Advancing Research, Writing, and Publishing in Nursing: Addressing Challenges and Improving Standards.

Nurses constitute nearly 50% of the worldwide health workforce, and the World Health Organisation has advocated for an enlargement of their roles to guarantee fair health care and address the increasing need for services. The growing specialization in nursing practice has led to a rise in educational options for nurses, including the growth of PhD programs. These programs play a crucial role in preparing nurse researchers and educators. This growth underlines the importance of evidence-based practice and high-quality academic writing in nursing. The article highlights the importance of nurses' involvement in creating evidence-based practice guidelines. The active engagement of nurses in developing evidence-based practice recommendations is essential to ensure the practicality, relevance, and grounding of these guidelines in real-world clinical experiences. The advancement of nursing depends mainly on using rigorous research procedures to generate, analyze, and disseminate knowledge and data. The current article discusses essential research methodologies, including interviews, surveys, and bibliometric and altmetric analyses. It also aims to tackle concerns about inadequate writing skills, plagiarism, and insufficient comprehension of ethical norms in research and publishing. The recommended strategies to promote nursing research and publications encompass enhancing writing skills through specialized education, embracing open-access publishing, and utilizing social media for broader distribution following publication. Implementing these approaches would increase the quality and impact of nursing publications and reinforce nursing's role in defining health policy and enhancing the care of patients.

Editors-in-chief publishing in dental journals: Concerns in self-publishing.

Editors-in-chief (EICs) have a significant amount of control over the publications that are accepted in their journals, which may result in ethical predicaments. This study investigates the potential conflict of interest of EICs from various dental journals by quantifying the number of their self-published articles during their years as EIC. Based on representation across many dental disciplines and high impact factors, 67 EICs from 19 dental journals during 1990-2023 were studied. To keep anonymity, each journal was randomly assigned a letter A-S and each editor-in-chief (EIC) was given the same letter as their journal with a random number 1-67. After gathering the years each EIC served, online library resources were searched to enumerate each EIC's lifetime publications and total self-publications during their term, excluding editorials for both counts. Descriptive statistics were performed to evaluate the results. The results indicate that 16 EICs self-published more than the average of 23.27 articles during their term. When considering EIC tenure, a ratio of self-publications per year was calculated, averaging 2.12 publications. Twenty-two EICs authored more articles annually than the average ratio. After calculating the impact factors of each EIC from the years they serviced their journal, a total of 22 impact factors exceeded the established mean of 2.45. Lastly, when comparing the percentage of self-publications from total lifetime publications, 24 of 67 EICs were above the average. Overall, a significantly increased number of self-publications was detected, presenting potential conflicts of interest for EICs. Therefore, it remains essential to develop clear guidelines and international standards regarding the practice of EICs self-publishing in their journals during their service term.

Time to Publication in Medical Education Journals: An Analysis of Publication Timelines During COVID-19 (2019-2022).

Introduction: COVID-19 changed scholarly publishing. Yet, its impact on medical education publishing is unstudied. Because journal articles and their corresponding publication timelines can influence academic success, the field needs updated publication timelines to set evidence-based expectations for academic productivity. This study attempts to answer the following research questions: did publication timelines significantly change around the time of COVID-19 and, if so, how? Methods: We conducted a bibliometric study; our sample included articles published between January 2018, and December 2022, that appeared in the Medical Education Journals List-24 (MEJ-24). We clustered articles into three time-based groups (pre-COVID, COVID-overlap, and COVID-endemic), and two subject-based groups (about COVID-19 and not about COVID-19). We downloaded each article's metadata from the National Library of Medicine and analyzed data using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and post-hoc tests to compare mean time differences across groups. Results: Overall, time to publish averaged 300.8 days (SD = 200.8). One-way between-groups ANOVA showed significant differences between the three time-based groups F (2, 7473) = 2150.7, p < .001. The post-hoc comparisons indicated that COVID-overlap articles took significantly longer (n = 1470, M= 539; SD = 210.6) as compared to pre-COVID (n = 1281; M = 302; SD = 172.5) and COVID-endemic articles (n = 4725; M = 226; SD = 136.5). Notably, COVID-endemic articles were published in significantly less time than pre-pandemic articles, p < .001. Discussion: Longer publication time was most pronounced for COVID-overlap articles. Publication timelines for COVID-endemic articles have shortened. Future research should explore how the shift in publication timelines has shaped medical education scholarship.

