed from the scientific record. In clinical disciplines, practice based on unsound observations may result in patients being given (or conversely denied) effective care. Nursing is out of kilter with much of the rest of science; fewer papers are retracted and for different reasons. Why is this, and what do we need to do differently as a discipline?

Established in 2010, Retraction Watch (www.retractionwatch.com) has the dual aim of tracking and reporting retractions in science. The number of papers that are retracted seems to be increasing exponentially. In 2016 Retraction Watch reported a 37% increase in retracted articles up from 500 in 2014 to 684 in 2015 (Belluz, 2016). Whether this trend demonstrates an increase in scientific misconduct or improved vigilance in spotting bad science is unclear. Interestingly, misconduct is, perhaps, not the most common reason for retraction. Wager and Williams (2011) reported that 40% of papers were retracted because of honest error or non-replicable findings and only 28% because of research misconduct. They also note that it is the original author (63%) who does most of the retracting. That said, there are novel reasons for retraction that may alter this arrangement. Over the past few years there has been an paroxysm of retractions because of fake peer reviews (see for example, McCook, 2018) and it has been argued that this may become the leading reason for retraction over the coming few years. It is probably not helpful for me to describe how you might go about manipulating the peer review system but sufficed to say it is not terribly difficult (with the right motivation). In part, this is because editors find it increasingly challenging to find peer reviewers.

Also relevant to this conversation is the observation that there is a strong correlation between the frequency of retraction and journal impact factor (put another way, publish in a high impact journal and you’re more likely to get retracted) (Fang & Casadevall, 2011). This observation may suggest that papers in leading journals come under more intense scrutiny from the scientific community and consequently more errors are spotted.

The consequences of having a paper retracted can be profound. Researchers caught fabricating data have, quite rightly, lost their jobs, professional registrations, and have had their reputations wrecked. It is both sobering and illuminating to read the case examples published on the retraction watch blog and there are examples where nurses have featured (the case of Moon-Fai Chan is informative https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/j-clinical-nursing/). The stigma associated with having a paper retracted can serve as a powerful disincentive. The unintended consequence may be that scientists who have made a genuine error fear the consequence of admitting it.

Retraction in Nursing Science

Retraction in nursing science differs in a number of important ways to other disciplines. Rates of retraction were reported in a systematic review of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) nursing science journals (Al-Ghareeb et al., 2018). In total the authors identified just 29 retracted papers. The review did identify a small—statistically significant—increase in the number of papers retracted over time. There was also a significant correlation between the number of papers retracted and the journal impact factors, but the impact factor was negatively correlated with the number of retractions (to put it another way, if you publish in a high impact nursing journal you are less likely to get retracted, which is contrary to the findings of Fang and Casadevall cited above). Two-thirds of included papers were retracted because they were duplicate publications and a one-quarter were randomized controlled trials. “Nursing science” was defined in the review as work published in JCR nursing journals. Of course, there are many journals not on this list and many nurses don’t publish their “best work” in nursing journals. As one of the first reviews of retraction in nursing, there are important limitations that need to be considered. That said we need to consider how might we explain the apparent differences between nursing and science more generally?

Men are seemingly more likely to have a paper retracted than women. This might of course be explained by women’s under-representation in science, particularly in senior roles. In a female dominated profession such as nursing this may account—at least in part—for the lower rates of retraction in the discipline. But is it conceivable that nurses never fabricate data? Probably not. Why then have no papers been retracted because of data fabrication? In my experience nurses are not sufficiently critical of published work; there is not the intensity of academic debate over studies published in nursing journals that you might find in medicine, for example. It is this intense post-publication scrutiny that weeds out error and fraud. At the Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, a journal that I edit, we get few letters to the editor (in 2017 we had one letter submitted) challenging or debating papers that we have published. I think this does a disservice to the profession.

Few articles in nursing science have been retracted because the author reported that they had made an error, again in stark contrast with science more generally. Is this because authors do not check papers they have published? Or if they spot an error do they not feel ethically obliged to report it? It cannot be overstated that in a clinical discipline research impacts patient care. If there is an error it is imperative that it is removed from the scientific record.

In nursing science there is a preponderance of qualitative methodologies. An anecdotal observation (no one has ever counted) qualitative papers rarely seem to get retracted. Presumably qualitative researchers do fabricate (or tweak) data? It must happen that when looking for a quote to illuminate a theme an author is tempted to reinterpret or simply invent one. After all, this is an area of enquiry where interpretation is at the core of the work. Qualitative researchers could publish their data sets in a repository (as is the trend with clinical trials data) allowing other researchers to review the core data. I can’t find an example of this happening. When talking to qualitative researchers the rationale they give is that it is too difficult to anonymize data. Other ways of spotting fraud in qualitative research includes the use of linguistic packages to spot if there are similarities in participants included quotes. It remains an important, but open, question as to whether research misconduct is actually less prevalent among qualitative researchers. Further work is required.

I, like most editors, find it challenging to recruit peer reviewers who will produce a considered, detailed and timely review. There is some evidence that the quality of peer review is in decline, if you can measure quality by the number of words; in 2016 the average length of a review was 457 words, a year later this had dropped to 342 words (“It’s not the size that matters,” 2018). Many of the reviews I receive have been even briefer. My point is that I think reviewers are becoming less invested in taking the time to do a detailed, thorough peer review. Checking to see if data might have been fabricated takes time and effort. It seems to me that there is a need to improve the quality of peer review but how to do this is a vexing issue that editors grapple with on an almost daily basis.

Retraction is an important part of the scientific method. In nursing, this system of self-correction is not working as it should and we need to fix it. These are my five suggestions about how we might do that:

Nurses—both clinical and academic—need to better understand their responsibility in correcting the scientific record if they spot error or misconduct.
We need to provide training to peer reviewers (particularly around research integrity), the Publons Academy is an excellent initiative that supports this (Watson, 2018).
Reviewers need to be rewarded for their contribution. I have long thought that contribution to peer review should be a key performance indicator for all academic nurses.
Authors should make data publicly available so that observations can be checked and verified.
Journal editors and publishers need to have a relentless focus on ensuring the integrity of the work they publish.

We need to see a year-on-year increase in the number of nursing science papers that are retracted. Nursing is a clinical discipline; ultimately our research impacts practice. If we don’t have a focus on weeding out bad science we put our patients at risk.

References

Al-Ghareeb, A., Hillel, S., McKenna, L., Cleary, L., Vistentin, D., Jones, M., … Gray, R. (2018). Retraction of publications in nursing and midwifery research: a systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 81, 8-13.
Belluz, J. (2016, March 24). Scientific journals are retracting more papers than ever before. This is probably good for science. Retrieved 14 July 2018, from https://www.vox.com/2016/3/24/11299102/scientific-retractions-are-on-the-rise
Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2011). Retracted Science and the Retraction Index. Infection and Immunity, IAI.05661-11. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.05661-11
It’s not the size that matters. (2018, February 26). Retrieved 18 July 2018, from https://publons.com/blog/its-not-the-size-that-matters/
McCook, A. A. (2018, July 12). A publisher just retracted ten papers whose peer review was “engineered” — despite knowing about the problem of fake reviews for years. Retrieved 15 July 2018, from https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/12/publisher-has-known-of-problem-of-fake-reviews-for-years-so-how-did-10-papers-slip-its-notice/
Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(9), 567–570. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040964
Watson, R. (2018). Publons: The solution to several long-standing problems. Nurse Author & Editor, 28(1), 6. http://naepub.com/authorship/2018-28-1-6/

Editor’s note

We don’t usually leave comments open on articles published on Nurse Author & Editor, but this article, to me, begs for a discussion. Dr. Gray raises lots of issues and while he presents five recommendations, there is much in this article that remains “up in the air.” Therefore, commentary from readers in encouraged. I look forward to the discussion! –LHN

About the Author

Richard Gray, RN, PhD is Professor of Clinical Nursing Practice, School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC 3086, Australia. He is also the Editor of the Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. You can contact him via email at: r.gray@latrobe.edu.au

2018 28 3 2 Gray

What Does an Editor Actually Do: Decisions about Manuscripts at the Point of Submission

Jacqueline Owens

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

You are writing a scholarly article, alone or with co-authors. Perhaps one of your faculty was impressed with your academic work and suggested that you pursue publication. Maybe your employer has a promotion ladder in place that encourages publication. Some authors write about once-in-a-lifetime experiences that occur in their practice, knowing that many readers may never encounter a scenario so rare. There are many good reasons to pursue scholarly publication as a nurse. But what happens to your submission once you hit that submit button and it is in the hands of the journal editor?

From another perspective, you are beginning a new position as a journal editor. Very quickly a number of manuscripts will cross your desk, and this time at least part of the decision rests with your expertise. Likely you have authored and published multiple articles by this point. You have well-honed writing and revision skills. But now, the call is yours. You receive a school paper as written. The next submission is well-written, but did the author even check what type of articles are published in this journal? This article is not a good fit, and you wonder whether or not you, as editor of a refereed journal, are obligated to send every submission for peer review. What are your options? What are your responsibilities?

Both authors and editors benefit from a clear understanding about how decisions are made throughout the publication process. For example, if an article is well-written, but not a good fit, the sooner that the editor communicates that to the author(s), the sooner this article may become published in a more appropriate venue. A poorly written manuscript may have important content, and great potential with additional work. In this article I will briefly highlight a few existing competencies for editors that apply to early editorial decisions, review early considerations and options in the process, and offer some common practices from experienced editors.

Existing Competencies

Mait (2013) noted that, “An editor is part of the review process as a matter of procedure” (p. ED8). Most of the time, the editor is the first person to evaluate a submission, and is thus the first peer reviewer. Blind peer review is the gold standard for scholarly journals, but the editor has additional responsibilities beyond those of a peer reviewer. Peer reviewers offer help by providing content or methodological expertise about a given topic, as the editor cannot know everything. The editor needs to determine specific qualifications of the author(s) that exclude the possibility of blind review, such as credentials, practice area, or academic and clinical affiliations.

Challenges such as unethical authorship and publishing practices are increasing (Oermann et al., 2018), as is the opportunity to disseminate scholarly work much more quickly in a fully or prepublication online format. Editorial groups are working to determine and formalize appropriate competencies for journal editors. While an extended discussion of editorial competencies is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to note that these competencies are evolving and now found in the literature. Galipeau et al. (2016) conducted a scoping review of competencies appropriate for editors of biomedical journals. This detailed review of journals (n = 225) and editorial groups such as the Council on Publication Ethics (COPE) resulted in 203 unique statements describing areas where journal editors should be competent. These were divided into actions dealing with authors, peer reviewers, journal publishing, journal promotion, editing, ethics and integrity, qualities and characteristics of editors, and other.

Examples of competency related statements appropriate to early decisions for manuscripts included accountability and fairness to authors; constructive criticism; mentorship and education of authors to produce best work; clear communication of publication decisions; critical evaluation of manuscripts; active encouragement for revisions; and proficiency related to publication ethics. Editors are expected to evaluate submissions for quality, clinical relevance, journal suitability, and meaningful content (Galipeau et al., 2016; Moher et al., 2017). They should be able to form preliminary opinions about manuscripts and make both fast and appropriate decisions using excellent judgment, even with difficult decisions. Helpful characteristics to this end included strong interpersonal skills and decisiveness (Galipeau et al., 2016). Galipeau and colleagues (2017) further investigated editors’ perceptions, training needs, and competency related statements in preparation for development of core competencies. The 148 study participants reached at least 90% consensus for 23 competency related statements, further supporting their earlier work. Three of these statements are particularly applicable to early decision-making and included accountability to authors to include fairness, courtesy, and objectivity and the ability to assess the quality and suitability of submissions (Galipeau et al., 2017).

Early Considerations

With these select competencies in mind, I will briefly describe early considerations in the decision-making process for a journal submission. The first is the timeline process. It is important for editors to confirm receipt of the submission. Sometimes this takes the form of an electronically generated confirmation, other times a personal email. If you are an author and have not received confirmation of your submission within a week, it is reasonable to email the editor to query whether or not your work has been received. Glitches do happen. When I respond to offer this information, I typically include the tentative timeline to the next decision. The amount of submissions can vary at any given point and impact my timeline. For example, faculty authors may use the summer to write extensively, and I receive a larger than usual number of submissions in late summer and early fall.

Another consideration is the type of submission. If the journal includes both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed features, you can likely expect submissions that will undergo peer review to require a longer turnaround time. If the journal accepts opinion pieces (e.g., op-ed or letters to the editor) often the editor can determine interest and acceptance shortly after submission, without peer review. The typical disposition of peer-reviewed manuscripts is immediate rejection without peer review; immediate request for revisions and potential resubmission and possible peer review; or assignment of the manuscript to journal peer reviewers.

