Ethical issues faced by nursing editors

Gender equity in the scientific nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports: A cross-sectional study

Background

Scientific activity has been connected to the proven inequality between women and men. To examine the state of gender equality in nursing research by analyzing the representation of male and female as editors and as authors of articles published in scientific journals.

Method

A cross-sectional study was carried out between September-2019 and May-2020. All the scientific publications published in 115 nursing journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports in the years 2008, 2013, and 2017 were chosen as analysis units. The main variables studied were gender of the “journal editor”; gender of the “first author”, “last author”, “corresponding author”, and “first author in funded articles”. Descriptive and inferential analysis was performed.

Results

The proportion of male editors in 2008, 2013, and 2017 was 23.3, 19, and 18.5% respectively, with a male/female ratio of 1:3, 1:4 and 1:5. Male editors are mainly found in the journals of the first quartile (Q1 = 33.8%, ratio1:2), compared to the journals of the fourth quartile (Q4 = 6.6%, ratio1:14), p < 0.01. The male authorship position was “last author” (30.9%, ratio1:2), “corresponding author” (23.3%, ratio 1:3), “first author” (22.1%, ratio 1:4) and “first author in funded articles” (21.8%, ratio 1:4). Furthermore, in 19.5%, of the articles there were more male authors. The percentage of articles with male authorship increased from 2008 to 2017, “first author” (21.1–23.4%; p < 0.01), “last author” (30.0–31.1%; p = 0.22), “corresponding author” (22.5–24.2; p = 0.01), and “first author in funded articles” (18.1–25.9%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Men are over-represented in the editor role in the most prestigious nursing journals. There are a higher proportion of male authors in the main positions of authorship.

Nurse editors' roles and practices

PURPOSE

While nurse editors carry great responsibility for the scientific literature in the nursing profession, little has been published about this unique role. The purpose of this study was to examine contemporary nurse editors' roles and practices.

DESIGN

In early 2019, a sample of 129 nurse editors participated in a cross-sectional study using survey methods.

METHODS

The online survey was based on an instrument used in a prior study and included 43 primarily multiple-choice questions. Findings were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

FINDINGS

Beyond the expected roles of journal management, editorial decision making, leadership for the profession, and specific journal focus, some aspects of the nurse editor role have remained unchanged. The role continues to be learned mostly on the job and nurse editors still find satisfaction in helping other nurses publish and disseminate their work. Nurse editors are older and better educated. They also are receiving more manuscripts submitted to their journals and perceive this role as hard work but worth it. This is also the first study to report on the role of other levels of editors.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a description of the current roles and practices of nurse editors. Nurse editors can bring more attention to the role and encourage more nurses to consider this role as an attainable and a satisfying one.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Being a nurse editor is a leadership role and one that many nurses may not consider as a career goal. Nurse editors can increase the visibility of this role and engage, encourage, and support nurses who are interested in this role.

Ethical considerations referred to in child health research published in leading nursing journals: 2015-2019

BACKGROUND

Child health research comprises complex ethical considerations. Understanding the extent to which the ethical process is reported in child health research is needed to improve reporting.

AIMS

To identify reportage of ethical considerations in child health research in leading nursing and paediatric journals.

METHODS

All child health research published between 2015 and 2019 in 10 leading nursing journals and two paediatric journals were retrieved and critically appraised for the reportage of informed consent and ethical approval.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and fifty-one child health research papers were included. Although 544 (79.9%) of the prospective studies mentioned informed consent, only 300 (55.2%) reported that written informed consent was obtained from the participants. Overall, 748 (87.9%) of child health research papers noted obtaining research ethics committee approval. Articles that mentioned financial support were significantly more likely to report informed consent and ethical approval than unfunded studies (all P < 0.001). Prospective studies showed higher rates of reportage of ethical approval compared to retrospective studies (P = 0.027). Rates of child consent (assent) obtained in different age groups of children ranged from 29.6% to 66.3%.

CONCLUSION

Despite improvements in the reportage of ethical review and approval processes in child health research, consistent and transparent reports are still lacking.

Reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading nursing journals: a retrospective observational study

Background

Ethical considerations play a prominent role in the protection of human subjects in clinical research. To date the disclosure of ethical protection in clinical research published in the international nursing journals has not been explored. Our research objective was to investigate the reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading international nursing journals.

Methods

This is a retrospective observational study. All clinical research published in the five leading international nursing journals from the SCI Journal Citation Reports between 2015 and 2017 were retrieved to evaluate for evidence of ethical review.

