bs_bs_banner
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing
E D I TO R I A L
Implications of raising the publication bar in nursing journals
Search terms Nursing journal, publication, scientific writing. doi: 10.1111/jspn.12095
Nursing publication has changed dramatically over the last two decades. Nursing journals, in general, have raised the bar on what gets published, requiring authors to be increasingly more sophisticated in the logical presentation of the issues, the rigor of research and evidence-based approaches to those issues, and in scientific writing expertise. Now in my fifteenth year as JSPN’s editor in chief, I am both aware of the trends and concerned about what these changes mean for nursing. To editorialize on the subject, I realized I needed data, not just impressions. I chose to use JSPN data not only for ease of access but also because I am intimately familiar with all aspects of the editorial process. Although the changes would have been more dramatic if I had begun with 1996 when the journal originated, it would also have been misleading because new journals take some time to establish their niche in the market and, thus, to better represent nursing publications. Additionally, nursing education and nursing practice have changed dramatically since 1996, further distorting the comparison. For those reasons, I chose a 10-year window to examine JSPN publishing trends. I accessed each JSPN feature article published in 2003 and 2013 to extract the type (research, clinical, other) and the first author’s practice setting (academic or clinical), highest degree, and country of residence. My rudimentary database also included columns published in those years, including demographics of the first authors. Simple frequencies describe the trends shown in Figure 1. NUMBERS OF FEATURE ARTICLES AND COLUMNS HAVE CHANGED
I was surprised by the disparity in feature articles between JSPN volumes. In 2003 we published 12 articles and 10 columns, whereas in 2013 we published 31 articles but only 3 columns. Revisiting the Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 19 (2014) 271–273 © 2014, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2003 volume reminded me that our template at that time was to publish only three feature articles per issue. Changes occurred when our publisher increased the size of the journal to accommodate the increase in submissions. The decrease in columns, however, was more accidental than intentional. Our columns have always been popular features of the journal, and although we actively invite submissions for this venue, our column editors have found it increasingly difficult to recruit column writers. There are probably a number of reasons for that. First, columns are not refereed, and in some academic settings authors receive less academic credit for a column than for an article. Second, at JSPN, we believe data-based publications require peer review so we do not accept data-based columns. In the growing sophistication with evidence-based decision-making, many of today’s hot issues call for data. Finally, because columns particularly lend themselves to discussion of clinical issues, column editors need broad networks across academic and clinical settings.
FEATURE ARTICLES TEND TO BE CLINICALLY RELEVANT AND DATA BASED
Articles were examined for content focus and coded for type. Parenting (which included parent–child interactions) remained the most common focus, featured in 33% of the 2003 articles and 32% of articles published in 2013. The prevalence of this topic is more understandable when one considers the range of issues for which parent or parent–child data are relevant to pediatric nursing (e.g., mental health and diabetes management). Whereas no other themes were evident in the 2003 volume, 2013 articles included ongoing issues that have been addressed in nursing literature in recent years: pain, asthma, and obesity. 271
Editorial
R. L. Foster
90.0% 80.0%
83.9%
83.9%
75.0%
74.2% 66.7%
70.0%
58.3%
60.0% 50.0% 40.0%
25.8%
30.0%
Figure 1 Feature Articles Accepted for Publication in 2003 and 2013 Compared by Content and Demographics of First Author.
20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% Data-based
Academic seng 2003 (N = 12)
Doctoral degree 2013 (N = 31)
As noted in Figure 1, published articles tend to be data based. In fact, I was surprised to find very high percentages of data-based articles across both years (75% in 2003 and almost 84% in 2013). The explanation may lie in JSPN’s mission statement (to bridge the gap between research and practice by publishing reliable, clinically relevant, and readily applicable evidence [emphasis added]). The advent of ANCC Magnet designation for hospitals in 1990 (American Nurses Credentialing Center, n.d.) was a primary force in defining what qualifies as clinical “evidence.” As a result, clinical agencies have become increasingly sophisticated in design and conduct of studies to support patient care outcomes. Thus, data, historically the purview of academic researchers, have become at least as relevant in clinical settings, and many publications are likely to be data based. This begs the question, however, of whether reviewer (and editor) bias exists for data to substantiate an author’s conclusions. In my experience, that is certainly true. As an example, authors who may have been successful in publishing a descriptive article on program development in the past now find that evaluation data are essential to reviewers’ support for publication. Articles were coded not only for whether they were data based but more specifically for article type (Table 1). Whereas quantitative and qualitative Table 1. Feature Articles by Type of Research Type of research
2003 (N = 12)
2013 (N = 31)
Quantitative Qualitative Multimethod
33.3% 33.3% 11.1%
69.2% 19.2% 11.5%
272
Internaonal
methods were represented equally in 2003, authors published substantially more quantitative articles in 2013. Notably, all quantitative articles in 2003 were descriptive in nature. In 2013, more complex designs were apparent, particularly in relation to prediction and modeling. In 2013, we published review articles based on rigorous search criteria in direct contrast to the narrative reviews acceptable in 2003. Systematic reviews now so prevalent in nursing literature have moved the bar for credibility in background sections of articles. If one is claiming to have conducted a comprehensive review, peer reviewers usually ask for the details to substantiate that claim. In keeping with current scholarship in academic and clinical settings, the 2013 JSPN volume also contained an article on theory development, two concept analysis articles, and two evidence-based clinical guidelines.