Common Practices

New editors sometimes struggle to determine an appropriate disposition for submissions. Even seasoned editors can wonder about the best choice at hand. Authors may be curious about why a submission was immediately rejected or conversely, why the process is taking so long. Editors who are members of the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE), a collective group of editors with many years of experience and others just beginning their roles, often discuss editorial quandaries on a mailing list. Recently in response to a member query, we discussed the process of rejecting a submission without review. This led to a lively dialogue about the various choices for disposition of a new submission. The section will consider the dispositions noted above and describe what the editors who responded actually do in their practices.

Immediate Rejection Without Peer Review

One reason to reject a manuscript without peer review is to protect journal resources. The time of the editor and peer reviewers is valuable and should be directed toward manuscripts with a reasonable chance of publication. Manuscripts that are not a good fit with the journal mission or target audience rarely make it past the initial submission review by the editor. Sometimes the author(s) did not perform due diligence to select an appropriate journal. An example of this is an article with a good topic that is written as an opinion piece, submitted to a scholarly journal with an expectation of evidence-based discussion. There may be an accepted manuscript in the pipeline that is too similar in content and the timing is just unfortunate. Manuscripts may have flaws that cannot be fixed. Examples of these flaws are serious methodological limitations to research; ethical concerns such as no evidence of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval; or plagiarized content. In general, these rejections are made with no suggestions for revision and no invitation to resubmit the manuscript.

Immediate Request for Revision Without Peer Review/Resubmission for Possible Review

Many times the editor recognizes potential in a given submission, and suggests revisions that may positively impact the feedback from peer reviewers. This is an article with very good content, and fixable flaws, such as lack of clarity, poor grammar and syntax, inappropriate formatting or length, inadvertent breaches of confidentiality, or missing parts. The editor typically responds with feedback and an invitation to revise and resubmit for possible subsequent peer review.

Often these submissions are promptly returned with a brief recommendation to consult journal guidelines and make appropriate revisions. Some journals have electronic submission systems with preset criteria that will automatically reject manuscripts missing an abstract or above/below page requirements. Editors may recommend that authors who speak English as a second language seek editorial assistance from a native speaker. If a submission seems an exceptionally good fit, the editor may offer more detailed recommendations to improve clarity or develop content prior to evaluation by peer reviewers.

Assignment to Peer Reviewers

Assignment of a submission is the early outcome that every author awaits! Barring the concerns discussed above, submissions typically are sent to peer review for further evaluation and a final decision regarding acceptance. However, sometimes editors receive submissions that do not easily fit into the categories of immediate rejection or revise and resubmit. Many journals have more than one editor or an editorial team. For these cases, several INANE discussion participants noted that if they were uncertain of the decision, especially an immediate rejection, they often ask another editor for a second opinion or place the article on the team editorial review agenda. Most editors want to work with authors, so articles with interesting content and no fatal flaws may receive this in-house, second-level screening.

Implications for Authors and Editors

In sum, there are steps that both authors and editors can take to impact early decisions in the submission process. Authors need to carefully review available information, preferably prior to writing a manuscript. This includes the mission and target audience for a given journal; any call for articles on a certain topic; and review of recent publications to determine typical style of successfully published articles and potential duplication of content. If you are submitting a research report, use established, familiar headings. A brief query to the editor may also be helpful to determine suitability of content. It is especially important to carefully read the author guidelines. One editor who receives a very high volume of submissions estimated that approximately half are rejected immediately, and half of those because they did not adhere to author guidelines. Simply put, a journal that receives many submissions will choose to invest time in the highest quality manuscripts. Finally, if offered the chance to revise and resubmit, make sure you complete this opportunity in a timely fashion.

As they make early decisions in the publication process, editors can take steps to support authors. Recommendations noted in the mailing list discussion included providing a timely response to allow authors to pursue submission elsewhere and offering a brief rationale for the rejection if at all possible, much as you might with a rejection decision after peer review. One editor suggested an open mind to the creativity of authors, especially in the context of research reports, to include recommendations for revision and resubmission in a slightly different format. Preliminary research may not warrant a full article, but might instead be structured as description of a beginning level project that emphasizes outcomes and value to nursing or perhaps a manuscript that focuses on a given problem with the early research briefly included as an exemplar within the larger article. If an article offers good content and new insights, but needs work, it may be appropriate to send to peer review, selecting reviewers known for clear recommendations for improvement.

Review of these recent discussions provided clear evidence that most editors give careful thought to early decisions for every manuscript. The goal of most authors and editors is to reach as many readers as possible by publishing the best final product in the most appropriate journal. A clear understanding by all about what happens in the process, or what the editor actually does with an article, can inform and support that worthy goal.

References

Galipeau, J., Barbour, V., Baskin, P., Bell-Syer, S., Cobey, K., Cumpston, M., …Moher, D. (2016). A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. BMC Medicine, 14(16). doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2
Galipeau, J., Cobey, K, Barbour, V., Baskin, P., Bell-Syer, S., Deeks, J., …Moher, D. (2017). An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors’ perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. F1000 Research, 6(1634). doi: 10.12688/f1000 research.12400.1
Mait, J.N. (2013). An editor’s role and responsibility. Applied Optics, 52(31), ED8-ED 9.
Moher, D., Galipeau, J., Alam, J., Barbour, V., Bartolomeos, K., Baskin, P., …Zhaori, G. (2017). Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: Consensus statement. BMC Medicine, 15(167). doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0927-0
Oermann, M. H., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L, Ashton, K. S., Conklin, J. L., Edie, A. H., …Williams, B. L. (2018). Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook, 66(1), 4-10. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005

about the author

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 3 3 Owens
Copyright 2018: The Author. May not be reproduced without permission.
Journal Complication Copyright 2018: John Wiley and Son Ltd.

Online Literacy Skills Applied to the Sources You Cite

Peggy L. Chinn

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(3), 4

Scholarly publishing and publication literacy has always been a realm of knowledge that is absolutely essential for everyone who engages in education. This starts at the preschool level when youngsters are first introduced to the idea that there is a difference between what can be taken to be “true” and what is safely assumed to be “false.” Once students start taking on the challenge of writing “term papers,” part of the learning process is how to select reliable and trustworthy sources of information. Learning to discern the worth of sources multiplies the more advanced and sophisticated the student becomes. Now, however, everyone involved in academia faces new challenges, even those of us who have achieved what might be called “academic standing”—graduate students and the faculty who supervise graduate studies. The proliferation of information on the World Wide Web means that we need to be familiar with cues that indicate possible flaws in Internet sources, and many academic units have developed guidelines to teach students how to determine if a web source contains reliable and trustworthy information.

With the internet came open access publishing, which resulted in a tsunami of challenges for those who seek trustworthy scholarly sources—a challenge that articles in Nurse Author & Editor have addressed repeatedly (INANE “Predatory Publishing Practices” Collaborative, 2014; Nicoll & Chinn, 2015a; Owens, 2015). Part of this has to do with simply shifting from print literacy to digital literacy (Nicoll & Chinn, 2015b). Most of the attention so far has been focused on predatory publishing, and how to avoid the trap of publishing your work in journals produced by dishonest publishers.

However, it is also necessary to be wary of the sources you cite, those that you rely on as a basis for the development of your own ideas. This requires being informed about the pitfalls of predatory or dishonest publishing, but taking a close look at any source, particularly online sources, to determine if it can be trusted as a reliable source is essential in developing your own scholarship.

Print publication provided, and still provides, certain built-in barriers to deceptive practices and poor quality, the main one being the cost of publication and distribution of print media. Those of us who grew up learning print literacy acquired an almost automatic “trust” of anything published, just because it was published on paper. Print literacy did call for a measure of skepticism that questioned the credentials of authors, the reputation of the publisher or the journal, cues for any indication of a conflict of interest that might bias what was published, or reporting that fell short in terms of method or logic. But mostly, consumers of print have tended to believe that if something was published, it has a measure of credibility and the standards of skepticism may be ignored, or only “lightly” applied.

As those involved in higher education migrated to the realm of online information, the tendency to trust what has been published has spilled over. Most people recognize that the kind of traditional skepticism related to print media is still called for, but there remain huge gaps in the extent to which people exercise even the traditional literacy skills of skepticism. Further, they either knowingly or unknowingly lack essential online literacy skills. Even more alarming, all too often I encounter someone who expresses a casual refusal to recognize that the trustworthiness of any source is multiplied exponentially when it comes to sources available online. Perhaps when an article appears online to download as a portable document file (PDF), it acquires an aura of “print” credibility!

The fact is that being published in print does not guarantee credibility, and most people who are involved in academic careers know this to be the case despite a general tendency to trust print sources. Most people also recognize that the credibility of information published online calls for a heightened level of skepticism, but many people who consume online information related to their scholarship are still struggling with how to know the difference between what is credible and what is not. It is foolhardy to ignore this challenge, and to ignore the serious threat to scholarly integrity that exists every time anyone fails to recognize the flaws in any published work—print or digital. Most students and faculty are eager to avoid the pitfall of failing to discern that which is credible, and certainly no one wants to believe that they can be drawn into a trap involving less-than-credible sources. However, my interactions with students and faculty in many different contexts reveal a persistent lack of online literacy skills and even surprise at the extent of the challenge. The following sections describe three different types of sources you are likely to find online, the kinds of cues to look for in identifying their flaws, and what to do with the information you find.

In Plain Sight

In this situation you do not have to look far—you can plainly see the signs and symptoms of the problem. This kind of source seems all too obvious, with the literacy standards you would use for any print source being called on! But amazingly, I have seen this kind of source cited or mentioned as possibly worthwhile. You stumble upon an article that is related to your topic, with an intriguing title. The first clue is that you stumbled on this, perhaps even found it as a source someone else cited. But even if you think the “stumble” is not a problem, it does not take long to detect that there are problems. There are a few versions of this kind of source:

Reading the first few lines of content, you see poorly constructed sentences, poor grammar, typographical errors, misspelled words—any or all of these!
You do not detect major problems with grammar or writing at first, but as you read the first few paragraphs you realize that the content is not exactly making sense—it is just poorly written.
In the “plain sight” case you typically see problems with the citations and references used—poorly formatted references and perhaps obvious errors in the sources cited.

Typically, if you look at the journal in which the article is cited, it will be one that is published in a dishonest or predatory journal. But for articles that are this obvious, you can safely assume that no credible journal would publish such an article (see the next section for more on assessing the publication itself).

What to do with the obvious? Do not cite, and do not recommend to anyone else! The only good reason to keep the item around is to use it as a teaching tool, that is as an example of how easy it is to detect this kind of source.

The Palpable

These are sources that are not quite so obvious—you have to palpate or perhaps even do a big of sleuthing—to determine if it is a credible source. You might detect a few issues with the writing, such as passages or sections that do not quite make sense, but overall, you find the ideas worthwhile, perhaps poorly expressed but a bit novel and worth considering. In this case, what are your next best steps?

This is a case you will definitely want to check the publisher of the journal to determine if it is a credible journal. If you go to the journal website, you are likely to find “in plain sight” kinds of cues that should put you on alert. Some of the most common are poor English, lack of adequate information about the journal’s peer review process, missing (or unknown) editors or editorial advisory board members, sketchy guidelines for authors, inconsistent prior publication in the journal, and missing information about archiving of previously published works (Laine & Winker, 2017). If in doubt, consult your librarian!

Examine the references that the authors of the article cite. If you detect any discrepancies, if the citations are outdated, or if you know of much better sources related to this topic, then you may have a clue that this article is not itself a good source.

Here is an example from a 2011 article a student recently presented for discussion.

The authors of the article cite an article published in 1994 related to a key idea.
However, the authors of the cited 1994 article first published their work in 1990 and 1991, and the ideas were more fully developed by a third author in 1995.
The 1995 source is the most prominent source related to this key idea but it is not cited in the 2011 article.

This kind of assessment of the sources cited uncovers an inadequacy in the 2011 article that might occur even in a credible source. However, given the fact that we also determined that the article was published in a predatory journal, this evidence adds to the conclusion that this is not a credible source despite the fact that the ideas in the article are at least plausible.

What to do with the palpable? If the article is published in a journal that is not credible, set it aside and do not use it. If there are truly ideas worth considering, search further to find credible sources that explore these ideas, and use them as your sources instead.

The Itch

These are articles that are truly borderline—they are well written, contain good ideas that are sound with good foundations. But the “itch” article appears in a journal that is published by a predatory or dishonest publisher, perhaps one that seems a bit “borderline.” You have made a thorough assessment of the quality of the article, the sources cited in the article, and determined that based on the article content, it is credible. You have confidence in the author, whose credentials and expertise can be verified. But you have also confirmed that the publisher of the journal lacks credibility as a publisher, and in examining other articles published in the journal, few measure up to the quality of this article. This may be a case of an article that had already been submitted to at least one credible journal, and for some reason the author (probably unknowingly) turned to the predatory journal for publication.

