Search

Background. The scientific community views the publication of academic papers as a means of disseminating information, ensuring transparency and good practice in terms of research utilization. However, the choice of journal in which to publish is frequently influenced by other, less obvious, factors. This paper describes the lengthy route taken to get a methodological paper about pilot studies into print. Aim and method. This paper shares some of our experiences and discusses the lessons that we learned about the process of getting into print. A case study approach is adopted to help the reader understand the different influences on this process. Findings. Our methodological paper was submitted to six different academic journals before it was finally accepted for publication. The choice of journal was influenced by the need to reach an appropriate academic audience, the estimated turn around time (the time taken between submission of a paper and its subsequent publication) and the level of academic credibility of the journal (often assessed by the journal's Impact Factor). Publishing in 'high impact' academic journals assumed considerable importance for us in view of the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). However, the consequence of going down the journal status hierarchy was that we lost about 1 year through submitting, rewriting according to each of the journal's specific requirements and resubmitting. The case study also demonstrates that getting into print often depends on a range of factors, not just the quality of the written text. Conclusions. Getting a paper published may depend not only on the intrinsic quality of the paper, but also whether it is submitted to the 'right' academic journal. Moreover, if journals do not take certain papers (e.g. ones with negative findings or those reporting multi-disciplinary studies) then this can lead to publication bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article introduces a series of articles on nursing and midwifery, which appeared in the 30th anniversary issue of the "Journal of Advanced Nursing."

Presents a review of paper published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1976–1979 and 1989–1992. Criteria noted on the submission of the papers; Final analysis on the characteristics of authors under the headings; General topics addressed in papers.

Presents an analysis of papers published in the "Journal of Advanced Nursing" throughout 2002. Country of origin of the papers; Categorization of the papers; Data collection methods used in empirical papers.

Aim. The aim of the paper is (1) to offer an overview of different theoretical approaches to discourse analysis and (2) to review papers published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing from 1996–2004 in which discourse analysis is identified as a method of data analysis. Background. Discourse analysis offers rigorous approaches to analysing naturally occurring talk and texts. Forms of discourse analysis have developed across broad theoretical bases. Such development has created challenges for researchers wishing to adopt this methodology and readers wishing to evaluate the quality of discourse analytic work. Methods. First, key documents which describe the theoretical range of discourse analysis are used to provide (i) a comprehensive overview of the approach, (ii) the identification of categories of discourse analysis and (iii) minimum criteria for determining if an individual paper can realistically claim to be adopting discourse analysis. Secondly, an electronic search followed by hand search of the Journal of Advanced Nursing full- contents between 1996 and 2004 was undertaken. The papers were grouped into the types of approach identified in i, and evaluated to see whether they met the ‘minimum criteria’ also identified in i. Findings. The search of Journal of Advanced Nursing revealed 24 papers where the authors stated that discourse analysis was among the methods or was the sole method of data analysis. The majority of the papers cluster around critical approaches to discourse analysis. Only a few approach discourse analysis primarily as analysis of conversation. Some papers are excellent, while others offer analysis that bears little resemblance to any form of discourse analysis. Conclusions. A strategy for improvement could include more rigorous attention on the part of those practising discourse analysis to methodology and the key features that differentiate the different approaches to discourse analysis from other qualitative methods. Authors should include sufficient detail of their approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a brief review of papers published in the 'Journal of Advanced Nursing,' 1983–1992. Classification of paper; Topics covered in the papers; Number of publications and papers featured.

Williamson G.R. (2003) Journal of Advanced Nursing 44(3), 278–288 Misrepresenting random sampling? A systematic review of research papers in the Journal of Advanced Nursing This paper discusses the theoretical limitations of the use of random sampling and probability theory in the production of a significance level (or P-value) in nursing research. Potential alternatives, in the form of randomization tests, are proposed. Research papers in nursing, medicine and psychology frequently misrepresent their statistical findings, as the P-values reported assume random sampling. In this systematic review of studies published between January 1995 and June 2002 in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, 89 (68%) studies broke this assumption because they used convenience samples or entire populations. As a result, some of the findings may be questionable. The key ideas of random sampling and probability theory for statistical testing (for generating a P-value) are outlined. The result of a systematic review of research papers published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing is then presented, showing how frequently random sampling appears to have been misrepresented. Useful alternative techniques that might overcome these limitations are then discussed. This review is limited in scope because it is applied to one journal, and so the findings cannot be generalized to other nursing journals or to nursing research in general. However, it is possible that other nursing journals are also publishing research articles based on the misrepresentation of random sampling. The review is also limited because in several of the articles the sampling method was not completely clearly stated, and in this circumstance a judgment has been made as to the sampling method employed, based on the indications given by author(s). Quantitative researchers in nursing should be very careful that the statistical techniques they use are appropriate for the design and sampling methods of their studies. If the techniques they employ are not appropriate, they run the risk of misinterpreting findings by using inappropriate, unrepresentative and biased samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nursing research in Spain: bibliometrics of references of research papers in the decade 1985–1994 Background. Spain is one of the few European countries to have recently totally incorporated the study of nursing into the university sector. Bibliometric studies may be of a great help for the consolidation of nursing research. Aim of the study. The aim of this paper is to describe bibliographic references in Spanish nursing research papers and their evolution over a decade. Method. The method consists of a retrospective bibliometric study of a sample (cluster sampling) of 622 research papers (original papers and review papers), which were contained in the Spanish nursing journals Enfermería Científica, Revista ROL de Enfermería, Enfermería Clínica and Enfermería Integral, and published from 1985 to 1994. The journal Nursing Research was selected for qualitative comparative purposes. A series of classic bibliometric indexes were used. Results. The mean of references per paper is 10·64 ± 10·42; this increased over time (P < 0·001). Review papers have more references (P < 0·001). Price index (percentage of references published during the last 5 years) is 44% and the Insularity (percentage of references published in same country as the article) is 55%. References to journals predominate (58·6%), with a growing tendency for references to Spanish nursing journals, although they are still scarce (18·1% of the references to journals). Spanish is the language of most of the references (60·3%), the second language being English (36·1%). Conclusions. Bibliographic references in Spanish nursing research papers are scarce and not very specific: this happens both in regard to Nursing Research and to publications in other national and international science areas. However, there is an increasing tendency of references (including references to nursing journals) in the period analysed. The age of the... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Holism is claimed to be the signifying feature that sets women s health apart from traditional approaches to health care. As such, articles published in the nursing literature about women s health would, one might expect, reflect the centrality of holism to women s health care nursing. The findings of a study which examined the content and the focus of articles published about women s health in journals indexed by CINAHL in the period 1993 1995 challenge this assumption. It was found that women s health is a taken-for-granted notion and is used interchangeably and synonymously to refer to reproductive health, maternal health, neonatal health, family health and (hetero)sexual health. Confounding the view that holism is foundational to a women s health perspective, the papers forming the study s sample largely depict issues to do with women s health from a narrow and stereotypical perspective and with a bio-medical focus. Women were referred to as fragmented bodies, body parts and diseases, and were depicted as being passive and silent. By contrast, the voice (and the activity) of nurses and nursing s imperative to intervene was clearly discernible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]