Research Journals and “Other” Kinds of Articles: Good Uses of Space? Sean Clarke Editor-in-Chief, CJNR [Canadian Journal of Nursing Research]

Classic Contributions Journal articles based on original work in a qual, quant, mixed methods, historical, or methodological tradition on the upper end of methods quality representing a clear contribution/advance in the literature

What is the mandate of a research journal? Developing nursing’s knowledge base for practitioners and policy makers Developing nursing’s knowledge base for scientists, theoreticians etc.—hosting the discourse Being the leading edge for new ways of thinking about knowledge development in the profession Providing a venue for scholars to publish to establish/maintain reputation Screening methodological quality/quality of scholarship and/or relevance for the discipline to enable comparison of scholars and/or contributions to the discipline Maintain sufficient paying subscribers/readers by offering “gotta read” content to a critical mass of readers

But what about … ? Studies with negative/nonsignificant/banal findings Pilot studies Practice development projects with evaluation Research protocols (esp. trial design) Instrument development studies with minimal psychometrics (Cronbach’s alpha and/or factor analysis but no “true” validation) Validations of instruments (adaptations/translations)

The Factors That Enter the Decisions About Alternate Article Types The scarce resources Editorial office time and energy Journal production costs Reader/scholar “bandwidth” The pressures to be contended with Usefulness of the article to the community Offering opportunities for new contributors, fresh contributions Pressures to publish Reader interest Rigour and/or balance in consideration of issues Journal reputation Usefulness to others Odds of literature citations in the future Impact factor and related metrics

And Another Way to Think About the Issue “Top tier”/most selective journals … many more acceptable submissions than space, wide subscriber base providing resources, high impact factors Vs. Open access journals … room for all articles that meet screening criteria (which may or may not involve external review) with a shift of costs to authors Vs. “the middle”—tradition of editorial screening and review, competition from other journals including interdisciplinary ones, reasonable subscriber/reader base that could often be better and should always be protected, fluctuating quality/quantity of submissions, much more reasonable place than top tier for majority of submissions and submission types

Last Thoughts— Then Over to You … In the case of these articles is it the basic format or content that’s questionable for you and your journal or is it the rigor of particular pieces? Consistent application of guidelines/screening Vs. Editorial investment in educating authors, reviewers about appropriate rigor for formats might be (more feasible to ask for changes in reporting/discussion content than changes in design, additional data collection etc.) Expect the discussion about “what fits” to evolve over time for your journal and for the field