What to do with the itch? Scratch it a bit, but at this time my best advice is to set this article aside and do not cite it. Find other works by this author that might be suitable sources to cite, or contact the author to find out more about their work. You might even opt to cite information from the author as personal correspondence. The bottom line is that you should not cite the predatory journal, as doing so provides legitimacy to the journal and publisher, which in turn contributes to the problem that is the crux of this entire discussion.

Conclusion

In summary, I have explained extending your online literacy skills to develop the ability to vet each and every source you cite in your own work. This might seem like a mammoth challenge at first, but the more you use these skills, the better your scholarship will be, and the less daunting the task becomes. Further, using these skills to cite only legitimate, credible sources helps to ensure the rigor of the knowledge base for nursing, and to stop the erosion that is occurring because of predatory publishing practices in the discipline.

References

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/
Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia Medica: Casopis Hrvatskoga Drustva Medicinskih Biokemicara / HDMB, 27(2), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031
Nicoll, L. H., & Chinn, P. L. (2015a). 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
Nicoll, L. H., & Chinn, P. L. (2015b). Writing in the Digital Age: Savvy Publishing for Healthcare Professionals. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/oxxc7n7
Owens, J. K. (2015). More trends in predatory publishing practices. Nurse Author & Editor, 25(1), 3. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NAE-2015-25-1-3-Owens.pdf

About the Author

Peggy L. Chinn, RN, PhD, FAAN is 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.

2018 28 3 4 Chinn

Think. Check.WRITE.Submit.

Leslie H. Nicoll

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(3), 5

Think.Check.Submit is an online initiative that is designed “to help researchers identify trusted journals for their research” (thinkchecksubmit.org, n.d.). The cornerstone of the site is an easy-to-use checklist that has been translated into more than 30 languages, although the campaign also has posters, slides, and other resources to help get the word out about the importance of assessing journals before you choose one for your manuscript submission. Think.Check.Submit is a cross-industry initiative founded by 12 well-known organizations including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Think.Check.Submit has been online for about four years. Its appearance on the World Wide Web would seem to coincide with the increased awareness (and concern) about predatory publishing, although the site is careful to avoid using words such as “predatory journal,” “predatory publishing,” or similar terms that refer to deceptive publishing practices in the scholarly literature. In this regard I think they err a bit too much on the side of caution, but that’s my opinion.

Anyone who has paid attention to my writing and research in recent years (Nicoll & Chinn, 2015a), or who has heard me speak at a conference or writing retreat, knows that I am very concerned about the damage that predatory journals and publishers can wreak on the scholarly literature in nursing. Nurses have taken a leadership role in identifying the problem (INANE Predatory Publishing Collaborative, 2014), documenting, through research, that predatory journals exist in nursing (Oermann et al., 2016), describing the problems that these publications perpetuate (Oermann et al., 2018), and suggesting solutions, which range from education and mentoring, to institutional policies that include punitive actions for those who support these nefarious journals (Oermann et al., 2016; Darbyshire, 2018).

Knowing my track record, people probably think I fully support the aims of Think.Check.Submit—and I do. But I always felt like something was missing and I could never quite put my finger on it. Then it hit me—nowhere on the site do they discuss where writing fits into their process of thinking, checking, and submitting. It is implied, but not stated, that authors write first, then begin the process of deciding on a journal for submission, which includes an evaluation of its trustworthiness and credibility (or, thinking and checking). But authors who write before selecting a journal do themselves a disservice and may very well be setting themselves up for manuscript rejection, before their article is even submitted. Therefore, I think the correct order for the mnemonic should be Think.Check.WRITE.Submit, and I will tell you why.

Why Manuscripts Are Rejected

I have been an editor for more than two decades and in all those years, I have met with and talked to dozens of other editors. Based on these conversations, I can say with certainty that editors reject the vast majority of manuscripts for two reasons: 1) it is not the right fit for the journal; and 2) it is not formatted correctly. I refer to these two reasons as content and hygiene. Both of these problems are easily addressed and wise authors will ensure that they do not make these mistakes when preparing and submitting manuscripts for publication. Of course, these are not the only reasons manuscripts are rejected. Certainly errors such as fatal flaws in the scientific method, inappropriate statistical analysis, or lack of institutional review board (IRB) oversight are reasons for manuscript rejection. But I suspect that the Pareto (1896/1897) principle is at work here: 80% of manuscripts are rejected for content and hygiene problems and 20% for other reasons.

Journal Due Diligence

With this understanding of the reasons for potential rejection, I advise authors to be thorough in vetting a journal before they ever set pen to paper (or lay their fingers on the keyboard, in more modern parlance). I call this process “Journal Due Diligence” (Nicoll, 2012; Nicoll & Chinn, 2015b). The term comes from the banking and investment industries and refers to conducting a comprehensive analysis to determine if money is being wisely used, whether for a loan, stock purchase, or something else. In terms of a journal, the process is similar: carefully reviewing all aspects of a journal to determine if it is the right potential publication outlet (ie, “fit”) for your manuscript. Part of this assessment must include an evaluation of the journal’s legitimacy to ensure that it is not predatory. This is probably best done by considering the journal in the larger context of who the publisher is and the length of time that the journal has been in existence.

I compared my criteria for Journal Due Diligence (Nicoll, 2012; Nicoll & Chinn, 2015b) with the “Check” criteria on the Think.Check.Submit website and found quite a bit of overlap. This is reassuring as it serves as evidence that those of us who provide authorial guidance are all on the same wavelength. However, I will say upfront that a key point, which I think is essential for evaluation and which is not included on the Think.Check.Submit checklist, is a statement about the journal’s mission and purpose and its intended audience. Without evaluating this information, how can you even begin to determine if your proposed article will be the right “fit” for the journal that you are reviewing? These items are right at the top of my checklist. If the audience does not include nurses or if the mission/purpose is not congruent with what you are writing, then you probably can just end your evaluation of this particular journal at this point, and move on to the next one.

With that caveat, these are the areas of congruence between my Journal Due Diligence checklist and the “Check” criteria at the Think.Check.Submit website.

Journal familiarity
- Do you know the journal? Do your colleagues?
- Have you read articles in this journal?
- Is the Table of Contents for recent and past issues easily accessible?
Editor and Editorial Board
- Is the Editor clearly identified?
- Are the members of the Editorial Board clearly identified?
- Are there any familiar names (ie, leaders in the specialty)?
- Is contact information for key people (editor at a minimum) provided?
Publisher information
- Publisher name and contact information should be easily identifiable on the website.
- Evaluation of the publisher: Is this a well-known, established company?
Peer review processes
- Clearly identified and described?
Indexing and discoverability
- Where are articles indexed?
- Are archival processes described or evident (ie, back issues of the journal are available on the journal website)?
Fees for publishing
- Are there any fees to publish in the journal?
- If so, are they clearly identified by amount and when the fees are to be paid?

Because I advise authors to evaluate a journal before writing a manuscript, I also include information about manuscript preparation on my due diligence checklist. These items are not on the Think.Check.Submit list, but I think they are important. You should review and identify:

Is a link to the Information for Authors included at the journal website?
- When reviewing this document, does it provide clear, comprehensive guidance on how to prepare your manuscript?
Manuscript length specified (in words or pages)?
- What is included in the length (text, references, tables, abstract)?
Abstract required?
- If yes, what is the length and format?
Manuscript formatting requirements (such as margins or fonts)
References
- Citation style for references identified (APA, AMA or something else)?
- Is there a limit on the number of references?
Title page requirements
Is a cover letter required?
Is a copyright transfer form required?
- If yes, when does it need to be submitted?
How is the manuscript submitted?

Think.Check.Submit includes this question (which I do not): “Is the publisher a member of a recognized industry initiative?” and they give several examples. Since the site is a cross-industry initiative, I understand why this question is on the list. The information is important but ferreting it out on a journal website might not be terribly easy, especially for someone who is not super-familiar with evaluating journals and their websites. I would encourage you to try your best to find the answer to this question, but don’t let it become a barrier to choosing/not choosing a journal for your article submission.

Conclusion

As you can see, my Journal Due Diligence process corresponds closely with the thinking and checking steps of the Think.Check.Submit website. This is a positive finding, although I would submit that my process is more detailed and comprehensive than what they provide. Since I tell authors to do this evaluation and select a journal before they begin writing, I believe that the word WRITE should be prominently inserted, after Check and before Submit, in the Think.Check.Submit mnemonic. By understanding what is needed to carefully evaluate a journal before writing and then submitting an article, you can have confidence that you are ticking the boxes to ensure that your article is the right fit (content), properly formatted (hygiene), and not falling into the hands of a predatory publisher.

References

Darbyshire, P. (2018). Fake news. Fake journals. Fake conferences. What we can do. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(9-10), 1727–1729. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14214.
INANE Predatory Publishing Collaborative. (2014). Predatory publishing: What editors need to know. Nurse Author & Editor, 24(3), 2. Retrieved from http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/NAE-2014-24-3-2-INANE-Collaborative.pdf
Nicoll, L.H. (2012). Manuscript Success. Portland, ME: Bristleone Pine Press.
Nicoll, L. H., & Chinn, P. L. (2015a). 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
Nicoll, L.H., & Chinn, P.L. (2015b). Writing in the Digital Age: Savvy Publishing for Healthcare Professionals. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
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: An Official Publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing / Sigma Theta Tau, 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. (2018). Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook, 66(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005.
Pareto, V. (1896/1897). Cours d’conomie Politique Profess a l’Universit de Lausanne, Volumes I and II.

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 authors 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 3 5 Nicoll

Podcasting: An Effective Way of Disseminating Your Work

Roger Watson

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(3), 6

Ever considered making a podcast? If you are not sure what a podcast is, it’s a sound or video file that can be downloaded to your own computer or mobile device. The fact that podcasts can be downloaded is their unique advantage unlike, for example, YouTube® presentations which can only be viewed when logged into the Internet. A podcast can be watched or listened to at any time without having to be connected to the internet. This makes them a very popular way for people to listen to information ranging from entertainment programmes to educational material. Podcasting is very attractive to some leading journals such as the BMJ and The Lancet where many articles are supported by regular and frequent podcasts. At the Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN) we have a blog (JAN interactive) where each of my entries is supported by a podcast and, judging from the downloads, these have proved very popular. However, podcasts must be made, and this requires some minimal effort preceded by setting up the podcasting facilities on a computer. Setting it all up takes time, but it only needs to be done once and you are ready to podcast.

What do I need to make a podcast?

Podcasts can only be made if you have a computer that is linked to the World Wide Web. Podcasts must be made available there to be listened to and/or downloaded. Restricting ourselves to audio—by far the most popular and flexible form of podcasting (they can be listened to in a car, for example, or on headphones as you walk)—the minimum requirement is to have the facilities to produce MP3 audio files. This can be done either by recording into a mobile device such as a dictaphone with facilities to save and transfer MP3 files to a computer, or you can record directly on to a computer, using some type of recording software to produce the MP3 file. Most computers allow you to record speech as they have a built-in microphone, but the best quality will be obtained if you use a peripheral high-quality microphone. This is not essential, but if you become a serious podcaster then the investment in this piece of equipment is worthwhile.

By whatever means you make MP3 files then you will need an editing facility on your computer. There is an excellent and widely used public domain package called Audacity which is remarkably easy to use. You do not have to become an expert at editing, but you will have to trim files at the start and finish and learn how to edit out pauses, coughs, and occasional noises such as doorbells and phones.

Once you have a suitable MP3 file then you are ready to podcast. I struggled for a long time trying ‘do it yourself’ podcasting which involved so many steps and complicated settings on the computer that I gave up several times. Then I discovered podcast hosting sites. Many offer some free uploads to get started and, thereafter, a modest subscription for continued use. The podcasting site I use is Podbean and it is very straightforward. You can have a podcast online within a minute complete with the sound file, a title, a picture, key words and a link to your social media sites. In less than 4 years I have produced over 400 podcasts which have been downloaded nearly 17,000 times. Other podcast sites that I have read about include Blubrry, Buzzsprout, Libsyn, and Spreaker.

So, what’s the point?

The point is that people listen to podcasts. If you are wondering if podcasts are worth the time and effort, I think they are. I have rarely had anyone come up to me recently as tell me how much they enjoyed reading an article of mine, but I have had people come to me and tell me how much they enjoy listening to my podcasts. I have also had several emails to that effect. It is hard to tell how many people listen to a podcast and then download, read, and cite the work that is being described in the podcasts. But, at the very least, the main ideas from the articles about which I podcast are being disseminated and the profile of JAN is being increased. If only a few people subsequently download and cite the work then that, presumably, includes a few people who may not, otherwise, have done so.

