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

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table

Facilitating Scholarly Writing in Academic Medicine: Lessons Learned from a Collaborative Peer Mentoring Program

Scholarly writing is a critical skill for faculty in academic medicine; however, few faculty receive instruction in the process. We describe the experience of 18 assistant professors who participated in a writing and faculty development program which consisted of 7 monthly 75-minute sessions embedded in a Collaborative Mentoring Program (CMP). Participants identified barriers to writing, developed personal writing strategies, had time to write, and completed monthly writing contracts. Participants provided written responses to open-ended questions about the learning experience, and at the end of the program, participants identified manuscripts submitted for publication, and completed an audiotaped interview. Analysis of qualitative data using data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification showed that this writing program facilitated the knowledge, skills, and support needed to foster writing productivity. All participants completed at least 1 scholarly manuscript by the end of the CMP. The impact on participants’ future academic productivity requires long-term follow-up