Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
N u r s O u t l o o k x x x ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 7 9 e3 8 0
www.nursingoutlook.org
From the Editor
The dynamic world of publishing in nursing: Impact assessment
Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN
“Certain things, they should stay the way they are. You ought to be able to stick them in one of those big glass cases and just leave them alone.”eJ.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye “You can’t stop the future; You can’t rewind the past; The only way to learn the secret.is to press play.” eJay Asher, Thirteen Reasons Why The roots of scholarship are in the mind of the author, but the dissemination of that scholarship is in the hands of many. Among “those many” are the tireless reviewers who selfishly spent hours reviewing manuscripts with the generosity of scholars who know how important the written word can be and know how knowledge can change the behavior of practitioners in a field (albeit a bit slowly). Twenty, even 10 years ago, the publication of scholarly works was very predictable, and one could easily not have to significantly alter a presentation about getting one’s work published but every so often. The path to publication, although often arduous and occasionally frustrating, was clear and once learned got easier each time. However, like all other things in the world, this too has changed dramatically. Some of the changes have been relatively easy to understand and master such as web-based systems for submitting manuscripts to journals. These web-based
systems shortened considerably the amount of time to transmit manuscripts to reviewers and back again to the editor, decreased postage costs, and facilitated a paper trail that reduced the possibility that either a manuscript or a review would “get lost in the mail.” Most recently, the movement of accepted articles, which are posted online as “in press,” also speeds accessibility and dissemination so that it is entirely possibly to have a manuscript submitted, reviewed, revised, accepted, galleys corrected, and placed online as “in press” within 2 to 3 months. In today’s fast-paced world, this level of speed is clearly an expectation of many authors. Of course, this time frame requires that very busy volunteer reviewers are able to return a review within 3 weeks, that the editor is able to communicate with the author within a week to 10 days, and that the author then revises the paper within 3 to 4 weeks, which are all points of potential lag. All in all, this more rapid dissemination cycle is to be applauded. Another new and dynamic concept in publishing that authors, editors, and publishers try to stay abreast of is that of “journal metrics.” Journal metrics are defined as the impact (i.e., influence) of published articles in a journal (Polit & Northam, 2011). The impact factor reflects how many articles within that journal are widely read and cited in another publication over a relatively short period of time (i.e., 2 years). These metrics are intended to be a reflection of who and how many are reading what articles, as well as when they cite them in subsequent articles they write and publish. Of course, given the web-based systems in which publishing resides, “downloads” of articles are another way of judging the “who,” “where,” and “when” although it does not indicate whether the individual actually read the article and then cited it as a reputable source. The existing methods of measuring the impact of articles and journals that publish them are very important to faculty who depend on them when applying for promotion. Faculty members want their work published in a reputable journal that is judged by peers as having a high impact in the field. It is
380
N u r s O u t l o o k x x x ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 7 9 e3 8 0
also used occasionally by some publishers to weigh the value of the journal as reflected in the articles within. Of course, other ways to measure impact could be how many times readers talk about a specific article, change their practice with patients based on a special issue of articles, or assign an article to students in their classes. These may actually be far more important in terms of actual impact and influence but are not accessible for formal measurement. However, the measurement of impact and influence is evolving rapidly. How many individuals read these articles online (page views); how many download them; scientific network analyses such as “scientific prestige indicators” (Gonazalez-Pereira, Guerrero-Bote, & MoyaAnegon, 2010) and SCImago journal rankings (Falagas, Kouranos, Arencibia-Joge, Karageorgopoulos, 2008); article downloads; and most recently web and media links, twitter counts, and Mendeley bookmarks are all of interest to those who measure impact. That is, we want to know, where is new knowledge published in a journal not just cited, but accessed and talked about by individual readers. These latest methods of measuring impact are called “altmetrics” (www.altmetrics.org) and are being used increasingly by publishers to make decisions about what journals reach the most people and hence have potential to make the greatest impact. There are also a variety of web-based applications that authors and others can use to assess the widespread use of one’s article including www.journalmetrics. com (Elsevier); www.plumanalytics.com (commercial); Digital Science’s www.altmetric.com (more established, partially commercial); and the well-established, always free, always open application called Impact Story (www.impactstory.it). It is clear that the world of publishing a manuscript is not a tradition or practice we can “put in a glass case and be left alone.” As an editor, I struggle to not only “press play” so that Nursing Outlook stays competitive in terms of attracting the best manuscripts but also to understand the value in each change so I can interpret that value to our authors, reviewers, and readers. Recently, I heard an awesome analogy applied to an
organizational change, “this change makes me feel like we are building the airplane while still flying it.” Well, that sums it up in publishing too. But as long as the authors in the seats of this airplane are creating important knowledge that will be used by others to improve conditions under which nurses care for others, teach the next generation, craft policy to improve health, and suggest future paths for research, I am up for the ride.
references
Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Joge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22, 4067e4070. Gonzalez-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moye-Anegon, F. (2010). A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 379e391. Polit, D., & Northam, S. (2011). Impact factors in nursing journals. Nursing Outlook, 59(1), 18e28.
Author Description Marion E. Broome is the Editor-in-chief of Nursing Outlook.
Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN Corresponding author: Dr. Marion E. Broome Indiana University Dean & Distinguished Professor School of Nursing 1111 Middle Drive NU 132 Indianapolis, IN 46202-5107. E-mail address: [email protected] 0029-6554/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2013.10.001
N u r s O u t l o o k x x x ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 7 9 e3 8 0
www.nursingoutlook.org
From the Editor
The dynamic world of publishing in nursing: Impact assessment
Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN
“Certain things, they should stay the way they are. You ought to be able to stick them in one of those big glass cases and just leave them alone.”eJ.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye “You can’t stop the future; You can’t rewind the past; The only way to learn the secret.is to press play.” eJay Asher, Thirteen Reasons Why The roots of scholarship are in the mind of the author, but the dissemination of that scholarship is in the hands of many. Among “those many” are the tireless reviewers who selfishly spent hours reviewing manuscripts with the generosity of scholars who know how important the written word can be and know how knowledge can change the behavior of practitioners in a field (albeit a bit slowly). Twenty, even 10 years ago, the publication of scholarly works was very predictable, and one could easily not have to significantly alter a presentation about getting one’s work published but every so often. The path to publication, although often arduous and occasionally frustrating, was clear and once learned got easier each time. However, like all other things in the world, this too has changed dramatically. Some of the changes have been relatively easy to understand and master such as web-based systems for submitting manuscripts to journals. These web-based
systems shortened considerably the amount of time to transmit manuscripts to reviewers and back again to the editor, decreased postage costs, and facilitated a paper trail that reduced the possibility that either a manuscript or a review would “get lost in the mail.” Most recently, the movement of accepted articles, which are posted online as “in press,” also speeds accessibility and dissemination so that it is entirely possibly to have a manuscript submitted, reviewed, revised, accepted, galleys corrected, and placed online as “in press” within 2 to 3 months. In today’s fast-paced world, this level of speed is clearly an expectation of many authors. Of course, this time frame requires that very busy volunteer reviewers are able to return a review within 3 weeks, that the editor is able to communicate with the author within a week to 10 days, and that the author then revises the paper within 3 to 4 weeks, which are all points of potential lag. All in all, this more rapid dissemination cycle is to be applauded. Another new and dynamic concept in publishing that authors, editors, and publishers try to stay abreast of is that of “journal metrics.” Journal metrics are defined as the impact (i.e., influence) of published articles in a journal (Polit & Northam, 2011). The impact factor reflects how many articles within that journal are widely read and cited in another publication over a relatively short period of time (i.e., 2 years). These metrics are intended to be a reflection of who and how many are reading what articles, as well as when they cite them in subsequent articles they write and publish. Of course, given the web-based systems in which publishing resides, “downloads” of articles are another way of judging the “who,” “where,” and “when” although it does not indicate whether the individual actually read the article and then cited it as a reputable source. The existing methods of measuring the impact of articles and journals that publish them are very important to faculty who depend on them when applying for promotion. Faculty members want their work published in a reputable journal that is judged by peers as having a high impact in the field. It is
380
N u r s O u t l o o k x x x ( 2 0 1 3 ) 3 7 9 e3 8 0
also used occasionally by some publishers to weigh the value of the journal as reflected in the articles within. Of course, other ways to measure impact could be how many times readers talk about a specific article, change their practice with patients based on a special issue of articles, or assign an article to students in their classes. These may actually be far more important in terms of actual impact and influence but are not accessible for formal measurement. However, the measurement of impact and influence is evolving rapidly. How many individuals read these articles online (page views); how many download them; scientific network analyses such as “scientific prestige indicators” (Gonazalez-Pereira, Guerrero-Bote, & MoyaAnegon, 2010) and SCImago journal rankings (Falagas, Kouranos, Arencibia-Joge, Karageorgopoulos, 2008); article downloads; and most recently web and media links, twitter counts, and Mendeley bookmarks are all of interest to those who measure impact. That is, we want to know, where is new knowledge published in a journal not just cited, but accessed and talked about by individual readers. These latest methods of measuring impact are called “altmetrics” (www.altmetrics.org) and are being used increasingly by publishers to make decisions about what journals reach the most people and hence have potential to make the greatest impact. There are also a variety of web-based applications that authors and others can use to assess the widespread use of one’s article including www.journalmetrics. com (Elsevier); www.plumanalytics.com (commercial); Digital Science’s www.altmetric.com (more established, partially commercial); and the well-established, always free, always open application called Impact Story (www.impactstory.it). It is clear that the world of publishing a manuscript is not a tradition or practice we can “put in a glass case and be left alone.” As an editor, I struggle to not only “press play” so that Nursing Outlook stays competitive in terms of attracting the best manuscripts but also to understand the value in each change so I can interpret that value to our authors, reviewers, and readers. Recently, I heard an awesome analogy applied to an
organizational change, “this change makes me feel like we are building the airplane while still flying it.” Well, that sums it up in publishing too. But as long as the authors in the seats of this airplane are creating important knowledge that will be used by others to improve conditions under which nurses care for others, teach the next generation, craft policy to improve health, and suggest future paths for research, I am up for the ride.
references
Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Joge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22, 4067e4070. Gonzalez-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moye-Anegon, F. (2010). A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 379e391. Polit, D., & Northam, S. (2011). Impact factors in nursing journals. Nursing Outlook, 59(1), 18e28.
Author Description Marion E. Broome is the Editor-in-chief of Nursing Outlook.
Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN Corresponding author: Dr. Marion E. Broome Indiana University Dean & Distinguished Professor School of Nursing 1111 Middle Drive NU 132 Indianapolis, IN 46202-5107. E-mail address: [email protected] 0029-6554/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2013.10.001
