FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2890562346> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2890562346 endingPage "496" @default.
• W2890562346 startingPage "495" @default.
• W2890562346 abstract "In a keynote presentation to the RCN Research Conference in 2016, I raised concerns about the gradual shift over the past 40 years in the content of papers published in JAN (Rolfe, 2016). In 1976, research reports made up roughly 10% of the journal. By 2007, 91% of published papers were either research reports, systematic reviews or methodology papers. Alison Tierney, the editor at the time, defended this growing emphasis on research by suggesting that it reflected the current trend in nursing. She pointed out that JAN did at least still publish non-research papers and claimed that “JAN's continuing commitment to publish scholarly work is one of its distinguishing hallmarks” (Tierney, 2007). Tierney was no doubt correct to suggest that this shift in the content of JAN reflected an increased emphasis on the generation and application of evidence from research, but is also the result of a deliberate strategy by journal editors and publishers to play what the current editor of JAN has called the “impact factor game” (Watson, Cleary, & Hunt, 2013), where papers are selected for publication based on their potential to attract high numbers of citations. It therefore came as no surprise to read in a recent editorial (Watson, 2018) that JAN has now discontinued the publication of discussion articles because of low numbers of reads, downloads and citations, thereby relinquishing its self-defined “distinguishing hallmark” of scholarly publication. Naturally, every editor wants her or his journal to be read, but the electronic record of “reads” and “downloads” directly from the journal website is not necessarily a reliable guide either to the actual readership of any particular paper or to its influence and impact. Furthermore, it has always struck me as curious that the primary metric for measuring the quality of individual papers and the journals in which they are published is the number of times they are cited in the work of other academics. It seems that, as writers and researchers in a practice-based discipline, we attach more kudos to whether our work is read and cited by other writers and researchers than to whether it is applied by practitioners for the benefit of patients and service users. Perhaps, then, data on downloads and citations are not the most accurate or relevant evidence for making decisions about what to publish in a nursing journal. However, even if we accept for a moment Watson's assumption that these are valid and relevant data, his argument that discussion papers are falling short in these criteria does not appear to hold water. Given that it takes at least 2 years following publication for a paper to begin to accumulate citations, I conducted a quick and dirty straw poll of papers published in the six editions of JAN for the first half of 2016. From a total of 476 papers, only six were discussion papers. These six papers have been cited 24 times, giving a mean rate of four citations per paper, compared to a mean citation rate for all other papers published during the same period of 3.9. A random dip into other issues of JAN from the past 20 years revealed a similar picture of discussion papers attracting at least as many citations on average as research reports and other papers. Taking my own case as an example, I have published five discussion papers in JAN over the past 24 years (Rolfe, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2006), which have between them been cited over 400 times and which have provoked several published responses and debates. I would like to think that these papers have had some, albeit small, influence on nursing practice and research, and it is unfortunate that papers of this type will no longer be accepted by JAN. Watson's suggestion that authors who are considering writing a discussion paper instead submit “a proper systematic review” (Watson, 2018) provides a stark illustration of what is at stake as our nursing journals complete the transition in their purpose from facilitators of academic debate and discussion among a community of scholars to the dissemination of “findings” in the form of hard research data and rigidly structured reviews. In recent years, we have seen the disappearance of several sections in JAN, including Janforum, which was replaced in 2015 by an online blog, Book Reviews, Issues and Innovations in Practice and Education, Philosophical and Ethical Issues, and other outlets for non-research focussed writing. A valuable print-based forum for broad scholarly debate has now almost completely given way to a depository for research reports in which data and information is disseminated in a one-way process with little opportunity for feedback and discussion. The editor's argument for replacing the Janforum section with an online blog was because “space is at a premium, and extended real-time conversation can be difficult to accommodate” (Watson, 2015). Journal space is an expensive commodity, but nevertheless a strategic decision has clearly been taken to replace discussion with systematic reviews and to squeeze out academic conversations in favour of increasing the number of data papers, many of which garner fewer citations and, I would argue, have less impact on practice, research and education than the debate and discussion which they are replacing. Nursing is not an exact science like physics or chemistry in which the outcomes of every intervention can be explained and predicted according to the findings of the latest research study. Rather, it is a human science concerned with relationships and interactions between unique and fundamentally unpredictable individuals. The attempt to understand and improve the practice of nursing is therefore not the sole province of empirical researchers, but requires debate, discussion and consensual agreement in which a plurality of voices is heard and shared. It is surely one of the key responsibilities of our academic journals to encourage and nurture such debate, and a good place to begin might, as the title of Watson's editorial suggests, be with a discussion about the purpose of academic journals and the value of discussion articles." @default.
• W2890562346 created "2018-09-27" @default.
• W2890562346 creator A5004905716 @default.
• W2890562346 date "2018-10-11" @default.
• W2890562346 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2890562346 title "Editorial: What are nursing journals for?" @default.
• W2890562346 cites W1545842072 @default.
• W2890562346 cites W1986316144 @default.
• W2890562346 cites W1995900989 @default.
• W2890562346 cites W2053384257 @default.
• W2890562346 cites W2092855911 @default.
• W2890562346 cites W2100476685 @default.
• W2890562346 cites W2134898750 @default.
• W2890562346 cites W2142851473 @default.
• W2890562346 cites W2529513307 @default.
• W2890562346 cites W2790040576 @default.
• W2890562346 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13846" @default.
• W2890562346 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30209820" @default.
• W2890562346 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2890562346 type Work @default.
• W2890562346 sameAs 2890562346 @default.
• W2890562346 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2890562346 countsByYear W28905623462019 @default.
• W2890562346 countsByYear W28905623462020 @default.
• W2890562346 countsByYear W28905623462021 @default.
• W2890562346 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2890562346 hasAuthorship W2890562346A5004905716 @default.
• W2890562346 hasBestOaLocation W28905623461 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C204321447 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C2776608531 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C2777601897 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C2779455604 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C2780343955 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C2780460463 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C41458344 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C126838900 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C151719136 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C15744967 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C161191863 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C17744445 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C199539241 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C204321447 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C2776608531 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C2777601897 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C2779455604 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C2780343955 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C2780460463 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C41008148 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C41458344 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C71924100 @default.
• W2890562346 hasConceptScore W2890562346C77805123 @default.
• W2890562346 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2890562346 hasLocation W28905623461 @default.
• W2890562346 hasLocation W28905623462 @default.
• W2890562346 hasOpenAccess W2890562346 @default.
• W2890562346 hasPrimaryLocation W28905623461 @default.
• W2890562346 hasRelatedWork W135141720 @default.
• W2890562346 hasRelatedWork W1539674458 @default.
• W2890562346 hasRelatedWork W1899076557 @default.
• W2890562346 hasRelatedWork W2048972539 @default.
• W2890562346 hasRelatedWork W2121578392 @default.
• W2890562346 hasRelatedWork W2143044393 @default.
• W2890562346 hasRelatedWork W2336509714 @default.
• W2890562346 hasRelatedWork W2624645242 @default.
• W2890562346 hasRelatedWork W2945681755 @default.
• W2890562346 hasRelatedWork W3202006056 @default.
• W2890562346 hasVolume "75" @default.
• W2890562346 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2890562346 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2890562346 magId "2890562346" @default.
• W2890562346 workType "editorial" @default.