Factors associated with scientific production conditions among dental students from the Peruvian capital: an analysis under a multivariable regression model.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of scientific production is to synthesize and capture research for eventual publication. In Peru, scientific production at the undergraduate level is relatively limited. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors associated with scientific production conditions among dental students from the Peruvian capital. METHODS: This cross-sectional and analytical study evaluated 338 dental students from the Peruvian capital using a questionnaire composed of 15 questions on conditions for scientific production. Pearson's chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used for bivariate analysis. To evaluate the influential variables, the adjusted Poisson regression model with robust variance using the adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) was employed. The significance level was p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 17.8% of the students carried out research studies, while 1.5% published scientific articles. Conditions for scientific production were considered unfavorable in 28.4% of the cases, while 50.6% were classified as somewhat favorable and 21% as favorable. Students who dedicated < 2 h and ≥ 2 h per week to research were 3.04 and 3.84 times more likely to have favourable conditions for scientific production, respectively, compared to those who had no time for it (APR = 3.04, 95% CI: 1.02-9.03 and APR = 3.84, 95% CI: 1.13-13.02; respectively). CONCLUSION: A minority of dental students reported favorable conditions for scientific production. On the other hand, students with more weekly time for research are more likely to have favourable conditions for scientific production compared to those with no time.

Recommendations for reviewing manuscripts of the article types "project report" and "how to" for the GMS Journal for Medical Education.

Objective: This position paper of the Committee on Methodology in Educational Research sets out the criteria for the acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts of the article types project report and how to in the GMS Journal for Medical Education, as well as outlining the development of these criteria. Methods: In a workshop with writers, reviewers, and editors, we formulated and discussed common core elements for articles. We did this by consulting the journal's editorial board on the basis of guidelines for authors and reviewers from other journals and by using examples of articles considered less or more successful. From this, we derived specific aspects to be addressed and rejection criteria for the respective article types. Results: We have identified the target group, relevance, justification, and implication as the common core elements for both article types. We have also derived specific aspects to be addressed and rejection criteria from these core elements for each article type. Conclusion: A manuscript lacking core elements will be rejected. If aspects are not described sufficiently or are not clearly comprehensible, the manuscript must be revised.

The delicate nature of a constructive peer review: pearls from the editorial board.

Peer review stands as a cornerstone of academic publishing, especially in the era of evidence-based neurosurgery - the scientific literature relies on proficient peer reviewers. Providing a constructive peer review is an art and learned skill that requires knowledge of study design and expertise in the neurosurgical subspeciality. Peer reviewers guard against arbitrary decision-making and are essential in ensuring that published manuscripts are of the highest quality. However, there remains a scarcity in the formal training relating to the peer review process. The objective of this article is therefore to shed light on this process through the lens of the Editorial Board. We encourage our invited peer reviewers to make use of this guide when appraising potential manuscripts.

Gender Representation in Authorship of Academic Dermatology Publications During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

Unlabelled: Analyses of women dermatology literature authorship from 2018 to 2022 reveal a slight increase in total female authors, female first authors, and female senior authors with no substantial immediate impact of COVID-19 on current trends, encouraging future examination of long-term effects and ongoing promotion of systemic initiatives to support gender equity.

Email invitations to publish: Academically sound (such as SAFP) versus potentially predatory journals.