In addition to the articles about which I tweet I also produce ‘author service’ podcasts which are very popular and these include recordings of writing workshop presentation and also special recordings on a range of topics in academic publishing such as issues around open access and predatory publishers and the ‘Four rules of writing’. My series on academic publishing myths was very popular. I also podcast all my contributions to Nurse Author & Editor such as this one on PubPeer.

I am convinced about the value of podcasting and, having become used to listening to the sound of my own voice, I find it a very enjoyable and not at all time-consuming adjunct to my other activities in academic publishing. My challenge to you, if you are an editor, is to select a few interesting articles on a regular basis and make a short informative podcast about it and consider making this a regular feature of your journal. If you are also an author, then many journals offer podcasting facilities—if you are asked to make a podcast about your article then please take the opportunity.

About The Author

Roger Watson, PhD, FAAN, FRCN is Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Advanced Nursing; Editor, Nursing Open; Editorial Board Member of the WikiJournal of Medicine, 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.ukand follow him on Twitter: @rwatson1955. His ORCiD ID is orcid.org/000-0001-8040-7625.

28 2 6 Watson

Copyright 2018: The Author. May not be reproduced without permission.
Journal Complication Copyright: John Wiley and Son Ltd.

Selecting Keywords for your Manuscript

Marilyn H. Oermann and Beverly Murphy

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

Most journals ask authors to include keywords with their manuscript submissions. Keywords are the terms and phrases that represent the main topics in the paper. They are important because keywords are used by potential readers when searching for information in bibliographic databases such as MEDLINE, the U.S. National Library of Medicine® (NLM) database; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and others. In addition to helping readers find your article when searching for a topic, they help to ensure accurate indexing of the publication in the database. Both of these are important components of discoverability both short- and long-term.

What are Keywords?

Articles, books, and other materials that are indexed in bibliographic databases are accompanied by specific information about the publication including keywords. These keywords are the terms used for indexing the document, and by general definition, can include anything from formalized indexing structures to words or phrases included in the title and/or abstract. Each of the bibliographic databases has its own vocabulary for this indexing.

MEDLINE uses Medical Subject Headings or MeSH® terms, a controlled vocabulary developed by the NLM. Though author-generated keywords are not necessarily used to index articles, they are searchable in MEDLINE when supplied by the publisher (Torres, 2013). These keywords are searchable in addition to the words and phrases in the titles and abstracts of the articles, minus the stop words (e.g., a, and, the), which are not searchable To assist in retrieval, authors can supply keywords with their manuscript submissions using the MeSH vocabulary.

In the MEDLINE database, more specific terms are grouped under broader terms (NLM, 2017a). Authors should use the most specific MeSH terms as keywords rather than the broad and more general headings. For example, problem-based learning is included under teaching, which is under education. For a manuscript on how faculty used problem-based learning in their course in a baccalaureate nursing program, the terms “problem-based learning” and “baccalaureate nursing program” or the specific MeSH terms (problem-based learning and education, nursing, baccalaureate) would be better to use than “teaching and education” or “teaching and nursing education,” which are too broad.

The CINAHL database indexes its publications using CINAHL subject headings, some of which are based on MeSH terminology, but additional terms are included that focus on nursing and allied health literature. CINAHL headings also are organized from general to more specific. “Problem-based learning” is a subject heading in CINAHL under the broader term “learning methods.” For the manuscript on how faculty used problem-based learning in their baccalaureate nursing program, the terms “problem-based learning” and “education, nursing, baccalaureate” would be effective keywords to bring readers to the article if they searched for the topic in CINAHL.

Tips for Identifying Keywords

To improve the chances of others finding your article in a search, authors should give some thought to the keywords they provide with their manuscript submissions. Here are some strategies for identifying possible keywords:

Relevant keywords should be included the title and abstract of your manuscript, which are searchable in these bibliographic databases. Selecting MeSH terms that represent the main topics in your manuscript and might be searched by readers supplements the terms used in the title and abstract. By using additional keywords, authors can extend the representation of their content beyond the words in the title and abstract (Grant, 2010).
Along the same lines, try to provide unique keywords for searching that complement that title and abstract, but do not necessarily duplicate them.
Many databases do not search the full text by default so it is important that keywords include words and phrases used frequently in the text. To confirm your selection, you can do a search of these terms in your text.
Because many nursing journals are in multiple bibliographic databases, consider choosing keywords that are MeSH terms, as they might be relevant when searching for the topic in both MEDLINE and CINAHL. Check CINAHL for additional subject headings, words, and phrases you might include with the manuscript submission, recognizing that some terms might not be used for indexing the article in MEDLINE. If the journal to which you are submitting is indexed in other bibliographic databases, such as PsycINFO, you should check their thesaurus of index terms and decide whether to add other words to your list of keywords.
Be selective about the keywords because most nursing journals restrict the number allowed with the manuscript submission. A study of nursing journals indicated that the median number of keywords to be provided by authors was 6, with a range of 3 to 20 (Oermann, Nicoll, Chinn, et al., 2018)
Sometimes searching for similar articles on your topic and examining the terms used in the database for indexing them provides ideas for keywords for your manuscript. Think about the terms you would use in a search and test to see if these will locate similar articles for the topic of your manuscript.
Identify similar terms and variations that readers might use in a search. These might be included as some of your keywords with your manuscript submission.
As indicated earlier, keywords should not be too broad and instead should be more specific in representing the main topics in the manuscript.
Be cautious about using acronyms. Some nurses and others who are searching for information may not be familiar with a particular acronym. A good example is QSEN (Quality and Safety Education for Nurses). While this is a familiar topic to most nurse educators in the US who might search for information using QSEN, others might not be familiar with it.
Test your keywords! Enter them in MEDLINE and CINAHL to confirm these words identify similar articles to your manuscript.
The NLM (2017b) provides two tools that authors can use for deciding on MeSH terms as keywords for their manuscripts. One is MeSH on Demand. With this tool authors can paste their abstract or manuscript into a text box, and the software searches for related MeSH terms. A second tool is the MeSH Browser, which authors can use to search for relevant terms for their manuscript.

Conclusion

Effective keywords should convey the main topics in your manuscript and include words and phrases readers would use to search for this information in a bibliographic database. These keywords increase the discoverability of your article and will provide a better chance of others finding it in a search. Carefully selected keywords will also help to ensure accurate indexing of the publication.

References

Grant, M.J. (2010). Key words and their role in information retrieval. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 27, 173-175. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2010.00904.x
Oermann, M.H., Nicoll, L.H., Chinn, P.L., Conklin, J.L., McCarty, M., & Amarasekara, S. (2018). Quality of author guidelines in nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 50, 333-340. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12383
Torre, S. (2013). Author keywords in PubMed. National Library of Medicine Technical Bulletin, 390, e2. Retrieved from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/jf13/jf13_pm_keywords.html. Accessed September 23, 2018.
U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2017a). Fact sheet Medical Subject Headings (MeSH®). Retrieved from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/mesh.html. Accessed August 18, 2018.
U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2017b). Suggestions for finding author keywords using MeSH tools. Retrieved from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/authors.html. Accessed August 18, 2018.

About the Authors

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. marilyn.oermann@duke.edu

Beverly Murphy, BS, MLS, AHIP, FMLA, is Director for Communications and Web Content Management at the Duke University Medical Center Library and Archives and the Hospital Nursing Liaison for the Duke Health System and Watts School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina, USA. She is a former Editor of the Medical Library Association News and is currently co-editing a book, Diversity & Inclusion in Libraries: A Changing Facet of Librarianship, which is due for publication in early 2019. beverly.murphy@duke.edu

2018 28 4 1 Oermann Murphy

Guard Your Academic Writing “A” Time

Lynn B. Clutter

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(4), 2

During the busyness of life in the academic world, it is critically important to guard time for writing. This task is difficult to do with the tyranny of urgent and myriad faculty requirements. Typically, writing energy and time is the first to go during the press of the semester. While we may provide excellent teaching, mentor students well, and meet administrative needs, our scholarly contributions and writing can dwindle. In her book, Write No Matter What, Joli Jensen acknowledges that academia can be a terrible place for writers. Revealing myths that stall and unpacking numerous useful notions, the author provides practical strategies toward advancing writing productivity. One specific idea has resonated significantly with me.

Understanding Personal Energy Resources

Identifying writing energy as a, “reliable, renewable resource” (Jensen, 2017, p. 32) can allow us to learn how to best use our own energy patterns. Referencing Zerubavel (1999), Jensen explains that our energy can be divided into “A time,” “B time,” and “C time.” “A time” is when we are most productive with the most energy. “B time” still requires mental alertness but not the most creative vigor. “C time” is for tasks that do not require internal creative energy but need to be completed. Grading, setting up exams in a learning system, email responses and the like can be C tasks. If we align our best energy to the appropriate level, we respect our own rhythms and avoid the sap of vitality that full energy for all time periods would require. We allow the mundane tasks to occupy low energy times. We can give our best strength to what we put in A time.

Pointing out the differing daily schedules of famous authors, Zerubavel (1999) encourages writers to design personally the best possible writing schedule aligned with individualized creativity/productivity hours. To do this keep track of your own times of focus, momentum, and energy level fluctuations. If you design your daily and weekly writing while attuning to A, B, and C tasks, you become deliberately more productive and can later lengthen your uninterrupted A time. Both Jensen (2017) and Zerubavel (1999) emphasize A time as sacred prime time.

Time Traps

One tremendous application for me has been the error of putting C tasks into A time. It is so very easy to do. It is so insidious and academe can be a hard taskmaster. The joy of writing can be siphoned off, drawn out, drained, and sucked away if we regularly put C tasks during A time. This has been driven home to me on many occasions. There are both internal and external typical traps luring us toward this reversal.

Here are some internal traps:

“I will process these emails and then be ready to write.”

This classic mental reasoning can sap minutes to hours every single day. I can deceive myself by thinking that clicking through emails will be all that is needed. But, when even just one requires a response, A time or energy can be hijacked.

“I will just knock off this ____ before writing.”

Nearly everything that fills in the blank of an “I will just” thought is usually a C or perhaps, B time task. In fact, C time tasks are frequently chores, duties, or assignments that can drain your energy.

“I will work through my ‘To Do List’ one by one.”

This mentality is efficient in that you accomplish one task at a time and bring it to completion. The philosophy, touted as an excellent approach for efficiency, does not take into account personal creative energies. A person can give each item full energy then be utterly empty with exhaustion and searching for escape to finish the items on the “To Do” list, which may be those tasks that require A level energy.

Here are some external traps:

“I must attend meetings that happen during my A time.”

No, this is not always necessary. You often have some control of timing and your schedule.

“I must be available during all working hours.”

Availability can still allow energy to be allotted differently for A, B, and C times. While classroom teaching, and “command performance” meetings are not controllable, we adapt our energy times around the unchangeable meetings only.

“I must accomplish departmental work even when it infringes on my A time.”

I found that when I explored this viewpoint, I was able to find ways to infringe less on my A time while still getting the departmental work done.

If we honor our own energy levels, acknowledging that the amount varies through the day and week, we can apportion tasks to A, B, or C time and use our own inclusion and exclusion criteria—as with research. Respect your own personal rhythms. Maintain a stronger internal locus of control. Enjoy and have energy for each level. Further, remember that all of us tend to re-energize out of the satisfaction of successful productive writing outcomes.

Aligning Writing Tasks to A, B, and C Time

One can use A, B, and C time within specific writing projects. For the most part, academic writing fits into A and B categories (Zerubavel, 1999). Focused creative energy writing and editing usually requires A time energy. B time may be for fact checking, reference work, and creating figures or tables. C time could be for things such as writing query letters, uploading documents, or making telephone calls.

Energy levels can fluctuate even after time allotments have been apportioned through the week. When energy crashes during an A time writing task, different strategies can be employed to re-energize or redirect the time period. I find that a temporary break, a cup of tea, or five minutes reading the newspaper sometimes re-energizes me enough to press through. Other times it is best to reduce the period to B activities and rearrange my A time elsewhere.

Be Realistic and Flexible

“Energy vampires,” whether they be people, tasks, or events, happen in academic life (Jensen, 2017). Try to put these things into C time and match task to energy the best you can. Use A, B, or C time to keep your scholarly writing on task and be flexible to adapt and thrive in your academic setting.

