A qualitative study of the factors influencing the submission for publication of research undertaken by students

Factors Associated with Publication of Research Projects from a Canadian Master of Science Degree Programme in Physical Therapy

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the nature and extent of publications and to evaluate whether lead advisor role and experience, data collection tool, sample size, and research topic predict publication for research projects completed as part of a Canadian Master of Science in Physical Therapy (MScPT) programme. Method: We conducted a quantitative, cross-sectional, retrospective review of projects completed between 2003 and 2015 and confirmed publication status through citations of published work, a literature search, and a survey of advisors. We used descriptive statistics to describe the nature and extent of publications and logistic regression to analyze potential predictor variables. Results: Between 2003 and 2015, 44.5% of the 218 projects completed were associated with at least one peer-reviewed journal publication, and there was a seven-fold increase in annual publication rate. Projects led by a scientist or researcher ([OR] = 3.09; 95% CI: 1.15, 8.35), qualitative projects with 10 or more participants ([OR] 6.22; 95% CI: 1.96, 19.78), and quantitative projects with more than 50 participants ([OR] = 2.29; 95% CI: 1.14, 4.63) were associated with an increased likelihood of publication. Conclusions: MScPT research is published at a moderate rate, and annual publication rates increased between 2003 and 2015. Encouragement to obtain adequate sample sizes and additional support for clinician-led projects may enhance publication rates and, ultimately, bridge gaps in research-to-practice integration.

An Academic Perspective on Publishing in Oncology Nursing

OBJECTIVES

To describe authorship opportunities for nursing students, encourage writing for publication, and provide practical guidance on reformatting a "school" paper into a version suitable for publication.

DATA SOURCES

Published literature, authors' experience.

CONCLUSION

Nursing students have unique opportunities to write for publication during, and beyond, their educational programs. Writing for publication can be a very rewarding experience and a meaningful one, as nurse authors contribute to the body of knowledge of oncology nursing.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

While an excellent paper written for a class, thesis, final project, or dissertation is virtually never publishable without substantial changes, by following the guidance provided in this article, publication is very possible.

Retrospective Review of Student Research Projects in a Canadian Master of Science in Physical Therapy Programme and the Perceived Impact on Advisors' Research Capacity, Education, Clinical Practice, Knowledge Translation, and Health Policy

Purpose: This study's aim was to characterize the nature of students' research conducted for a Master of Science in Physical Therapy (MScPT) degree programme at a Canadian university and evaluate the lead advisors' perspectives of its impact on their research capacity, education, clinical practice, knowledge translation, and health policy. Methods: We conducted a quantitative, cross-sectional, retrospective review of research reports from 2003 to 2014 to characterize the MScPT students' research and a quantitative, cross-sectional e-survey of lead research advisors to evaluate the impact of this research. Results: Data were abstracted from reports of 201 research projects completed between 2003 and 2014. Projects were conducted primarily in university-affiliated hospitals (41.6%) or the university's physical therapy department (41.1%), and the majority (52.5%) had a clinical focus. Of the 95 lead advisors of 201 projects, 59 advisors (response rate 62.1%) of 119 projects completed the survey questionnaire. The respondents most frequently identified clinical practice (45.1%) and advisors' research capacity (31.4%) as areas positively affected by the students' research. Conclusions: The MScPT students' research projects facilitate the conduct of extensive research internally and across affiliated hospitals. This research appears to advance not only clinical practice but also the ability of lead advisors to undertake research.

Mentoring Clinical Nurses to Write for Publication: Strategies for Success

: Clinical nurses often find writing a challenge, but it's important to disseminate clinical practice initiatives that result in notable patient outcomes. Nurses have a responsibility to share what they do to improve patient care. The increased emphasis on the development and evaluation of evidence-based practice has made it necessary for nurses to share best practices that are associated with improved patient outcomes. We developed a six-month Writing for Publication workshop series designed to teach clinical nurses about the writing process and mentor them through the stages of preparing a manuscript to submit for publication. This successful program helped novice nurse authors become published professionals and had a great impact on our organization.

Why are medical and health-related studies not being published? A systematic review of reasons given by investigators

Objective

About half of medical and health-related studies are not published. We conducted a systematic review of reports on reasons given by investigators for not publishing their studies in peer-reviewed journals.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS (until 13/09/2013), and references of identified articles were searched to identify reports of surveys that provided data on reasons given by investigators for not publishing studies. The proportion of non-submission and reasons for non-publication was calculated using the number of unpublished studies as the denominator. Because of heterogeneity across studies, quantitative pooling was not conducted. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted.

Results

We included 54 survey reports. Data from 38 included reports were available to estimate proportions of at least one reason given for not publishing studies. The proportion of non-submission among unpublished studies ranged from 55% to 100%, with a median of 85%. The reasons given by investigators for not publishing their studies included: lack of time or low priority (median 33%), studies being incomplete (median 15%), study not for publication (median 14%), manuscript in preparation or under review (median 12%), unimportant or negative result (median 12%), poor study quality or design (median 11%), fear of rejection (median 12%), rejection by journals (median 6%), author or co-author problems (median 10%), and sponsor or funder problems (median 9%). In general, the frequency of reasons given for non-publication was not associated with the source of unpublished studies, study design, or time when a survey was conducted.

Conclusions

Non-submission of studies for publication remains the main cause of non-publication of studies. Measures to reduce non-publication of studies and alternative models of research dissemination need to be developed to address the main reasons given by investigators for not publishing their studies, such as lack of time or low priority and fear of being rejected by journals.

Strategies for successful academic writing - institutional and non-institutional support for students

BACKGROUND

Students develop better academic writing skills as they progress through their higher education programme, but despite recent continuing monitoring of student satisfaction with their education in UK, there has been relatively little research into students' perceptions of the active support that they need and receive to succeed as academic writers.

AIM OF THE STUDY

To examine the strategies that university students on health or social care courses utilise to develop as writers in the face of many pressures and demands from different sources.

RESEARCH METHOD USED

Qualitative research conducted at a British University into undergraduates' writing practices in the field of healthcare. Ten participants took part in semi-structured interviews, half of whom were international students. The data was analysed by the researchers from the field of writing development using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The main findings are that certain students struggle as academic writers if they do not receive tuition on appropriate and effective academic writing through institutional provisions, or through non-institutional strategies, that can promote success with the writing process. There is also uncertainty over the extent to which nurse educators are expected to teach academic writing skills, alongside their discipline-specific subject areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Both institutional provisions for academic writing development, such as a dedicated writing support department, and non-institutional factors such as peer-collaboration should be fully recognised, supported and resourced in tertiary education at a time when students' satisfaction and performance are high on the agenda.