Impact factors in nursing journals

Assessment of consistency between peer-reviewed publications and clinical trial registrations in nursing journals

BACKGROUND

The inconsistencies between randomized clinical trials (RCTs) registrations and peer-reviewed publications may distort trial results and threaten the validity of evidence-based medicine. Previous studies have found many inconsistencies between RCTs registrations and peer-reviewed publications, and outcome reporting bias is prevalent.

AIMS

The aims of this review were to assess whether the primary outcomes and other data reported in publications and registered records in RCTs of nursing journals were consistent and whether discrepancies in the reporting of primary outcomes favored statistically significant results. Moreover, we reviewed the proportion of RCTs for prospective registration.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed for RCTs published in the top 10 nursing journals between March 5, 2020, and March 5, 2022. Registration numbers were extracted from the publications, and registered records were identified from the registration platforms. The publications and registered records were compared to identify consistency. Inconsistencies were subdivided into discrepancies and omissions.

RESULTS

A total of 70 RCTs published in seven journals were included. The inconsistencies involved sample size estimation (71.4%), random sequence generation (75.7%), allocation concealment (97.1%), blinding (82.9%), primary outcomes (60.0%) and secondary outcomes (84.3%). Among the inconsistencies in the primary outcomes, 21.4% were due to discrepancies and 38.6% resulted from omissions. Fifty-three percent (8/15) presented discrepancies in the primary outcomes that favored statistically significant results. Additionally, although only 40.0% of the studies were prospective registrations, the number of prospectively registered trials has trended upward over time.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

While not including all RCTs in the nursing field, our sample reflected a general trend: inconsistencies between publications and trial registrations were prevalent in the included nursing journals. Our research helps to provide a way to improve the transparency of research reports. Ensuring that clinical practice has access to transparent and reliable research results are essential to achieve the best possible evidence-based medicine.

Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Experimental Studies Published in Nursing Journals: Findings From a Scoping Review With Implications for Further Research

BACKGROUND

Experimental studies are considered capable of generating substantial evidence; therefore, their production and diffusion are continuously encouraged. However, their trends as publication outputs in nursing journals have rarely been evaluated to date.

AIMS

To describe experimental study design features among the highest indexed nursing journals.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed by retrieving and analyzing experimental studies published between 2009 and 2016 in nursing journals with a 5-year impact factor >1.5 according to Thomson's Journal Citation Reports.

RESULTS

A total of 602 studies were reviewed and 340 (56%) were included; in all, 298/340 (87.6%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 37/340 (10.9%) pilot studies. The publication trend exhibited a fluctuating pattern with a slight decrease over time (from 54 studies in 2009 to 32 in 2016). Researchers working in Asia and Europe have published more frequently in the selected journals. Published studies most often involved oncological (n = 69, 20%), surgical (n = 41, 12%), and elderly patients (n = 38, 11%). Educational and supportive (n = 119, 35%) interventions were mainly tested for effectiveness. Approximately half of studies enrolled <100 patients, and only two-thirds had included an a priori sample size calculation. Less than one quarter (n = 76) of the research teams were multiprofessional, and 70% of studies were funded, generally, by public institutions.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

A broad range of research questions has been investigated to date by using experimental study designs. However, study methods and multidisciplinary collaborations must be enhanced with the intent of producing large-scale and methodologically sound studies. Furthermore, reasons for limited funding and, particularly, the lack of support from private funding should be further investigated.

Bibliometric analysis of six nursing journals from the Web of Science, 2012-2017

AIM

The purpose of this study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of the six most important nursing journals according to the impact factor of the Science Citation Index through Web of Science^® . The following journals were included: International Journal of Nursing Studies, Nurse Education Today, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Nursing Outlook, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing and the Journal of Advanced Nursing.

BACKGROUND

In the nursing field, bibliometric analysis and maps have been used to analyse the production of some journals but not for the comparison of different journals.

DESIGN/METHOD

Using descriptive bibliometrics, we studied scientific production of different journals and bibliometric maps were used to visualize the content of published articles.