Strong emotions can hinder A time productivity. An example would be resentment toward work or toward the many, unwanted demands of academia. It is easy to be irritated by having a required meeting scheduled at the last minute that forces a change in your existing schedule. These emotions of resentment or irritation can refract your productivity. Also, internal grief work requires internal energy and can occupy A, B, or C times. This can indirectly reduce scholarly outcomes. Overextending yourself is another way to diminish A time productivity. It takes work to match energy to tasks and times and to decide what to include and exclude in each category. It takes patience and flexibility to adapt.

In allotting A, B, and C activities, it is important to keep some flexibility. Life happens. Sometimes you will choose to give your A time to family or personal aspects of yourself. You will need to adjust priorities and responsibilities. However, if the tyranny of the urgent usurps much of your A time, something is misaligned.

Conclusion

Reclaiming focused A time can bring joy back to academic writing. Honoring your own energy levels can bring contentment. Being able to control some inclusion and exclusion to A, B, and C time can regain internal locus of control and greater self-satisfaction. All of these can yield an outcome of greater academic writing productivity.

References

Jensen, J. (2017). Write No Matter What: Advice for Academics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo26049293.html
Zerubavel, E. (1999). The Clockwork Muse: A Practical Guide to Writing Theses, Dissertations, and Books. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674135864

About the Author

Lynn B. Clutter, PhD, APRN, CNS, CNE is on the faculty at the Oxley College of Health Sciences School of Nursing at the University of Tulsa, Tulsa OK. Her teaching/practice areas are pediatric, maternal-infant, family, community health, genetics, ethics, and research. Her passion is equipping students for effective professional nursing roles as well as providing excellent patient/family care in nursing service. Dr. Clutter also is committed to helping prepare students to pursue advanced degrees by providing a sound educational and research foundation at the BSN level. lynn-clutter@utulsa.edu

2018 28 4 2 Clutter

Mapping Your Way to Successful Writing

Carol V. McIlhenny and Teresa Shellenbarger

Nurse author & Editor, 2018, 28(4), 3

Students, faculty, and even accomplished authors sometimes struggle to get started with their writing activities. To create a well-constructed paper, they must organize various pieces of information into a cohesive written product. Some authors may only need to spend some time thinking about the information and the structure of the paper emerges, but for other writers, the process is not so simple. They may lack clarity or focus as they develop their work and don’t have a clear vision or purpose of their paper. These struggling writers may need a more structured approach to help move their idea to an organized and understandable product. If this describes you, pre-writing activities and mapping techniques may offer a solution.

Pre-Writing

Pre-writing is an essential step to developing a cohesive, organized written work. During the pre-writing stage, authors need to generate ideas and then understand how concepts are connected. Traditional approaches used by many writers during pre-writing include brainstorming and a variation, free writing. Basically, you set a time limit (i.e., fifteen minutes) and write uninterrupted about a topic in a stream of ideas. It is important to allow for a free association of ideas and not to edit, reread, or correct information but rather, just write until the allotted time is up. If you are a writer who struggles to resist editing, you might find it helpful to turn the computer monitor off and just type during a free writing session.

Organizing

Once the free writing session is complete, you can go back, reread the ideas, and begin to organize your thoughts by grouping topics together. Major ideas that emerge can be used to create a listing of important ideas which in turn can lead to a structured outline. Many of us may remember being taught the official structure of outline writing with the essential lettering and numbering of the formal outline. Main ideas are listed in the outline followed by sub-items, supporting materials, or discussion points that are then elaborated upon when writing. This may be an effective pre-writing and organization approach. But others may prefer to modify the outline structure by moving from the brainstormed topics to generating main topics and subsections that form a loosely structured bulleted list of ideas. These linear organizational formats can help formalize ideas, but for some of us, this approach may be difficult and constricting. Visual thinkers may be more comfortable with an approach that graphically helps them organize their ideas. The use of mind maps or concept maps may provide an alternative pre-writing approach. Figure 1 is an example of a mind map for this article. Note that the map shown in Figure 1 was created with one of the software resources (bubble.us) discussed in the next section.

Mapping

Mapping is a diagramming technique that may already be familiar since many educators use concept mapping as a teaching-learning activity with students (Garwood, Ahmed, & McComb, 2018). Concept maps are tools that enable you to cluster ideas and visualize the relationship between ideas (Davies, 2010). For writers, concepts maps may serve as a graphic organizer and help make connections between information and ideas.

In its simplest form, concept mapping can be done using paper and pencil where ideas are clustered and diagrammed onto the page. To construct a hand-written concept map, you would begin by placing the main topic in a central location, usually at the center of a page. This main concept is usually enclosed within a symbol or shape such as a box or circle. Next, main ideas or subtopics, also enclosed within a shape or symbol, would branch off from the main topic and are connected by lines to the main topic forming a web of information. Traditionally this may look like a branching tree or it could resemble a sunburst-like diagram. The difference between concept maps and mind maps involves the connection of ideas. Mind maps show linkages between concepts with lines or arrows connecting the ideas. With with concept maps, these same linkages exist but connecting or relationship words are included to show how one idea links with another. Relationship words include increased, leads to, results from, represented by, is part of, can be used for; a wide variety of other linking words can be used to show these connections.

Traditionally, concept maps were created by handwriting ideas on a piece of paper. This approach works effectively for some topics and authors, but it does not allow for easy rearrangement of ideas on the written page. Changes to the concept map are cumbersome. As the writer sees the ideas emerge and they formulate their thoughts, they may want to move content, but this can be challenging if handwritten on a page. Using notecards or Post-It notes might be an alternative approach. With this movable technique, the writer brainstorms ideas and writes them on the card or note. Separate ideas are written on their own card or note and then the items are then arranged into a meaningful map. This process allows for the movement of ideas during this pre-writing phase. Ideas can be moved to different parts of the map until you are satisfied with the organization of the material. Then, it is possible to move from pre-writing to the writing stage with the assistance of the organizational map. Once the ideas are grouped and visually connected, you can use this map to form paragraphs.

Digital Mapping Tools

These traditional methods of creating maps can aid in visually organizing the information and facilitate writing. However, with technology growth, this approach may seem outdated. Alternative computer-based mapping approaches may be more suitable than traditional hand-written mapping techniques. Concept maps can now easily be created using computer programs or applications. Table 1 provides a listing of some of the computer programs and applications that are available to use for concept mapping activities. This table provides information about access to the program, the platform used, cost, and other special features.

These mapping programs can assist you to create the same topic map as a hand-written concept map, but the technology allows you to easily move content on the map and make changes as ideas emerge and develop. Materials can be added, removed, and moved. An electronic file is created and updated as changes are made. For writing teams, these electronic maps can be easily shared with collaborators allowing members of the writing team to edit or add to the map.

Table 1: Concept Map Applications

Before using these technology-based mapping options to assist with writing, authors should consider what program will best meet their needs. Consider if your writing is done alone or with collaborators. If writing with others, will an electronic concept map work for the group? Can you share the files and edit them? Can the collaborators input and edit the map if needed? Another consideration is the challenge and time needed to learn the mapping technology. Find out if there templates you can use to give you a head start on the map. Is there technical support available to assist you?

Even though there may be a learning curve in mastering the technology, these programs offer a visually-based alternative to concept maps that can be easier to modify and save than traditional hand-written concept maps. They also may be easier for collaborators to share and edit. These writing approaches may be appealing to some writers and may help guide writers as they move from idea generation to writing. Consider these writing techniques and approaches to help generate, cluster, and organize your ideas. Find the approach that meets your writing needs and use it to map your writing success.

References

Davies, M. (2010). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301.
Garwood, J. K., Ahmed, A. H., & McComb, S. A. (2018). The effect of concept maps on undergraduate nursing students critical thinking. Nursing Education Perspectives, 39(4), 208-214. doi:10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000307

About the Authors

Carol V. McIlhenny, MHSc, BSN, RN, RNC-OB is a PhD Candidate at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA. She is an experienced nurse and has worked in a variety of professional nursing positions in diverse roles and settings. Contact Carol by email: pgsw@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 & Editor and regularly contributes articles about writing, Contact Teresa by email: tshell@iup.edu.

2018 28 4 3 McIlhenny Shellenbarger

Grammar: What It Is, and What It Is Not

Thomas Lawrence Long

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

In my role providing writing support services in the University of Connecticut’s Center for Nursing Scholarship and Innovation, I often work with faculty and doctoral students in interpreting journal manuscript reviewers’ and editors’ reports. When researchers receive a revise-and-resubmit judgment, they need to understand the critique and undertake the appropriate revisions.

Often my coaching is stymied, however, by a comment that is as vague as it is inaccurate: “The manuscript has many grammar errors that need to be corrected.” Usually, after reading the manuscript myself, I say to the author, “I find no grammar errors here. There are several mechanical errors, and a few places where sentence structure and style could be improved for clarity and emphasis. But no grammar errors.”

Many nursing research reviewers (and sad to say some nursing research journal editors) cannot accurately diagnose grammar errors or other writing flaws. Let me use an analogy: Because I’m not a health professional, I hesitate to offer a medical diagnosis when a friend describes physical symptoms to me. Imagine if, every time a friend complained of an ache, pain, or discomfort, I offered the diagnosis: “Sounds like cancer.” Similarly, not all writing problems are “grammar errors.”

Here I want to offer a preliminary guide to the “health assessment” of writing, including the “diagnostic” criteria to make precise and accurate judgments, whether for yourself or others. To do so, I will distinguish grammar usage, mechanical usage, word usage (or diction), and sentence structure.

Grammar Usage

English is an old marriage of Anglo-Saxon (a Germanic language with multiple grammatical noun and pronoun declensions and cases, verb conjugations) and Norman French, a Romance language descended from Latin. Over the centuries of this marriage, standard or conventional English grammar usage has become more simple (and, as a living language, it continues to simplify). For example, our second-person pronoun you (which suffices for singular and plural and for most cases) used to have singular and plural forms, and different forms for use as a subject or an object.

The term grammar denotes the conventions for the forms of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and verbs. The subject of a sentence (a noun or a pronoun usually) and the predicate (verb or verb phrase) need to agree in number (plural or singular). Similarly, nouns and the pronouns that substitute for them need to agree in number and gender, while pronouns must also employ an appropriate case (nominative for subjects, objective for the objects of verbs or prepositions, possessive for possession). For example:

Florence Nightingale [proper noun] brought [singular past-tense verb] specialized education to her [possessive singular feminine pronoun] work during the Crimean war, but she [nominative singular feminine pronoun] also devoted careful statistical attention to the outcomes. Nonetheless, the physicians with whom [objective pronoun (object of the preposition with)] she worked initially resisted her [objective pronoun], and they [nominative plural pronoun] did not appreciate her [possessive pronoun] assertive innovations. She stands [singular present-tense verb] remembered today while they are [plural present-tense verb] largely forgotten.

Another common grammar error among writers for whom English is not a native language involves the use of articles and demonstrative pronouns: definite article (the), indefinite article (a, an), and demonstrative pronouns (this, that, these, those).

So grammar errors are those related to forms of words and their arrangement in a sentence.

Mechanical Usage

Standard formal writing employs a variety of surface features that convey meaning or modify words: punctuation, capitalization, italicizing, underlining, bold face. Proper nouns (e.g., people’s names, brand names) begin with capital letters, while common nouns do not. Frequent mechanical errors include over-capitalizing and failing to use punctuation appropriately.

Apostrophes are often misused. For example, it’s is a contraction for it is while its is a possessive pronoun. Apostrophes often signal possessive case nouns (e.g., the researcher’s method [singular for one researcher] or the researchers’ methods [plural for more than one researcher]) but it does not signal plural nouns (i.e., researchers, not researcher’s).

The mechanical usage of capitalization and italicization come into play with publication titles. With journal and book titles (and their articles and chapters) APA style employs title capitalization (the first letter of each word, except for prepositions and conjunctions) and sentence capitalization (the first letter of the first word of the title or subtitle, and any proper nouns). The titles of journals use title capitalization with italicization (e.g., Nurse Author & Editor) while the titles of articles use sentence capitalization (e.g., Grammar: What it is, and what it is not). The titles of books use sentence capitalization with italicization (e.g., Writing in nursing: A brief guide) while the titles of books’ chapters use sentence capitalization in roman (i.e., not italic) type. (And in this case, the word “roman” is not capitalized because it is a term in typography!)

Italics should also be used to denote when a term is being introduced or defined as a term; italics as well as bold face type can be used, judiciously, for emphasis.

Another domain of mechanical usage is manuscript style, including the formatting of a manuscript, its layout, and the style of its citations and bibliography of references (usually APA, AMA, or Modified Vancouver in nursing or other health research journals). Citation and reference errors are common, even with citation software, especially italics, capitalization, and punctuation of references (Nicoll et al., 2018).