BACKGROUND:  Researchers increasingly receive invitations by email to publish. We analysed email publication invitations received by staff members of the Department of Biostatistics, University of the Free State (UFS), comparing emails relating to accredited and non-accredited journals. METHODS:  This cross-sectional study included all publication invitations received via UFS email accounts by staff members from May 2023 to July 2023. The researchers independently completed the data form, then checked and resolved any discrepancies. RESULTS:  Of the 93 distinct emails received from 88 journals, only 15 (16%) were received from a journal appearing on the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) accredited journal lists. These included South African Family Practice (SAFP) and the African Journal of Primary Health Care and Family Medicine (PHCFM). Emails from non-accredited journals were significantly (p  0.01) less likely to refer to a journal with a health sciences-related title (37% vs. 86%), indicate the publisher (36% vs. 93%), provide a link to the journal website (59% vs. 100%), state a full physical address (24% vs. 80%), refer to author instructions (21% vs. 47%) or request the recipient to share the email with colleagues (5% vs. 47%). Emails from non-accredited journals were significantly (p  0.01) more likely to contain grammatical errors (63% vs. 0%) and flattering remarks regarding the recipient or his or her research work (49% vs. 0%), and to indicate the journal's International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) (67% vs. 13%). CONCLUSION:  Clear differences were found between email invitations from accredited versus non-accredited journals.Contribution: The findings provide insight into warning signals in email publication invitations.

A qualitative study exploring graduated medical residents' research experiences, barriers to publication and strategies to improve publication rates from medical residents.

BACKGROUND: In Kenya, postgraduate medical residents must complete a research dissertation for their Master of Medicine studies. However, the subsequent publication rate is lower than in higher-income settings, limiting the availability of population-specific data. This study explored residents' experiences with research, reasons for the low publication rate, and strategies to improve publication rates. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 9 faculty members and non-academic support staff, as well as 18 Master of Medicine graduates who had successfully completed their research projects, to investigate their experiences with conducting, supervising, and publishing research. The interview data was analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The study also explored strategies to improve publication rates. RESULTS: The graduates (former medical residents) described difficult research journeys - from concept development to final submission of dissertation - which discouraged them from seeking publication. Many faculty and staff lacked time or sufficient expertise to successfully guide residents to publication. Departmental research culture, faculty expertise as supervisors and prioritisation of clinical work over research and lack of dedicated research time impacted both residents' and faculty capacity for research. Strategies to improve publication rates focused on developing faculty research expertise, more protected research time, and a more structured approach to teaching research methodology, including academic writing skills. CONCLUSIONS: Residents in low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya encounter systemic and personal challenges to successful publication of research. The ease or difficulty of a resident's research journey influences their attitudes to subsequent publication. Strategies to improve publication rates can improve the dissemination of relevant research data in such settings.

The artificial intelligence revolution...in unethical publishing: Will AI worsen our dysfunctional publishing system?

Scholarly publishing has been shaped by the pressure of a liquid economy to become an exercise in branding more than a vehicle for the advancement of science. The current revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to make matters worse. The new generation of large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in text generation and are already being used to write papers, grants, peer review reports, code for analyses, and even perform literature reviews. Although these models can be used in positive ways, the metrics and pressures of academia, along with our dysfunctional publishing system, stimulate their indiscriminate and uncritical use to speed up research outputs. Thus, LLMs are likely to amplify the worst incentives of academia, greatly increasing the volume of scientific literature while diluting its quality. At present, no effective solutions are evident to overcome this grim scenario, and nothing short of a cultural revolution within academia will be needed to realign the practice of science with its traditional ideal of a rigorous search for truth.

The perilous path: reimagining promotion and tenure in African academia.

The current scientific publication architecture and business models are structured to privilege high-impact Western journals. This has been perpetuated in academia and by funding agencies, where a researcher´s value is often measured by the number of publications and where these papers are published. However, the current system renders journals from low- and middle-income countries, including African journals, largely invisible. Indeed, it is important to answer the fundamental question of why we conduct research. Most would argue that research is only ethically grounded if its core purpose is to create impact and improve lives. There is compelling evidence that the time lag from evidence generation to translation into policy is about 17 years. There is no evidence that publishing in a high-impact journal is more likely to create an impact. Indeed, the move by many universities away from using the impact factor as a measure of academic value is increasingly welcomed. It has become critical to redefine and restructure academic merit. In this essay, we will explore the Afro-centric dimensions of the publish-or-perish rhetoric and its impact on tenure in African academia. We argue that context-relevant and alternative metrics are needed to redefine academic merit, as well as the intentionality of African governments and universities to invest in, trust, and value their own journals as non-negotiables in giving African journals the visibility and trust they deserve. We present an African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC) approach, supported by the Gates Foundation, intentional in decolonizing the global publication space, and clearly aligns with its mission of improving lives in Africa through research.