RESULTS

The six journals included showed that 3,937 articles were written by 1,1371 authors from 2,980 institutions and 84 countries from 2012 - 2017. Journal of Advanced Nursing had a greater number of publications and citations. The most prolific authors showed a tendency to publish first in Journal of Advanced Nursing and then in International Journal of Nursing Studies and Nurse Education Today. The frequency of citation was higher in International Journal of Nursing Studies followed by Journal of Advanced Nursing. The most collaborative authors and those with the most co-citations published more than half of their publications in Journal of Advanced Nursing. The topics most commonly researched by these authors were job satisfaction, collaborative practices, and nurse leaders.

CONCLUSION

This bibliometric analysis contributes to the understanding of the current state of nursing research and its evolution.

Knowledge of journal impact factors among nursing faculty: a cross-sectional study

Objective

The research assessed nursing faculty awareness and knowledge of the journal impact factor (JIF) and its impact on their publication choices.

Methods

A qualitative cross-sectional questionnaire was developed using Fluid Survey and distributed electronically to nursing faculty and instructors at three post-secondary institutions in Saskatchewan. Data were collected on place and status of employment, knowledge and awareness of JIFs, and criteria used to choose journals for publication.

Results

A total of forty-four nursing faculty and instructors completed the questionnaire. The authors found that faculty lack awareness or complete understanding of JIFs and that JIFs are not the most important or only criterion used when they choose a journal for publication.

Conclusions

There are various reasons for choosing a journal for publication. It is important for librarians to understand faculty views of JIFs and their criteria for choosing journals for publication, so that librarians are better equipped to guide researchers in considering their academic goals, needs, and personal values.

Understanding Research Impact: A Review of Existing and Emerging Tools for Nursing

Researchers and educators are required to show the impact they have in their field when they apply for promotion or extramural funding. There are several tools available for nursing faculty to consult as they build a research impact profile. This article highlights both traditional and more novel tools, the impact metrics they calculate, and why the tools are particularly relevant to the field of nursing.

Number of papers published in English from the nursing departments of 42 national universities in Japan in the past ten years

BACKGROUND

In Japan, the departments of nursing were established by 2004, and graduate school programs for master's degree were established by 2008, in 42 national universities. With these changes, a more academic mission has been pursued, and the need for writing papers in English has increased.

AIM

To investigate the numbers of papers published in English from the nursing departments of national universities in Japan over the past ten years.

METHODS

The lists of teachers who have nursing licenses in the departments of nursing in the 42 national universities (n=2292) were obtained from the Japan Association of Nursing Programs in Universities. The number of papers published in English by these teachers from 2004 to 2013 was counted using the SCOPUS database.

RESULTS

The average number of total papers, in which at least one of the authors was a nursing teacher, and first-authored papers, in which the first author was a nursing teacher, were 211.4 and 69.9 per year, respectively; both increased approximately two-fold during the past ten years. The means and standard deviations of the number of total papers and first-authored papers were 50.3±63.8 (range: 1-382) and 18.3±23.4 (range: 0-147) according to universities, and 1.39±5.84 (range: 0-140) and 0.33±1.28 (range: 0-21) according to teachers, respectively. When journals with the highest number of papers were analyzed, 12 of the top 20 (total papers) and 12 of the top 16 (first-authored papers) were in journals whose editorial offices are in Japan.

CONCLUSION

The number of papers published in English has increased over the past ten years, varied markedly depending on the universities and teachers, and many papers were published in Japanese journals. To our knowledge, this is the first report anywhere to determine the average number of nursing papers "per teacher" in a specific population.

Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery

Background. Bibliometrics are an essential aspect of measuring academic and organizational performance. Aim. This review seeks to describe methods for measuring bibliometrics, identify the strengths and limitations of methodologies, outline strategies for interpretation, summarise evaluation of nursing and midwifery performance, identify implications for metric of evaluation, and specify the implications for nursing and midwifery and implications of social networking for bibliometrics and measures of individual performance. Method. A review of electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus was undertaken using search terms such as bibliometrics, nursing, and midwifery. The reference lists of retrieved articles and Internet sources and social media platforms were also examined. Results. A number of well-established, formal ways of assessment have been identified, including h- and c-indices. Changes in publication practices and the use of the Internet have challenged traditional metrics of influence. Moreover, measuring impact beyond citation metrics is an increasing focus, with social media representing newer ways of establishing performance and impact. Conclusions. Even though a number of measures exist, no single bibliometric measure is perfect. Therefore, multiple approaches to evaluation are recommended. However, bibliometric approaches should not be the only measures upon which academic and scholarly performance are evaluated.