Results

A total of 2041 citations have been identified from the contents of all the five leading nursing journals that were published between 2015 and 2017. Out of these, 1284 clinical studies have been included and text relating to ethical review has been extracted. From these, most of prospective clinical studies (87.5%) discussed informed consent. Only half of those (52.9%) reported that written informed consent had been obtained; few (3.6%) reported oral consent, and few (6.8%) used other methods such as online consent or completion and return of data collection (such as surveys) to denote assent. Notably, 36.2% of those did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent and merely described that “consent was obtained from participants or participants agreed to join in the research”. Furthermore, whilst most of clinical studies (93.7%) mentioned ethical approval; 92.5% of those stated the name of ethical committee and interestingly, only 37.1% of those mentioned the ethical approval reference. The rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different study type, country, and whether financial support was received (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The reporting of ethics in leading international nursing journals demonstrates progress, but improvement of the transparency and the standard of ethical reporting in nursing clinical research is required.

Tiny tweaks, big changes: An alternative strategy to empower ethical culture of human research in anesthesia (A Taiwan Acta Anesthesiologica Taiwanica-Ethics Review Task Force Report)

For this guidance article, the Ethics Review Task Force (ERTF) of the Journal reviewed and discussed the ethics issues related to publication of human research in the field of anesthesia. ERTF first introduced international ethics principles and minimal requirements of reporting of ethics practices, followed by discussing the universal problems of publication ethics. ERTF then compared the accountability and methodology of several medical journals in assuring authors' ethics compliance. Using the Taiwan Institutional Review Board system as an example, ERTF expressed the importance of institutional review board registration and accreditation to assure human participant protection. ERTF presented four major human research misconducts in the field of anesthesia in recent years. ERTF finally proposed a flow-chart to guide journal peer reviewers and editors in ethics review during the editorial process in publishing. Examples of template languages applied in the Ethics statement section in the manuscript are expected to strengthen the ethics compliance of the authors and to set an ethical culture for all the stakeholders involved in human research.

Ethical issues occurring within nursing education

The large body of literature labeled “ethics in nursing education” is entirely devoted to curricular matters of ethics education in nursing schools, that is, to what ought to be the ethics content that is taught and what theory or issues ought to be included in all nursing curricula. Where the nursing literature actually focuses on particular ethical issues, it addresses only single topics. Absent from the literature, however, is any systematic analysis and explication of ethical issues or dilemmas that occur within the context of nursing education. The objective of this article is to identify the spectrum of ethical issues in nursing education to the end of prompting a systematic and thorough study of such issues, and to lay the groundwork for research by identifying and provisionally typologizing the ethical issues that occur within the context of academic nursing.

A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines

Background

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields.

Methods

We searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical quantitive or qualitative research from all scholarly fields on different aspects of authorship. Search was limited to original articles and reviews.

Results

The final sample consisted of 123 articles reporting results from 118 studies. Most studies came for biomedical and health research fields and social sciences. Study design was usually a survey (53%) or descriptive study (27%); only 2 studies used randomized design. We identified four 4 general themes common to all research disciplines: authorship perceptions, definitions and practices, defining order of authors on the byline, ethical and unethical authorship practices, and authorship issues related to student/non-research personnel-supervisor collaboration. For 14 survey studies, a meta-analysis showed a pooled weighted average of 29% (95% CI 24% to 35%) researchers reporting their own or others' experience with misuse of authorship. Authorship misuse was reported more often by researcher outside of the USA and UK: 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) for 4 studies in France, South Africa, India and Bangladesh vs. 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) in USA/UK or international journal settings.

Interpretation

High prevalence of authorship problems may have severe impact on the integrity of the research process, just as more serious forms of research misconduct. There is a need for more methodologically rigorous studies to understand the allocation of publication credit across research disciplines.

Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals

PURPOSE

This study examined the quality of peer review in three scholarly nursing journals from the perspectives of authors and editors. Specifically, the study examined the extent to which manuscript reviews provided constructive guidance for authors to further develop their work for publication, and for editors to make informed and sound decisions on the disposition of manuscripts.

METHODS

Corresponding authors who had submitted manuscripts to the study journals in 2005-2007 were invited via email to complete an online survey about the quality of the peer review process; 320 authors responded. In addition, one third of the reviews of manuscripts submitted in 2005-2007 (a total of 528) were selected for rating by journal editors on level of detail, bias, and constructive tone; usefulness to authors in revising/developing the manuscript; and usefulness to the editor in making a decision.

RESULTS

A majority (73.8%) of authors agreed that peer reviews provided constructive guidance, and 75.6% agreed that reviews provided adequate rationale for editors' decisions. New authors generally reported less satisfaction with reviews than more experienced authors. Ratings of reviews by the editors revealed some problem areas, including inconsistency, insufficient feedback to the author, reviewer bias, and disrespectful tone.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the inexperience of many nurse authors, it is incumbent upon editors and reviewers to provide guidance and support. Manuscript reviews could be improved by increasing the consistency of numeric ratings, narrative comments, and recommendations regarding disposition of the manuscripts. Nevertheless, the results of this study reaffirm the worth of the peer review approach.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Publication of research and other forms of scholarly work is critical to the development of nursing knowledge that can be used in clinical practice. Authors with a variety of backgrounds, knowledge, and skills have important work to share that can serve healthcare providers and their clients. Thus, ensuring the quality of the peer review process is essential.