Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Susan S. Starr, Ph.D. Editor, JMLA April 2010. “Intimidating, isn’t it?”

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Susan S. Starr, Ph.D. Editor, JMLA April 2010. “Intimidating, isn’t it?”"— Presentation transcript:

1 Susan S. Starr, Ph.D. Editor, JMLA April 2010

2 “Intimidating, isn’t it?”

3 Role of the JMLA The Publication Process Tips for Contributors – You! Changes on the Horizon Topics for today

4 “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

5 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#sc ope

6 Information Dissemination Quality control Canonical archive Author Recognition

7 Section Listservs Quality Control, Author Recognition, and Archiving

8 Scholarly: In depth original research, reviewed by other scholars Professional: Also contain profession or industry related news

9 “ 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

10 “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

11 “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

12

13 Contributors Readers Editors Reviewers

14

15 8500 Articles in PMC 1200 HTML views/day 500-600 PDF’s viewed/day 5 Year impact factor of 1.71 CRL = 1.16 Health Info & Libraries =.94

16 1. Use of Facebook in academic health sciences libraries 2. 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 curricula 6. Mapping the literature of nursing education 7. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar 8. 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

17 Average number of manuscripts processed = 90 Reviews per manuscript = 3 Number of Peer Reviewers = 23 (plus subject specialists) Reviewers are asked to comment on: Scope, Objectives Content Organization Methodology, Approach, Conclusions Writing Style, References

18  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.

19  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

20  Editorial Team Susan Starr, Editor  Associate Editors Case Studies: Josephine Dorsch, AHIP Book Reviews: Janet M. Coggan Building Projects: Logan Ludwig, AHIP Electronic Resources Reviews: Jennifer Reiswig History/Obituaries: Ellen Gay Detlefsen Hospital Libraries: Michele S. Klein Fedyshin, AHIP Proceedings: Kristine Alpi, AHIP and Diana Delgado, AHIP

21  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?

22  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

23 DoDon’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

24 DoDon’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!!

25 DoDon’t  Let the abstract format be your guide ◦ Research paper Research paper ◦ Case Study Case Study  Include implications in your Discussion  Integrate Results and Discussion  Submit a project description without including some evaluation  Overstate your results

26 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

27 Scholarly Journals WikisBlogsListservs Institutional Repositories

28 Not the IssueBut the Article

29  Cover art  Editorials  Columns  Advertisements  Book reviews  THE BRAND

30 The Answer?

31 Information Dissemination Quality control Canonical archive Author Recognition Implications

32 More Disintermediation for Libraries?

33 Researchblogging.org Automatically posted comments on peer reviewed research from qualified bloggers Scienceblogs.com Up to date issues and research from expert scientists

34 And…the more things change…

35 Contributors Readers Editors Reviewers


Download ppt "Susan S. Starr, Ph.D. Editor, JMLA April 2010. “Intimidating, isn’t it?”"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google