susan s. starr, ph.d. editor, jmla april 2010. “intimidating, isn’t it?”
Post on 01-Apr-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
It takes a village to create the evidence: you, your research, and
the JMLASusan S. Starr, Ph.D.
Editor, JMLAApril 2010
“Intimidating, isn’t it?”
Role of the JMLAThe Publication ProcessTips for Contributors – You!Changes on the Horizon
Topics for today
“Creating and Communicating our Knowledge by helping to develop the knowledge base of health information research and practice to demonstrate the value of health information for improved health, improve professional practice, and support lifelong learning.”
• MLA Strategic Plan
Why does MLA have a journal?
Purpose of the JMLA “The JMLA is an international, peer-reviewed
specialty journal that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship and information provision.”
• From JMLA Information for authors: http://www.mlanet.org/publications/jmla/jmlainfo.html#scope
Why the JMLA?
Information Dissemination
Quality control
Canonical archive
Author Recognition
JMLA – part of the MLA communication network
Section Listservs
Quality Control, Author Recognition, and Archiving
JMLA: Scholarly and Professional
Scholarly: In depth original research, reviewed by other scholars
Professional: Also contain profession or industry related news
“The JMLA subscribes to the Department of Health and Human Services definition of research, “a systematic investigation … designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge”
From JMLA Information for Authors
Full length papers
“Manuscripts that report interesting and important developments related to the practice of health sciences librarianship but do not aim to be comprehensive or research oriented in nature may be published as brief communications.”
From JMLA Information for Authors
Brief Communications
“Manuscripts reporting the resolution of a problem or issue important to health sciences librarianship in an in-depth manner may be published as case studies.”
From JMLA Information for Authors
Case Studies
JMLA: Scholarly and Professional
Research papers
33%
Brief Com.50%
Case Study8%
Editorials8%
It Takes a Village
Contributors
Readers
Editors
Reviewers
88%
5% 7%
81 Publications
U.S Canada Other
ContributorsMay 2008-April 2010
72%5%4%
20%
196 Submissions
US CanadaChina Other
Readers
8500 Articles in PMC
1200 HTML views/day
500-600 PDF’s viewed/day
5 Year impact factor of 1.71CRL = 1.16Health Info & Libraries = .94
1. Use of Facebook in academic health sciences libraries2. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? 3. Mapping the literature of case management nursing 4. Mapping the literature of transcultural nursing 5. Web 2.0 tools in medical and nursing school curricula6. Mapping the literature of nursing education 7. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar8. The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD)
structure: a fifty-year survey 9. Development and evaluation of evidence-based nursing (EBN)
filters and related databases 10. Google Scholar
What are they reading? (pdf views)
Average number of manuscripts processed = 90Reviews per manuscript = 3Number of Peer Reviewers = 23 (plus subject
specialists)
Reviewers are asked to comment on: Scope, Objectives Content Organization Methodology, Approach, Conclusions Writing Style, References
Reviewers
The article is well written, the methodology is appropriate, and the content is of interest to the readers of JMLA. My only concern is that the study started in 2003 and ended in 2006.
On p. 3, you start talking about the NCBI search engine and PubMed content without having introduced what they are. Even in the next paragraph where you give these terms some context, you need to spell out NCBI.
You need to be more explicit about the logic of using the MeSH headings found in a PubMed search of a topic as the headings used to search your resources.
Typical Comments
The paper proceeds logically but needs a stronger statement of purpose at the beginning of the paper – a statement about the who, what, and how many of the current study. Indeed, it wasn’t until the Results/Discussion section that the survey period - 2008 - is clarified. Only by adding the figures in Table 1 is the total number of programs (177) revealed.
This project is a great example of the added value librarians can provide to instruction at almost any level, and the Brief Communication format could inspire some early adopters. The authors simply need to promote the librarian responsibilities a little more and provide additional detail regarding the methodology
Typical Comments
Editorial TeamSusan Starr, Editor
Associate EditorsCase Studies: Josephine Dorsch, AHIPBook Reviews: Janet M. CogganBuilding Projects: Logan Ludwig, AHIPElectronic Resources Reviews: Jennifer ReiswigHistory/Obituaries: Ellen Gay DetlefsenHospital Libraries: Michele S. Klein Fedyshin, AHIPProceedings: Kristine Alpi, AHIP and Diana Delgado, AHIP
Editorial Team
Relevance◦ Is this important to health science librarians
Reliability◦ Are the results likely to be replicable?
Validity◦Do the results mean what the author says they mean or are
there other plausible explanations?
What Editors look for
Originality◦ Published elsewhere?
Clarity◦ Can it be edited?
Implications◦Will our readers be interested?
Fit with JMLA category requirements◦ Full-length, brief communication, case study
What Editors look for
Do’s and Don’ts : the beginning
Do Don’t
Have an interesting question (to you and to others)
Always refer to the literature to provide context for your question
Assume everyone else thinks the question is interesting too
Twist the literature to support your viewpoint
Method Do’s and Don’ts
Do Don’t
Use a standard methodology
Read other JMLA papers to see what information is required
Skip over details Use a biased sample Use complex statistics
you don’t understand
The KISS Strategy works best!!
Format Do’s and Don’ts
Do Don’t
Let the abstract format be your guide◦ Research paper◦ Case Study
Include implications in your Discussion
Integrate Results and Discussion
Submit a project description without including some evaluation
Overstate your results
Do: write for your audience Do: provide enough information for reviewers to
judge the validity of your results Don’t: submit a small scale survey, project report or
benchmarking survey as a full-length paper Don’t: be surprised if your paper requires
substantial editing prior to publication
In general
Scholarly Journals
Wikis
BlogsListservs
Institutional Repositories
Horizon Issues
A new unit of publication
Not the Issue But the Article
Cover art Editorials Columns Advertisements Book reviews THE BRAND
On the “cutting room floor”
The Answer?
Information Dissemination
Quality control
Canonical archive
Author Recognition
SCHOLARLY JOURNAL
Implications
Scholarly Journals
Scholarly Journals
More Disintermediation for Libraries?
Competitors are out there
Researchblogging.orgAutomatically posted comments on peer reviewed research from qualified bloggers
Scienceblogs.comUp to date issues and research from expert scientists
And…the more things change…
In Conclusion….It Takes a Village
Contributors
Readers
Editors
Reviewers
top related