FIRST AUTHORS WERE MORE FREQUENTLY FROM ACADEMIC SETTINGS AND HELD DOCTORAL DEGREES
As shown in Figure 1, academic (versus clinical) settings predominated for first authors in both years. Similarly, first authors tended to hold a PhD or DNSc degree, doctoral preparation being even more prevalent in 2013. Notably, four of the five master’sprepared authors in 2013 were doctoral students. These findings are not surprising because the bar has risen sharply on scientific rigor and scientific writing, and such expertise is most often acquired within an academic career. I am concerned, however, in the implication that clinical authors and those prepared at the baccalaureate or master’s level Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 19 (2014) 271–273 © 2014, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Editorial
R. L. Foster
have little chance of publishing their work. As editors, as reviewers, as nurse scholars, we simply cannot let that happen. As a practice profession, we are reliant on the identification of clinical problems and the expertise and innovation of nurse clinicians to ensure that what we publish advances the art and science of the nursing profession. Academic–clinical partnerships in publication are essential. This is certainly not a new idea, but the trends reflected in this comparison elevate it to an action item. I cannot overstate the advisability for inexperienced authors to seek a well-published, doctorally prepared coauthor. You will not lose ownership of your work, you will gain publication and broad dissemination of your work (Foster, 2011). NURSING PUBLICATION IS BECOMING A GLOBAL AFFAIR
The most striking comparison in Figure 1 is the rise in international authors to almost 26% of publications in 2013. During 2013, we received submissions from authors in 19 countries, and international submissions surpassed those from U.S. authors. Authors of the eight international articles we published were from Iran, Turkey, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Anecdotally, I find that international authors tend to report large sample sizes and often have rigorous research designs. I expect the number of published articles to grow rapidly as the international nursing community becomes more familiar with resources for professional editing and attends more closely to results that extend science globally as well as nationally. Another reason to anticipate increasing submissions and publications from international nursing authors is that global dissemination is important to journal impact factors (IFs). The relationship is reciprocal because higher IF appeals to authors whose institutions use IFs in scholarship calculations, and those institutions are often international. IMPLICATIONS OF PUBLISHING TRENDS
To the extent that changes in JSPN publications between 2003 and 2013 are representative of the
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 19 (2014) 271–273 © 2014, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
broader changes in nursing journals, there are some important implications of raising the publication bar. The first implication is positive. Increasing international articles will facilitate global understanding of cultures, healthcare issues, and innovations. International dissemination means we can learn more quickly from each other and think/act more globally in strategic planning. Second, there are implications for nursing education. We must examine how we prepare students for authorship and whether authorship should be limited to graduate education. We must also explore the best ways to prepare our students to read and use the literature, as well as to extend their scholarship through peer review (Foster & Scott, 2014). The third implication is the critical need to foster submissions from clinical authors who personify the essence of our profession. I urge clinically based nurse scientists to take up this cause because you alone possess the scholarship and clinical expertise needed for credibility across academic and clinical settings. You are uniquely placed to coauthor manuscripts with less experienced nurse clinicians and to negotiate with your institutions to reward coauthorship. Reach out to journal editors; share your expertise on editorial boards, as column editors, as clinical liaisons, and through other innovative partnerships. Together we can ensure that raising the publication bar actually extends nursing art and science. Roxie L. Foster, PhD, RN, FAAN [email protected]
References American Nurses Credentialing Center. (n.d.). History of the magnet program. Retrieved from http://www .nursecredentialing.org/MagnetHistory.aspx Foster, R. L. (2011). Ask the editor. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16(3), 167–168. Foster, R. L., & Scott, S. D. (2014). Learning peer review: Is jumping into the “deep end” the best approach? Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 19(3), 195–197.