Word Usage/Diction

Word errors typically consist of four types: using a word whose denotation (definition) is not what the writer thinks; using a word whose denotation may be appropriate but whose connotation is not; homonym errors; and misspelling. You may think that cupidity is a complimentary way of calling someone a romantic, but the word has nothing to do with the god of love; instead it means greedy. Training and education mean roughly the same thing, but most nurse educators prefer to call what they do the latter rather than the former. Among the homonym errors (words that sound alike) these are common: there/their/they’re, your/you’re, its/it’s. Misspelling should be rare in a manuscript because word processing software like Microsoft Word highlights spellings it does not recognize, but technical terms may not be included in the software’s dictionary.

Sentence Structure

Words combine to form phrases, and phrases combine to form clauses. A sentence can be a single independent clause (simple sentence), two independent clauses (compound sentence), an independent clause and a dependent clause (complex sentence), or two or more independent clauses with one or more dependent clauses (compound-complex sentence). Combining clauses can convey emphasis and relationships between ideas or information. Clauses are combined with conjunctions (coordinating or subordinating) or with punctuation (a colon or semi-colon). For example, here are four independent clauses:

Florence Nightingale took four months of training at Kaiserswerth-am-Rhein in Germany.

She built her clinical leadership experience as superintendent at the Institute for the Care of Sick Gentlewomen in Upper Harley Street, London.

She brought her education and clinical practice to bear in her work during the Crimean War.

Many military medical officers were not initially supportive of her work.

These could be combined in a variety of ways in order to connect ideas or to convey emphasis:

Because Florence Nightingale took four months of training at Kaiserswerth-am-Rhein in Germany and built her clinical leadership experience as superintendent at the Institute for the Care of Sick Gentlewomen in Upper Harley Street, London, she brought her education and clinical practice to bear in her work during the Crimean War. However, many military medical officers were not initially supportive of her work.

Although Florence Nightingale took four months of training at Kaiserswerth-am-Rhein in Germany, built her clinical leadership experience as superintendent at the Institute for the Care of Sick Gentlewomen in Upper Harley Street, London, and brought her education and clinical practice to bear in her work during the Crimean War, many military medical officers were not initially supportive of her work.

Florence Nightingale took four months of training at Kaiserswerth-am-Rhein in Germany, and she built her clinical leadership experience as superintendent at the Institute for the Care of Sick Gentlewomen in Upper Harley Street, London. Although she brought her education and clinical practice to bear in her work during the Crimean War, many military medical officers were not initially supportive of her work.

Sentence combining allows the writer to show relationships, to emphasize an idea, and to provide rhythmic variety to a paragraph. In this example, some of these compound-complex sentences are longer than is typical in nursing research writing, which usually employs shorter demonstrative sentences. However, even with their length, they are not run-on sentences.

Sentence errors are of two types: a fused sentence (or run-on sentence or comma splice) and a fragment sentence. A run-on sentence combines clauses without appropriate conjunctions or punctuation (usually a semi-colon) while a comma splice combines clauses with only a comma but not a conjunction. A fragment is a clause that is grammatically incomplete:

Because Florence Nightingale took four months of training.

Although she brought her education and clinical practice to bear in her work during the Crimean War.

Conclusion

Grammar usage, mechanical usage, word usage, and sentence structure each constitute different aspects of writing, and thus different categories for errors. When editors advise authors to revise and resubmit, they should be clear about the precise categories of errors that require correcting. A single diagnosis of “grammar errors” does not suffice.

Reference

Nicoll, L. H., Oermann, M. H., Chinn, P. L., Conklin, J. L., Amarasekara, S., & McCarty, M. (2018). Guidance provided to authors on citing and formatting references in nursing journals. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 34(2), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/NND.0000000000000430

About the Author

Thomas Lawrence Long, PhD, is a professor of English appointed to the University of Connecticut’s School of Nursing, where he provides writing support services to faculty and doctoral students in the Center for Nursing Scholarship and Innovation. He is the co-author with Cheryl Tatano Beck of Writing in nursing: A brief guide (Oxford University Press, 2017). He edits the website NursingWriting.com.

2018 28 4 4 Long

Civility in Nursing Peer Review: Giving and Receiving Feedback

Jennifer Chicca and Teresa Shellenbarger

Nurse author & Editor, 2018, 28(4), 5

A novice author prepared and submitted a manuscript to a professional nursing journal. This author is nervous and excited as she awaits the reply of the peer reviewers and the journal editor. The author receives feedback from the peer reviewers. Figure 1 provides an excerpt of some of the comments received. Figure 1. An example of peer review feedback

The journal editor informs the author that for this paper to be accepted, she must revise the work and address the reviewer’s suggestions. The manuscript status is labeled, “Accepted pending major revision.” The author feels overwhelmed, inadequate, frustrated, and considers whether she can make the revisions requested. She is concerned if she can address these issues or if she should even resubmit the paper to another journal.

Introduction

Nursing peer review involves experts, usually unpaid volunteers, reviewing written work submitted by authors and providing feedback (Harding, 2010; John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Wiley], 2018; Wierzbinski-Cross, 2017). Peer reviewers generally use guidelines and/or checklists provided by the publisher to review these submissions and provide their feedback to the editor. Frequently reviewers are asked to evaluate items such as adherence to journal guidelines, accuracy, credibility, relevance, fit within the scope of a journal, and contribution to the discipline (Harding, 2010; Wierzbinski-Cross, 2017). Ultimately, this peer review process should provide authors with feedback to improve their work and give editors the necessary information they need to make publication decisions.

Unfortunately, the nursing peer review process does not always meet its intended purpose. Why? One of the reasons may be attributed to peer to peer incivility. Incivility, or “one or more rude, discourteous, or disrespectful actions that may or may not have negative intent behind them”, is common within nursing (American Nurses Association [ANA], 2018, para. 2). The peer review process is no exception (Amerson, 2018). Research suggests nurses do not often recognize their own incivility against their peers (Amerson, 2018). Figure 1 provides an example of a peer review which has multiple instances of disrespectful and demeaning language. This review even had numerous occurrences where the reviewer used all capital letters, which is usually perceived as yelling. Nurse authors, many of whom are often inexperienced writers, can feel angry, hurt, and resentful of the peer review and publication process when they experience incivility (Amerson, 2018; Harding, 2010). Their work may be acceptable, or with revisions may make meaningful contributions to nursing; however, incivility in peer review may discourage authors from revising current works or submitting future works.

What is the solution? Civility in the nursing peer review process must occur with each member involved: peer reviewers, authors, and editors. Considerations for each member are detailed in the next sections.

Considerations for Peer Reviewers

To ensure peer reviewers help meet the intended purpose of the peer review process, feedback needs to be carefully delivered. Before even agreeing to review a manuscript, peer reviewers should ensure that the work is within their area of expertise, that they have adequate time to thoughtfully review the submission, and they do not have any competing personal, financial, or intellectual interests (Amerson, 2018). Additionally, peer reviewers should try to move beyond just being civil. Their feedback can provide objective but useful suggestions that enhance clarity and promote author growth while ensuring quality publications for the journal.

The following steps can guide manuscript review by peer reviewers:

Review the journal’s scope, purpose, readership, and review criteria. Use specific journal review guidelines and/or checklists when available.
Remember the authors may be inexperienced but still spent significant time and effort on their manuscript and are often nervous to receive the review.
Set the tone in all communications: encourage, be caring, aim to be constructive and collaborative, and be objective, neutral, and factual.
Acknowledge the manuscript’s main points and provide positive feedback first.
Offer general suggestions regarding flow, organization, substance, and application of the manuscript.
Follow general suggestions with specific feedback and recommendations for improvement.
Close the review by encouraging the author, no matter the recommendation, and thank the author for taking the time to submit their work.
Continue to engage in personal/professional development to improve peer review skills. For example, read the letter that the editor provides to the author. If available, read what other reviewers wrote about the submission (Amerson, 2018; Harding, 2010; Laskowski-Jones, 2018a; Wierzbinski-Cross, 2017; Wiley, 2018).

Considerations for Authors

Authors first need to give themselves credit for having the courage to submit their work. What’s next? Take a deep breath and keep an open mind. Approach the peer review process with the mindset that feedback is an opportunity to grow and learn. When first receiving the feedback, read through it once. Allow a day or two before revisiting the review particularly if the review is negative. Let the feedback soak in and ask questions such as what can be learned from this? How can the feedback improve current and/or future works? After you have processed the feedback, begin your revisions. Then, after using the feedback to improve the manuscript, it is time to reply to the peer reviewers. Consider the following steps:

Craft a response table with peer reviewer comments in the left column and author responses in the right column.
Remember that peer review is unpaid, voluntary work so thank the peer reviewers for their time and effort. If you notice something peer reviewers did well (for example, attention to detail or provided specific examples for improvement), let them know.
Set the tone in all communications: be respectful and humble, state facts, and do not get defensive. If peer reviewers were uncivil, do not engage in this behavior or point this out in your responses; this will not be a constructive endeavor.
Fill out each cell in the table carefully, letting the peer reviewers know what actions were taken to address their comments. If no action was taken, politely and factually state why no action was taken. It may also be appropriate to ask for further clarification.
Do not give up. The vast majority of manuscripts need to be revised at least once before a publication decision is made. Be patient with the process.
If the decision is to revise and resubmit, then that is what you should do. Do not let an uncivil review get under your skin and you withdraw the manuscript from consideration out of spite. That only hurts you.
After completing the review and revision (if appropriate), engage in personal/professional development. Reflect on what could be done better for future works and incorporate those suggestions into the next submission (Laskowski-Jones, 2018b).

Considerations for Editors

Editors depend upon the volunteer pool of reviewers to offer guidance for decision-making about manuscript quality, thus serving as an intermediary in the publication process. The advice of reviewers is critical but ultimately the decision of acceptance rests with the editor. Therefore, editors need to ensure that the reviews provide constructive and helpful guidance that will direct the authors. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) suggests that editors send reviewer comments to authors in their entirety, unless they are offensive. Given this recommendation by COPE, editors should take steps to ensure that the reviews are civil, supportive, and clear. The following steps can guide editors:

Select reviewers who provide the needed content expertise for manuscript consideration.
Provide orientation and guidance for peer reviewers, setting clear expectations for their work.
Consider providing sample or model reviews that can be used as a guide for reviewers.
Communicate to reviewers about performance expectations and the quality of their reviews.
Carefully read reviewers’ comments and monitor the reviews provided.
Do not use reviewers who regularly provide uncivil or poor-quality reviews.

Other Resources for Peer Reviewers, Authors, and Editors

There are numerous resources available to assist all involved in the publication process. The following resources provide additional guidance for peer reviewers, authors, and editors about writing, reviewing, and publishing.

Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE]. (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. Retrieved from www.publicationethics.org
Freda, M. C., & Nicoll, L. H. (2015). The editor’s handbook. (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
International Academy of Nursing Editors. (n.d.). About editing and reviewing. Retrieved from https://nursingeditors.com/resources/editorial-roles
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (2018). Author Services. Retrieved from https://authorservices.wiley.com/home.html
Oermann, M. H., & Hays, J. C. (2019). Writing for publication in nursing (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Saver, C. L. (2017). Anatomy of writing for publication for nurses (3rd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.

And of course, many of the articles published here in Nurse Author & Editor!

Conclusion

How might Figure 1 be transformed into a more civil peer review? Figure 2 provides an example revision of the earlier peer review. Figure 2. Example peer review feedback, revisited.

Although the above example focuses on a peer reviewer’s feedback, peer reviewers, authors, and editors are all responsible for conducting themselves civilly in peer review and publication processes. The culture of incivility in nursing peer review is not conducive to sustaining and developing nursing science. It is important all nurses are encouraged and supported in the important journey of sharing ideas through publication.

References

American Nurses Association [ANA]. (2018). Violence, incivility, & bullying. Retrieved from https://www.nursingworld.org/practice-policy/work-environment/violence-incivility-bullying/
Amerson, R. (2018). Does the peer-review process facilitate incivility among nurse scholars? Nursing Forum, 1-2. doi:10.1111/nug.12277
Harding, A. D. (2010). How to phrase feedback in peer reviews for nurse authors? Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal, 32(4), 333-337.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Wiley]. (2018). Author services: With you every step of the way. Retrieved from https://authorservices.wiley.com/home.html
Laskowski-Jones, L. (2018a). Giving constructive feedback-constructively. Nursing 2018, 48(6), 6. doi:10.1097/01.NURSE.0000532753.56742.e0
Laskowski-Jones, L. (2018b). Receiving constructive feedback constructively. Nursing 2018, 48(7), 6. doi:10.1097/01.NURSE.0000534098.79486.a4
Wierzbinski-Cross, H. (2017). Peer review. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 33(2), 102-104. doi:10.1097/NND.0000000000000327

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 & Editor and regularly contributes articles about writing. Contact Teresa by email: tshell@iup.edu.

