BACKGROUND As a significantly important part of clinical practice,the professional nursing process can be advanced in many ways.Despite the fact that case reports are regarded to be of a lower quality grade in the hie...BACKGROUND As a significantly important part of clinical practice,the professional nursing process can be advanced in many ways.Despite the fact that case reports are regarded to be of a lower quality grade in the hierarchy of evidence,one of the principles of evidence-based medicine is that decision-making should be based on a systematic summary of evidence.However,the evidence on the reporting characteristics of case reports in the nursing field is deficient.AIM To use the CARE guidelines to assess reporting quality and factors influencing the quality of case reports in the nursing field.METHODS Nursing science citation indexed(SCI-indexed)journals were identified from the professional website.Each of the identified journals was searched on their website for articles published before December 2017.Twenty-one sub-items on the CARE checklist were recorded as“YES”,“PARTLY”,or“NO”according to information reported by the included studies.The responses were assigned corresponding scores of 1,0.5,and 0,respectively.The overall score was the sum of the 21 sub-items and was defined as“high”(more than 15),“medium”(10.5 to 14.5),and“low”(less than 10).The means,standard deviations,odds ratios(OR),and the associated 95%confidence interval(CI)were determined using Stata 12.0 software.RESULTS Ultimately,184 case reports from 16 SCI-indexed journals were identified,with overall scores ranging from 6.5 to 18(mean=13.6±2.3).Of the included case reports,10.3%were regarded low-quality,52.7%were considered middle-quality,and 37%were regarded high-quality.There were statistical differences in the mean overall scores of the included case reports with funding versus those without funding(14.2±1.7 vs 13.6±2.4,respectively;P=0.4456)and journal impact factor<1.8 versus impact factor≥1.8(13.3±2.3 vs 13.6±2.4,respectively;P=0.4977).Five items from the CARE guidelines,5a(Patient),6(Clinical findings),8c(Diagnostic reasoning),9(Therapeutic intervention),and 11d(The main take-away lessons)were well-reported(Reporting rate more than 90%)in most of the included case reports.However,only three items,2(Keywords,OR=0.42,95%CI:0.19-0.92,P=0.03),4(Introduction,OR=0.35,95%CI:0.15-0.83,P=0.017),and 11b(The relevant medical literature,OR=0.19,95%CI:0.06-0.56,P=0.003)were considered better-reported after the CARE guidelines published in 2013.CONCLUSION The reporting quality of case reports in the nursing field apparently has not improved since the publication of the CARE guidelines.展开更多
Purpose: This study takes advantage of newly released journal metrics to investigate whether local journals with more qualified boards have lower acceptance rates, based on data from 219 Turkish national journals and ...Purpose: This study takes advantage of newly released journal metrics to investigate whether local journals with more qualified boards have lower acceptance rates, based on data from 219 Turkish national journals and 2,367 editorial board members.Design/methodology/approach: This study argues that journal editors can signal their scholarly quality by publishing in reputable journals. Conversely, editors publishing inside articles in affiliated national journals would send negative signals. The research predicts that high(low) quality editorial boards will conduct more(less) selective evaluation and their journals will have lower(higher) acceptance rates. Based on the publication strategy of editors, four measures of board quality are defined: Number of board inside publications per editor(INSIDER), number of board Social Sciences Citation Index publications per editor(SSCI), inside-to-SSCI article ratio(ISRA), and board citation per editor(CITATION). Predictions are tested by correlation and regression analysis.Findings: Low-quality board proxies(INSIDER, ISRA) are positively, and high-quality board proxies(SSCI, CITATION) are negatively associated with acceptance rates. Further, we find that receiving a larger number of submissions, greater women representation on boards, and Web of Science and Scopus(WOSS) coverage are associated with lower acceptance rates. Acceptance rates for journals range from 12% to 91%, with an average of 54% and a median of 53%. Law journals have significantly higher average acceptance rate(68%) than other journals, while WOSS journals have the lowest(43%). Findings indicate some of the highest acceptance rates in Social Sciences literature, including competitive Business and Economics journals that traditionally have low acceptance rates. Limitations: Research relies on local context to define publication strategy of editors. Findings may not be generalizable to mainstream journals and core science countries where emphasis on research quality is stronger and editorial selection is based on scientific merit.Practical implications: Results offer useful insights into editorial management of national journals and allow us to make sense of local editorial practices. The importance of scientific merit for selection to national journal editorial boards is particularly highlighted for sound editorial evaluation of submitted manuscripts.Originality/value: This is the first attempt to document a significant relation between acceptance rates and editorial board publication behavior.