Parental caregiving of children with cancer and family impact, economic burden: nursing perspectives

Pediatric cancer diagnoses affect the entire family: parents, well siblings, the ill child, and others. The objective of this study was to review nursing studies on parental caregiving of children with cancer, family impact, and costs. The study used inclusion/exclusion criteria and family systems theory, self/dependent-care, and symptom management (monitoring, alleviation) concepts. Regarding "levels of evidence," 3 studies were Level II; 7 were Level IV; 7 were Level VI; 1 review was Level V and the second was Level I. Of 19 studies: 11 were qualitative; 4, quantitative; 2 were mixed methods. Content analysis themes were: Parental caregiving and family impact, economic burden. Conclusions were that (a) qualitative studies are predominant; findings supported quantitative findings; (b) quantitative nursing studies are less common: found one longitudinal, randomized controlled trial (RCT) focused on outcomes of an intervention for well siblings and parents, implemented by Clinical Nurse Specialists, CNSs; (c) few quantitative studies with large samples were found, especially ones with theoretical models of the family system and measures of illness impact on families; and (d) "mixed methods" longitudinal nursing research is illustrated. There is a need for "evidence-based" practice (EBP) nursing studies of interventions focused on parent education/support/assistance; respite care, and increasing family/well sibling knowledge/other information on the child's illness.

The Doctor of Nursing Practice: defining the next steps

The purpose of this article is to summarize the previous articles in this special issue of the Journal of Nursing Education that are based on the Committee on Institutional Cooperation's Dean's Conference on the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) and to identify areas of consensus, as well as areas of controversy. Areas of consensus include the high level of interest in DNP programs and the intent to expand the role of the advanced practice nurse to population health, policy, and leadership. Areas of controversy include the nature of the DNP product, the definition of clinical experiences, the nature of the capstone project, the outcomes of these new practitioners, and the impact on schools. Suggestions for achieving higher levels of consensus, including the need for respective, inclusive dialogue, are provided.

Publishing in professional journals, part I: getting started

Publishing in professional journals is a challenging and rewarding experience. By sharing their expertise and experiences through journal articles, nurses contribute to the body of literature that ultimately helps improve the health care system, the nursing profession, and care of patients and their families. The focus of this article is to help nurses implement strategies to get started in the process of publishing journal articles. Topics include facing excuses for not writing, implementing strategies to get started, and executing a plan for the manuscript.

Publishing in Professional Journals, Part I

Publishing in professional journals is a challenging and rewarding experience. By sharing their expertise and experiences through journal articles, nurses contribute to the body of literature that ultimately helps improve the health care system, the nursing profession, and care of patients and their families. The focus of this article is to help nurses implement strategies to get started in the process of publishing journal articles. Topics include facing excuses for not writing, implementing strategies to get started, and executing a plan for the manuscript.

Professional identity in nursing: are we there yet?

Nursing in the United Kingdom (UK) has been part of higher education for more than a decade and is now moving towards graduate status as a profession. Increasingly, through adherence to good practice guidelines and professional body regulation, the profession is incrementally involving communities of reference to help shape current and future identity. The desire to articulate the impact of nursing practice underscores the new undergraduate programmes and propels professional preparation beyond an existence at the fuzzy fringes of medicine towards a unique and fully fledged contemporary identity.

Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: a case study of the h-index in nursing

PURPOSE

This study compares the articles cited in CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar and the h-index ratings provided by Scopus, WOS, and Google Scholar.

METHODS

The publications of 30 College of Nursing faculty at a large urban university were examined. Searches by author name were executed in Scopus, WOS, and POP (Publish or Perish, which searches Google Scholar), and the h-index for each author from each database was recorded. In addition, the citing articles of their published articles were imported into a bibliographic management program. This data was used to determine an aggregated h-index for each author.

RESULTS

Scopus, WOS, and Google Scholar provided different h-index ratings for authors and each database found unique and duplicate citing references.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one tool should be used to calculate the h-index for nursing faculty because one tool alone cannot be relied on to provide a thorough assessment of a researcher's impact. If researchers are interested in a comprehensive h-index, they should aggregate the citing references located by WOS and Scopus. Because h-index rankings differ among databases, comparisons between researchers should be done only within a specified database.