273
Copyright of Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing
E D I TO R I A L
Implications of raising the publication bar in nursing journals
Search terms Nursing journal, publication, scientific writing. doi: 10.1111/jspn.12095
Nursing publication has changed dramatically over the last two decades. Nursing journals, in general, have raised the bar on what gets published, requiring authors to be increasingly more sophisticated in the logical presentation of the issues, the rigor of research and evidence-based approaches to those issues, and in scientific writing expertise. Now in my fifteenth year as JSPN’s editor in chief, I am both aware of the trends and concerned about what these changes mean for nursing. To editorialize on the subject, I realized I needed data, not just impressions. I chose to use JSPN data not only for ease of access but also because I am intimately familiar with all aspects of the editorial process. Although the changes would have been more dramatic if I had begun with 1996 when the journal originated, it would also have been misleading because new journals take some time to establish their niche in the market and, thus, to better represent nursing publications. Additionally, nursing education and nursing practice have changed dramatically since 1996, further distorting the comparison. For those reasons, I chose a 10-year window to examine JSPN publishing trends. I accessed each JSPN feature article published in 2003 and 2013 to extract the type (research, clinical, other) and the first author’s practice setting (academic or clinical), highest degree, and country of residence. My rudimentary database also included columns published in those years, including demographics of the first authors. Simple frequencies describe the trends shown in Figure 1. NUMBERS OF FEATURE ARTICLES AND COLUMNS HAVE CHANGED
I was surprised by the disparity in feature articles between JSPN volumes. In 2003 we published 12 articles and 10 columns, whereas in 2013 we published 31 articles but only 3 columns. Revisiting the Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 19 (2014) 271–273 © 2014, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2003 volume reminded me that our template at that time was to publish only three feature articles per issue. Changes occurred when our publisher increased the size of the journal to accommodate the increase in submissions. The decrease in columns, however, was more accidental than intentional. Our columns have always been popular features of the journal, and although we actively invite submissions for this venue, our column editors have found it increasingly difficult to recruit column writers. There are probably a number of reasons for that. First, columns are not refereed, and in some academic settings authors receive less academic credit for a column than for an article. Second, at JSPN, we believe data-based publications require peer review so we do not accept data-based columns. In the growing sophistication with evidence-based decision-making, many of today’s hot issues call for data. Finally, because columns particularly lend themselves to discussion of clinical issues, column editors need broad networks across academic and clinical settings.
FEATURE ARTICLES TEND TO BE CLINICALLY RELEVANT AND DATA BASED
Articles were examined for content focus and coded for type. Parenting (which included parent–child interactions) remained the most common focus, featured in 33% of the 2003 articles and 32% of articles published in 2013. The prevalence of this topic is more understandable when one considers the range of issues for which parent or parent–child data are relevant to pediatric nursing (e.g., mental health and diabetes management). Whereas no other themes were evident in the 2003 volume, 2013 articles included ongoing issues that have been addressed in nursing literature in recent years: pain, asthma, and obesity. 271
Editorial
R. L. Foster
90.0% 80.0%
83.9%
83.9%
75.0%
74.2% 66.7%
70.0%
58.3%
60.0% 50.0% 40.0%
25.8%
30.0%
Figure 1 Feature Articles Accepted for Publication in 2003 and 2013 Compared by Content and Demographics of First Author.
20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% Data-based
Academic seng 2003 (N = 12)
Doctoral degree 2013 (N = 31)
As noted in Figure 1, published articles tend to be data based. In fact, I was surprised to find very high percentages of data-based articles across both years (75% in 2003 and almost 84% in 2013). The explanation may lie in JSPN’s mission statement (to bridge the gap between research and practice by publishing reliable, clinically relevant, and readily applicable evidence [emphasis added]). The advent of ANCC Magnet designation for hospitals in 1990 (American Nurses Credentialing Center, n.d.) was a primary force in defining what qualifies as clinical “evidence.” As a result, clinical agencies have become increasingly sophisticated in design and conduct of studies to support patient care outcomes. Thus, data, historically the purview of academic researchers, have become at least as relevant in clinical settings, and many publications are likely to be data based. This begs the question, however, of whether reviewer (and editor) bias exists for data to substantiate an author’s conclusions. In my experience, that is certainly true. As an example, authors who may have been successful in publishing a descriptive article on program development in the past now find that evaluation data are essential to reviewers’ support for publication. Articles were coded not only for whether they were data based but more specifically for article type (Table 1). Whereas quantitative and qualitative Table 1. Feature Articles by Type of Research Type of research
2003 (N = 12)
2013 (N = 31)
Quantitative Qualitative Multimethod
33.3% 33.3% 11.1%
69.2% 19.2% 11.5%
272
Internaonal
methods were represented equally in 2003, authors published substantially more quantitative articles in 2013. Notably, all quantitative articles in 2003 were descriptive in nature. In 2013, more complex designs were apparent, particularly in relation to prediction and modeling. In 2013, we published review articles based on rigorous search criteria in direct contrast to the narrative reviews acceptable in 2003. Systematic reviews now so prevalent in nursing literature have moved the bar for credibility in background sections of articles. If one is claiming to have conducted a comprehensive review, peer reviewers usually ask for the details to substantiate that claim. In keeping with current scholarship in academic and clinical settings, the 2013 JSPN volume also contained an article on theory development, two concept analysis articles, and two evidence-based clinical guidelines.