2018 28 4 5 Chicca Shellenbarger

Point/Counterpoint: Getting Started on Writing a Manuscript

Roger Watson and Leslie H. Nicoll

Nurse Author & Editor, 2018, 28(4), 6.

Point (RW):

What happens when you sit down to write? Does it flow easily or does your mind wander and the screen remain empty? Do you find that the harder you try to find the words, the harder it is to find them? Well, you’re not alone and if you want to be a writer you must find some way of overcoming this barrier and filling the screen. After all, the adages “You can edit a bad page; but you cannot edit a blank page”; and “First drafts do not have to be perfect, they just need to be written,” hold true for any writer. I think many people have problems getting started because they wish to get it right first time, and then worry about what they will write and how it will read.

I write quite prolifically but I suffer from all the above. It becomes easier with time, but the barriers never recede totally. Having the right mindset is important and I find it helps me to remember that each piece of writing I read is the product of someone overcoming whatever barriers they had—many worse than mine. It also helps to accept some of the distractions such as incoming emails and social media. Deliberately resisting them can lead to further resistance and stress; they may also provide short and welcome breaks from writing.

Another distraction from writing is the feeling that you do not have enough material at hand or that you have not read enough to know what you are writing about. You do; don’t surround yourself with all the relevant articles and books you can find. You will only find out what you need by making a start. Write the manuscript you want to write and then go and find the references to back up your points; if you can’t find anything to support your point then it may need to be amended or it may be an original idea. Write it down anyway and carry on writing. If you cannot think of the “best” word to describe something, then just use the first one that comes into your head— it’s usually the best one. If you must use a technical term but cannot recall it then write anything close to it and come back to it. I tell people: “If you can’t recall the word for ‘elephant’ then write down ‘big ears, long nose’ and carry on.” You must not interrupt the flow of your writing

A practical approach I use is, deliberately, to break the writing down into small steps and not to think about the total number of words I am required to report. The best way to do this is to have reasonable targets either daily or each time you sit down to write. Mine is 500 words for each writing session, and I ensure that I stop once that is achieved. If I have any ideas in my mind at the point of reaching my target, I write these as bullet points. This means they do not get forgotten and it also gives me a starting point the next time I open the file to write.

Use the structure of the piece you are writing to help you write. If you are writing a journal article you will be provided with headings such as: Introduction; Methods; Results; and Discussion. Don’t feel you have to start at the beginning of an article and work your way through to the end in that order. If you have already done the study, then you can write the Methods section. Indeed, you could write the Methods section before you have even done the study! Once the study is completed you should write the results and build the rest of the manuscript around those sections. If you are writing the Introduction and you have an idea for the Discussion, then jump to that section and write it there—and include that in your word count for the day. To facilitate this process, it is helpful to structure your Word file for the manuscript prior to writing it by entering the required headings and using the “page break” (Ctrl & Enter) to separate them. You then have the “shelves” of your article and all you have to do is “stack” them.

At this stage I advise saving the file, closing it, backing it up, and forgetting about it until the next time you can work on it. You have completed the most important step—you’ve made a start and you should take some satisfaction in that. When you return to manuscript you will be in a good frame of mind to start working on it again. It is important to keep writing. By this I am referring to the adage: “Write don’t edit.” Don’t worry how your words look when you first type them and don’t try to make the prose perfect as you go along. We usually don’t know what we are going to write until we start writing. Simply write, let the ideas flow and put them down in any order you wish. Continue writing until you have a complete first draft. That is the point at which editing should begin. Roger Watson

Counterpoint (LHN)

As always, Dr. Watson provides excellence guidance on writing for publication and getting started with a manuscript. While I don’t disagree (completely) with any of his points, I think there are nuances of difference between his advice and what I would suggest—or what I do myself. As Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Author & Editor I am taking the privilege of sharing a few of my thoughts as a counterpoint to his guidance.

His first statement, “What happens when you sit down to write?” is a good one and I think it demands a personal assessment of your writing style. For me, I know that I do a lot of my writing in my head and when the time is ready, I can sit down at the computer and the words come out. If I sit down prematurely, then I do find I am staring at a blank screen and worse, wasting my time. Of course, “writing in my head” requires discipline—I don’t just say to myself, “Well, one of these days the words will come along.” With that mindset, nothing would ever get written! Rather, I have a topic and a deadline and with those two motivators, I become a productive ruminator. And once the swirling thoughts begin to take shape, then I seize the moment and get to work.

The issue of social media and email distractions is an important one. The common advice is to turn everything off and put yourself in a cone of silence and start writing. But seriously, in this day and age, how realistic is that? I think, as Roger says, you need to find the balance between notifications, reading, and responding. For me, I have found the “sweet spot” is to receive notifications, which I usually see on my phone (I put the tablet away). I can see headlines, notices, and updates; I only read email which seems urgent (usually something in response to a message I have written) and only respond to email if it absolutely imperative or time sensitive (and I’ll be honest, this happens rarely). It took some time and “brain training” to get to this point, but I can negotiate 1-2 seconds of distraction every so often and still keep the flow of writing going. Another part of what makes this work is I have carefully curated the notifications I receive: no more Facebook or Twitter (I can look at those when I am ready to look at those) but I still get headlines from the New York Times and our local newspaper, plus email, calendar, Dropbox, and a few blogs. It makes the distractions manageable.

“You have not read enough to know what you are writing about.” How true this statement is and I have seen this become the reason that many people never finish…anything! There is always one more article to read, one more citation to chase down. I agree with Roger: you have probably read more than you realize. Which is why I tell everyone that you must have some sort of an organizing system for your literature; this will allow you to keep all the information at your fingertips. Whether it is an electronic system (Endnote, Zotero, or my favorite, Paperpile), a home-grown system in Excel, old fashioned bibliography cards, or a stack of photocopied articles (not efficient, but it works for some people)—knowing what you have read as you get going can be serve as reinforcement that you are ready to write. By having this information handy, you can also add the references as you go along, which is what I do (in contrast to Roger’s advice). Again, our differences on this are nuanced and reflect our individual styles, which go back to my original point: do an assessment of your own style to figure out what works for you.

Next point: have a writing target. I agree with this and I also agree with “chunking”—breaking a task into smaller parts to get the work done. However, I disagree with the advice to stop when you have reached a target. If the words are still coming and you have the time, then keep going. Why stop if you are being productive? I am reminded of an 850 mile road trip I was on, years ago. My plan was to stop and spend the night at the halfway point, then continue the next day. But when I got to mile 500, having already passed the halfway point by 75 miles, I was feeling great, not tired, and just wanted to continue on and get home—so I did. I was happy to spend the night in my own bed, plus I saved the cost of a motel. Of course, if circumstances were different—bad weather, lots of traffic—I might have stuck with my original plan. But I am a great believer in “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991) and if the flow is there when you are writing, then don’t quit. Keep going until you run out of gas.

The next point from Roger: put in the headings to block out your paper, then write the sections you are ready to write. I agree with this. Too many people try to write in a linear fashion, from beginning to end, and get stymied. They see the Methods section “over there” but can’t get to it because the “Sea of Background” is blocking their path while they stand on the “Island of Introduction.” I think the abstract is easy to write at the end but very hard at the beginning; same with the intro. So just put those two aside and dive in wherever you are comfortable (or, where the words are for you, in your head). Another trick to get going, when you are feeling stumped, is to work on something else, such as a table or figure. These elements need to be completed and will take time, so use your writing time productively for these tasks if the words aren’t flowing for you.

Roger’s last point: write don’t edit—this is probably where we diverge the most in our advice. I write and edit concurrently. For me an adage is, “It’s easier to do something right from the beginning, rather than trying to fix it later.” Now, I temper this advice to myself—I don’t let the editing get in the way of writing. I do want to reach my target of 500+ words/session but I also want them to be good words, to the extent possible. I check spelling and punctuation and I really do make an effort to find the right word on the first pass—and as, noted earlier, I include references as I go. But even with this level of care, everything I write gets edited (and edited again) before I consider it finished. However, I find a great deal of satisfaction in reading a first draft that I have written and saying to myself, “Wow, this is really good!”

To summarize, I think Roger’s advice is good and mine is too. As you have seen from reading this, we have places where we are in close sync in terms of style and others where we diverge a bit. But our bottom line is the same: know what you are writing, strategize to be successful (which means know your own personal style and work from that as your strength) and make it your main priority to get the writing work done in an efficient way that brings you (and your co-authors) a great deal of personal satisfaction and feelings of accomplishment. Leslie Nicoll

Reference

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (1 edition). New York, NY: Harper Collins.

About the Authors

Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN lives in Maine with her husband, two 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. Her ORCiD ID is 0000-0003-2149-7856. Click here to send a message directly to Leslie.

2018 28 4 6 Watson Nicoll

Mythbusters: Wikipedia and Other Web Material as Sources for Scholarly Publishing

Peggy L Chinn

Nurse Author & Editor, 2019, 29(1), 1

Question: I learned in school that you are not supposed to cite sources on the Internet—only published articles and books. But with so many journals being online, I don’t think that’s true anymore. There are also lots of other types of information available online. Can you please tell me what is correct?

If you believe that change happens slowly, then you only need to look to the Internet to know this is not true—consider how a video, picture, or news article can go “viral” overnight! I recall the early days of email: messages came through using an awkward system in which green text appeared on a black screen. But despite its awkwardness as many people who could access email, did so. Once the World Wide Web (WWW) emerged with user-friendly applications and an intuitive interface, the literate public was almost instantly on board. Except for one thing: the volume of information was both overwhelming and incomprehensible, and most of us were quite unprepared to deal with it all. The only things we had to work with were the skills and standards from our print world backgrounds.

When Wikipedia appeared, people recognized it as similar to print encyclopedias, but with a number of “quirks” that have never appeared in similar print media. As blogs began to appear, the vast diversity of what they contained, and how they were presented seemed more like the Wild West of the web rather than anything worthy of citing as a source. Even the term “blog” seemed more like something a kid might spurt out in jest than anything akin to a worthy scholarly source!

Much of what appeared on the WWW was, and still is missing some of the elements that academic traditions required for citing a source. Where are the page numbers, the volume, issue, or even the date? For many years, the standard manuals of style, such as APA and AMA, gave no guidelines for citing web sources. Many involved in academia took the stance that web content simply should never be cited, most notably, instructors who made it a policy to disallow students to use sources found on the web in their papers.

But the fact is that the WWW actually has greater power to demonstrate trustworthiness of content much more explicitly than does print media. Print media is limited by space that constrains the background information, both in depth and scope that is important to fully understand the worth of that which is published.

Web content is only limited by the imagination of those who post or publish, and by the policies that guide the nature of content that is published on any particular site. Wikipedia content, for example, is written by collaborators and can be corrected by other collaborators within seconds of being posted. In addition, Wikipedia has a page devoted to how to cite Wikipedia (Wikipedia contributors, Last edited 19 June 2018). This page contains a caution against using Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) for research papers, against plagiarizing Wikipedia content for research purposes, and instructions for citing Wikipedia content when it is appropriately used as a source. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia, like many other sites on the web, are “bad” sources for certain purposes. Wikipedia, and many other resources on the web, are terrific places to get a general idea of the nature and scope of a topic.

On many Wikipedia pages, there are notes as to how well developed the page is, what is missing, and what contributors might be able to provide. Unlike print encyclopedias, Wikipedia content is constantly updated and there is a record of the history of the page and a date when the page was last updated The inclusion of this kind of detail is in fact not common (yet) on the web itself, and is a model of “best practices” for the web itself.

The key for using any source, print or online, is to know how to evaluate that source, and to keep a skeptical way of assessing the value for the purpose you are pursuing. I developed an “ABCSS” guideline that is posted on the ANS blog site that you can use as for any source to assess its worth (Chinn, 2011). The ABCSS are Agency, Bias, Corroboration, Sponsorship, and Scholarly value.

Agency

This is an area where many sites on the web fall short. For some, the content can be assumed to be written by people who work for, or represent the entity that sponsors the website. But I recommend looking closely to determine if you can identify the people who have actually written the content, and always cite that the person or persons who are named as the author or the contributor. It is also important to know the author’s professional affiliations and qualifications, which should be clearly identified. Again this is often given in print sources, and if an author is named on the web, their qualifications are often also given. The qualifications are not included in the reference citation, of course, but this is an important dimension that contributes to your evaluation of the source.