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND As a significantly important part of clinical practice,the professional nursing process can be advanced in many ways.Despite the fact that case reports are regarded to be of a lower quality grade in the hierarchy of evidence,one of the principles of evidence-based medicine is that decision-making should be based on a systematic summary of evidence.However,the evidence on the reporting characteristics of case reports in the nursing field is deficient.AIM To use the CARE guidelines to assess reporting quality and factors influencing the quality of case reports in the nursing field.METHODS Nursing science citation indexed(SCI-indexed)journals were identified from the professional website.Each of the identified journals was searched on their website for articles published before December 2017.Twenty-one sub-items on the CARE checklist were recorded as“YES”,“PARTLY”,or“NO”according to information reported by the included studies.The responses were assigned corresponding scores of 1,0.5,and 0,respectively.The overall score was the sum of the 21 sub-items and was defined as“high”(more than 15),“medium”(10.5 to 14.5),and“low”(less than 10).The means,standard deviations,odds ratios(OR),and the associated 95%confidence interval(CI)were determined using Stata 12.0 software.RESULTS Ultimately,184 case reports from 16 SCI-indexed journals were identified,with overall scores ranging from 6.5 to 18(mean=13.6±2.3).Of the included case reports,10.3%were regarded low-quality,52.7%were considered middle-quality,and 37%were regarded high-quality.There were statistical differences in the mean overall scores of the included case reports with funding versus those without funding(14.2±1.7 vs 13.6±2.4,respectively;P=0.4456)and journal impact factor<1.8 versus impact factor≥1.8(13.3±2.3 vs 13.6±2.4,respectively;P=0.4977).Five items from the CARE guidelines,5a(Patient),6(Clinical findings),8c(Diagnostic reasoning),9(Therapeutic intervention),and 11d(The main take-away lessons)were well-reported(Reporting rate more than 90%)in most of the included case reports.However,only three items,2(Keywords,OR=0.42,95%CI:0.19-0.92,P=0.03),4(Introduction,OR=0.35,95%CI:0.15-0.83,P=0.017),and 11b(The relevant medical literature,OR=0.19,95%CI:0.06-0.56,P=0.003)were considered better-reported after the CARE guidelines published in 2013.CONCLUSION The reporting quality of case reports in the nursing field apparently has not improved since the publication of the CARE guidelines.
文摘Purpose: This study takes advantage of newly released journal metrics to investigate whether local journals with more qualified boards have lower acceptance rates, based on data from 219 Turkish national journals and 2,367 editorial board members.Design/methodology/approach: This study argues that journal editors can signal their scholarly quality by publishing in reputable journals. Conversely, editors publishing inside articles in affiliated national journals would send negative signals. The research predicts that high(low) quality editorial boards will conduct more(less) selective evaluation and their journals will have lower(higher) acceptance rates. Based on the publication strategy of editors, four measures of board quality are defined: Number of board inside publications per editor(INSIDER), number of board Social Sciences Citation Index publications per editor(SSCI), inside-to-SSCI article ratio(ISRA), and board citation per editor(CITATION). Predictions are tested by correlation and regression analysis.Findings: Low-quality board proxies(INSIDER, ISRA) are positively, and high-quality board proxies(SSCI, CITATION) are negatively associated with acceptance rates. Further, we find that receiving a larger number of submissions, greater women representation on boards, and Web of Science and Scopus(WOSS) coverage are associated with lower acceptance rates. Acceptance rates for journals range from 12% to 91%, with an average of 54% and a median of 53%. Law journals have significantly higher average acceptance rate(68%) than other journals, while WOSS journals have the lowest(43%). Findings indicate some of the highest acceptance rates in Social Sciences literature, including competitive Business and Economics journals that traditionally have low acceptance rates. Limitations: Research relies on local context to define publication strategy of editors. Findings may not be generalizable to mainstream journals and core science countries where emphasis on research quality is stronger and editorial selection is based on scientific merit.Practical implications: Results offer useful insights into editorial management of national journals and allow us to make sense of local editorial practices. The importance of scientific merit for selection to national journal editorial boards is particularly highlighted for sound editorial evaluation of submitted manuscripts.Originality/value: This is the first attempt to document a significant relation between acceptance rates and editorial board publication behavior.
