PubMed · 12238011

The nursing research corner.

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Precede the abstract with the title of the manuscript. Prepare a structured abstract with the following sections (include these headings): BACKGROUND: Summarize the literature review, demonstrating the need for this study. OBJECTIVES: Clearly state the main question or hypothesis of this study in one sentence. METHODS: Describe the study design, participants, and measurements used in a few sentences. RESULTS: Describe the main results in a concise paragraph. This section should be the most descriptive. Note levels of statistical significance and confidence intervals were appropriate. CONCLUSION(S): Make conclusions based only on the reported results. Describe any further study needed. Manuscripts are reviewed anonymously by members of an expert panel. The decision with regard to publication is based on the reviews. Authors should not identify themselves in the manuscript other than on the title page, which is removed before review. The Nursing Research Corner is a peer-reviewed column. Manuscripts are submitted to two members of an expert panel for blind review. The first author will be notified following the review process.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

The nursing research corner.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12238011/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions.

BACKGROUND: The contribution disclosure forms used by medical journals to assess and confirm authorship are surveys of self-reported behaviour that follow the cognitive rules of psychometric instruments. We sought to analyze how autobiographical memory, defined as memory for events and issues related to oneself, affected the reliability of contribution forms for the judging of authorship of research articles. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study, which ultimately included 919 authors of 201 articles submitted to a general medical journal from July 2001 through December 2002. A authorship disclosure form with a checklist of 11 possible contribution choices for all authors was sent first to each article's corresponding author, who was asked to fill it out for all authors. A blank form was then sent to each author individually to disclose his or her own contribution to that article. The main outcome measure was test- retest differences between the corresponding authors' self-declarations, expressed in percent as the gross difference rate (GDR) for each article. RESULTS: More than two-thirds of the corresponding authors (69.7%) differed in at least 1 contribution choice between the 2 disclosure statements made about their own contributions. The reliability of their answers was low to moderate (GDRs > 10%), especially for contributions on the provision of study materials or patients or final approval of the article (GDR 22.9%), guarantor of the study (GDR 20.9%) and drafting of the manuscript (GDR 20.4%). As a proxy for their coauthors' contributions, corresponding authors also differed from them in the perception of noncorresponding authors' contributions, disagreeing in 69.4% of cases. Of the 718 noncorresponding authors, 204 (28.4%) met all the criteria for authorship set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors according to the statement given by the corresponding author. When they described their own contributions, this prevalence increased to 40.5%. INTERPRETATION: Psychological factors such as autobiographical memory may confound contribution disclosures as an evaluation tool for authorship on scientific articles and affect responsible authorship and publication practices.

Authorship↗

PubMed2007

Ethical misconduct in publishing: the authors' perspective.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Authorship↗

PubMed2007

Incorporating principles and practical wisdom in research ethics education: a preliminary study.

PURPOSE: Researchers are faced with daily ethical decisions that are subtle and nuanced. However, research ethics training has primarily focused on formal guidelines, general ethical principles, and historically noteworthy cases of research abuse, which may not prepare researchers to respond to everyday dilemmas in research. This study characterized researchers' responses to ethical dilemmas with the goal of aligning research ethics education programs with the demands of practice. METHOD: As a preliminary study, the authors conducted 23 semistructured interviews with senior researchers and research administrators engaged in research with human subjects at the University of Washington and affiliated institutions in 2004. Transcripts were reviewed for research conflicts and strategies used to resolve conflicts identified by participants. RESULTS: Participants referenced two distinct methods of reasoning when faced with conflicts: formal guidelines and practical wisdom. Formal guidelines include established goals, boundaries, and absolutes. Practical wisdom, an Aristotelian concept involving intuitions developed through experience, facilitates responses to everyday dilemmas and new situations. Developing practical wisdom requires researchers to calibrate their own intuitions about right and wrong. Three practices were reported to contribute to this development: self-reflection, sincere skepticism, and open dialogue with colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: These reflections from the senior researchers suggest a need to expand the scope of ethics education programs to include a focus on the development of researchers' pragmatic decision making in addition to the formal rules that govern research. Further research should explore effective educational and institutional strategies that can foster researchers' development in ethical decision making and conduct.

Authorship↗