FIRST AUTHORS WERE MORE FREQUENTLY FROM ACADEMIC SETTINGS AND HELD DOCTORAL DEGREES
As shown in Figure 1, academic (versus clinical) settings predominated for first authors in both years. Similarly, first authors tended to hold a PhD or DNSc degree, doctoral preparation being even more prevalent in 2013. Notably, four of the five master’sprepared authors in 2013 were doctoral students. These findings are not surprising because the bar has risen sharply on scientific rigor and scientific writing, and such expertise is most often acquired within an academic career. I am concerned, however, in the implication that clinical authors and those prepared at the baccalaureate or master’s level Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 19 (2014) 271–273 © 2014, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Editorial
R. L. Foster
have little chance of publishing their work. As editors, as reviewers, as nurse scholars, we simply cannot let that happen. As a practice profession, we are reliant on the identification of clinical problems and the expertise and innovation of nurse clinicians to ensure that what we publish advances the art and science of the nursing profession. Academic–clinical partnerships in publication are essential. This is certainly not a new idea, but the trends reflected in this comparison elevate it to an action item. I cannot overstate the advisability for inexperienced authors to seek a well-published, doctorally prepared coauthor. You will not lose ownership of your work, you will gain publication and broad dissemination of your work (Foster, 2011). NURSING PUBLICATION IS BECOMING A GLOBAL AFFAIR
The most striking comparison in Figure 1 is the rise in international authors to almost 26% of publications in 2013. During 2013, we received submissions from authors in 19 countries, and international submissions surpassed those from U.S. authors. Authors of the eight international articles we published were from Iran, Turkey, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Anecdotally, I find that international authors tend to report large sample sizes and often have rigorous research designs. I expect the number of published articles to grow rapidly as the international nursing community becomes more familiar with resources for professional editing and attends more closely to results that extend science globally as well as nationally. Another reason to anticipate increasing submissions and publications from international nursing authors is that global dissemination is important to journal impact factors (IFs). The relationship is reciprocal because higher IF appeals to authors whose institutions use IFs in scholarship calculations, and those institutions are often international. IMPLICATIONS OF PUBLISHING TRENDS
To the extent that changes in JSPN publications between 2003 and 2013 are representative of the
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 19 (2014) 271–273 © 2014, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
broader changes in nursing journals, there are some important implications of raising the publication bar. The first implication is positive. Increasing international articles will facilitate global understanding of cultures, healthcare issues, and innovations. International dissemination means we can learn more quickly from each other and think/act more globally in strategic planning. Second, there are implications for nursing education. We must examine how we prepare students for authorship and whether authorship should be limited to graduate education. We must also explore the best ways to prepare our students to read and use the literature, as well as to extend their scholarship through peer review (Foster & Scott, 2014). The third implication is the critical need to foster submissions from clinical authors who personify the essence of our profession. I urge clinically based nurse scientists to take up this cause because you alone possess the scholarship and clinical expertise needed for credibility across academic and clinical settings. You are uniquely placed to coauthor manuscripts with less experienced nurse clinicians and to negotiate with your institutions to reward coauthorship. Reach out to journal editors; share your expertise on editorial boards, as column editors, as clinical liaisons, and through other innovative partnerships. Together we can ensure that raising the publication bar actually extends nursing art and science. Roxie L. Foster, PhD, RN, FAAN [email protected]
References American Nurses Credentialing Center. (n.d.). History of the magnet program. Retrieved from http://www .nursecredentialing.org/MagnetHistory.aspx Foster, R. L. (2011). Ask the editor. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16(3), 167–168. Foster, R. L., & Scott, S. D. (2014). Learning peer review: Is jumping into the “deep end” the best approach? Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 19(3), 195–197.
273
Copyright of Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