Bias

Everything has a bias! Bias is not a “bad” thing, but in order to assess the worth of any source, you need to identify what possible or probable bias is inherent in the content, and keep this in mind as you decide whether or not to use the source. Social media sites are saturated with bias from all sources, but interactive features of a website can provide feedback that challenges the bias inherent in content that is presented.

Corroboration

For any source of information, print or digital, corroboration is key. If you find something in any source that is vastly different from another source, then you have the challenge of digging even deeper to find evidence that you can count on. Having said this, when you do find something that is not yet corroborated, or that has value because it is a valid “minority opinion,” then when you use the source you are obligated to explain how and why this is a perspective that should not be dismissed. The Web has, in fact, opened up vast possibilities for “minority voices” to be heard, and good scholarship will not dismiss a source that is coming from those who are not commonly represented in the literature.

Sponsorship

Many web sources are created by groups that have a clear vested interest in the content of the site, so you can infer the perspective or bias that is probably embedded in the material. For example, a website hosted by a pharmaceutical company has an interest in presenting content that places their products in a positive light. A site sponsored by a religious group will have that particular perspective in the content that present, and their choice of content to leave out. Less obvious bias is built in to a site for a professional organization, or for an educational institution. These kinds of sites will want their organization presented in a positive light as well, so you will not typically find content that is critical of the organization.

Scholarly Value

One of the reasons that Wikipedia is not an acceptable primary source for research or other scholarly work is that it contains primarily tertiary descriptive information—that is, information collected primarily from primary and secondary sites (Nicoll, 2017). The site insists that the information must be as factually correct as possible, but the fact is that the content is not based on solid scientific evidence, or well-researched historical evidence. Like any other encyclopedia-type source, Wikipedia content cannot be used as sound “evidence.” Wikipedia does cite the sources on which the information is based, which is a positive feature that is often not found on websites in general, which makes it possible to trace or verify the trustworthiness of the information but you still should be very cautious about citing Wikipedia as a source.

The content that is published in scholarly print media retains the standards that are expected in order for the source to have scholarly merit, but even print media can fall far short. For web sources, and for print publications, it is your responsibility to judge if the reported methods used and the logic presented meet generally accepted standards of investigation, ethics, and logic.

Conclusion

So, to answer the question posed at the beginning: yes, it is acceptable to cite and quote from online sources, including journal articles, white papers, position papers, blogs, and so on. However, you must do your due diligence to corroborate and affirm the accuracy of the information and that it is a credible source. In the case of a source that is less well known or presenting controversial material, it is worth your time and effort to make sure that the information is valid before you cite it in your own work.

References

Chinn, P. L. (2011, July 14). Evaluating Web (and other) resources. ANS: Advances in Nursing Science Blog. Retrieved December 28, 2018, from https://ansjournalblog.com/2011/07/14/evaluating-web-and-other-resources/
Nicoll, L.H. (2017). Finding and documenting sources. In The Anatomy of Writing for Publication, 3^rd ed. (C. Saver, Ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau.
Wikipedia contributors. (Last edited 19 June 2018). Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 28, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia&oldid=846491764

About the Author

2019 29 1 1 Chinn

Growing Young Researchers: Benefits of Summer Scholarships

Jess Grimmond, Denis Visentin, Rachel Kornhaber, and Michelle Cleary

NURSE AUTHOR & EDITOR, 2019, 29(1), 2

INTRODUCTION

Summer scholarships provide an opportunity for undergraduate students to apply their learning in a practical way and develop their research skills in addition to their studies. However, undertaking the supervision of a student researcher can be a challenging task and it is important to consider a variety of factors to ensure that potential for development is optimised. This article outlines some key benefits for students in undertaking a summer scholarship and highlights the potential value of these programs. It also offers guidance on aspects of the scholarship planning and supervision that should be taken into consideration throughout the process. A summer scholarship can be an invaluable experience for a student and it is important to consider the benefits of these programs and approaches to ensure their success.

BENEFITS

A summer scholarship can provide an excellent connection between university study, clinical research, and the professional workplace. Importantly, a summer scholarship program is reported to be a rich source of motivation for talented students (Morris, 2017; Wilson et al., 1994). Through undertaking this scholarship, a student has the opportunity to be directly involved in the practical application of skills they are developing through their university and studies. Theoretical knowledge is applied in an authentic context making the coursework concrete. This experience allows students to see the relevance of their studies within a supportive learning environment and with a higher level of guidance than may be afforded upon entering the workforce post-graduation. Hence, students are able to better appreciate their current degree while further developing their skills. In turn, these skills will continue to benefit the student throughout the completion of their studies. The student is also given a significant role in a project, providing an opportunity to accelerate their learning.

Undertaking a summer scholarship allows the student to explore a potential career pathway without the commitment that is required and expectation of a continuing position. Many tertiary degrees have broad potential career opportunities and graduating students may progress into a variety of different fields and types of work. Whilst the diversity of opportunity may be appealing, students may be unprepared to choose a career path that matches their skills and interests. The capacity to build a portfolio for their career objectives may be limited to professional placement experience and project work within their degree. The opportunity to engage in a field of potential interest without long-term obligation is rare and provides a unique platform for career and personal exploration and reflection. Providing students with this experience also contributes to the industry, as graduates are in a better position to make committed career or educational choices upon completion of their degrees and have developed skills that are job ready.

A summer scholarship also assists in the development of research skills, providing the student with an opportunity to experience the processes of project methodology, data collection, and report writing, in particular for scientific publication. The procedural and academic requirements of formal publication to those of university assessments and hence the practical experience a student gains during the scholarship project will be important in their future academic or professional career. This experience also provides excellent preparation in overseeing a project from conception to completion without requiring the student to develop the project themselves, as is required in postgraduate research. Working and collaborating with a group of researchers who are in a clear supervisory role on a project that is carefully defined and has a specific timeline and endpoint, provides a safe and directed environment in which the student can develop multidisciplinary skills. This is excellent preparation for future research or postgraduate studies which involve an extension of this process and larger responsibility. The student also gains insight into their own capacity and interest in research, and returns to their studies with an improved understanding of scientific research, which can only improve their understanding of the scientific literature.

In addition to the development of skills, the opportunity to develop professional connections and network with practicing researchers is a key benefit of a summer scholarship. As well as learning from their expertise, building relationships with industry professionals may be beneficial for the student’s future career. Researchers may require assistance with future projects and a summer scholarship could be an excellent opportunity to demonstrate competence and value to the researcher, which may encourage future collaboration. A summer scholarship is also a valuable addition to a student’s portfolio and may be the experience which sets the student apart when applying for future jobs, grants, or post-graduate positions and scholarships.

POINTS OF CONSIDERATION WHEN SUPERVISING

To ensure the summer scholarship experience is optimised, it is important to consider the amount of independence provided to the student, and the expectations on them. The student should be allowed a degree of freedom throughout the project to find processes that work for them and gain experience solving problems on their own. This freedom will also help them develop their time management and self-motivation skills as they work towards deadlines at their own pace. However useful this freedom is, it is also necessary to consider that students have little experience in this field and will need more guidance and support than the supervisor’s usual collaborators. Allowing the student too much independence or expecting them to work through parts of the project alone may cause the student to feel overwhelmed and counteract some of the benefits this opportunity can provide. The shorter time-frame of the scholarship also does not allow the same amount of self-direction that is appropriate for honours and postgraduate projects. It is important that the supervisory team keep this in mind when considering the amount of direction given to the student.

Finding the appropriate balance between independence and support is difficult and should be a careful consideration of a summer scholarship supervisor. One way this can be achieved is to ensure that there are open channels of communication between both parties. The student should be able to contact their supervisor to ask questions and receive guidance when necessary, and the supervisor should be clear with instructions and expectations. Supervisors should also aim to ensure they are approachable in their student’s eyes as open communication will only be possible if the student feels comfortable and well supported. In doing this, the student and the supervisor should be able to produce high quality work and make the most of the experience.

Supervisors should ensure that when they propose a summer scholarship project, that they have allocated the appropriate time for the student. Given the short time-frame and typically rudimentary research skills of the student, this may be a greater commitment per week than might be required for postgraduate students. Students also often have work, family, or study commitments that they must give time to alongside the scholarship project. It is important that when students take on a project that they can make the appropriate commitment, but also that supervisors take into account that the student cannot be overburdened in that their other commitments are negatively affected.

Another key aspect for consideration in a summer scholarship it is likely to be the student’s first experience working on a project of this nature. While they may have learnt approaches to scientific and clinical research in theory, it is unlikely that they will have undertaken project work of this type. It is important that the supervisor approach this situation as a teaching opportunity and allow the student time to learn about the process as well as putting it into practice. It may be useful for those involved to discuss the student’s previous experience, skills and knowledge of the topic at the outset to ensure that task demands are understood and allow the ability to assess the level of instruction which will be required.

While the novelty of the project provides both challenges and learning opportunities, there are additional aspects of the experience that will be new for the student. Each workplace will have its own processes to follow, preferred programs, and nomenclature. Though the student may have some exposure to these concepts, it is important that supervisors take the time to explain acronyms, shorthand and jargon. Misunderstandings about processes and terminology have a potential to waste valuable project time, resulting in frustration and confusion. Attention to these details serves the dual purpose of educating the student and preparing them for the professional environment, whilst also ensuring that the student and the supervisor are on the same page throughout the project.

CONCLUSION

Summer scholarships can be an excellent opportunity for students to gain first-hand experience working and developing relationships with practicing researchers to safely explore the world of professional research and build a portfolio of work. For this scholarship to be valuable to both supervisors and students, it is important to set a high standard and encourage the student to extend themselves. However, consideration should be given to the novelty of the experiences and additional study and/or work that the student may undertake simultaneous to the scholarship. While it is important to allow the student the time and space to work independently, appropriate levels of support and guidance are essential to the project success. Goals should therefore be realistic and communication clear, regular and accessible. A genuine and considerate approach by student and supervisors create an optimal work environment and ensure that the opportunity is valuable for both parties.

REFERENCES

Morris, S. (2017). The Digital Humanities Summer Scholarship: A model for library-led undergraduate digital scholarship. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 24(2-4), 532-544.
Wilson, G., MacDonald, N., Thornborrow, C., & Brough, C. (1994). The development and operation of Edinburgh parallel computing centre’s summer scholarship programme. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1994 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jess Grimmond, BMus, Summer Scholarship Candidate, School of Health Science, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania. Email: jessica.grimmond@utas.edu.au

Denis Visentin, PhD, Senior Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania. Email: denis.visentin@utas.edu.au

Rachel Kornhaber, PhD, RN, Senior Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania. Email: Rachel.kornhaber@utas.edu.au

Professor Michelle Cleary, PhD, RN, Associate Head Global, and Sydney Academic Lead, School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Sydney, Australia. She is also a member of the Authors-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor. *Correspondence: Michelle Cleary, Professor, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 5052, ALEXANDRIA, Sydney, NSW 2015. Email: michelle.cleary@utas.edu.au

2019 29 1 2 Grimmond et al

from the editor, February 3, 2019

We are excited to announce that the Directory of Nursing Journals is now available here on the Nurse Author & Editor website!

For almost two decades, Nurse Author & Editor has sponsored a Directory of Nursing Journals, designed to be a resource for nurse authors, editors, and readers. The primary goal of the Directory is to maintain a list to assist nurse authors to find suitable and reputable journals in which to publish their work. A second goal is to affirm, for readers and consumers of the nursing literature, the credibility of literature sources used to guide practice, research, policy, and education.

As you can imagine, maintaining a directory such as this requires quite a bit of work with almost constant updates. In 2014, when I became the Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Author & Editor, we re-committed to the value of the Directory of Nursing Journals. We made it a cooperative venture with the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) and hosted it at the INANE website. We established a submission and vetting process to review all journals in the Directory. Updates are made in real-time and the entire Directory is reviewed and updated annually to ensure that it is current. As of this writing, there are 256 journals listed in the Directory.

With recent “behind the scenes” database changes and upgrades, we are now able to host the Directory of Nursing Journals in two locations: here at Nurse Author & Editor as well as continuing our affiliation with INANE. I hope that having the Directory right here at Nurse Author & Editor is a helpful addition to the publication website and a useful resource for our authors and readers.

To use the Directory, click on this link. From there, you can browse the entire Directory, with journals listed alphabetically. This new interface is fully searchable–enter your search term in the upper right corner just under the purple title bar. When you find a journal that interests you, click on the journal “card” to see a brief description, the name of the current editor, the editor’s contact email, and a link to the journal website.

This page has more detail about the Directory and the submission and vetting process. If you have any questions, please contact me directly, or leave a comment at the bottom of this announcement.

I am pleased to be able to offer this enhanced resource to Nurse Author & Editor readers and authors. I hope you agree, and look forward to your feedback.

Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN
Editor-in-Chief