Informal Guidelines and Tips for Publishing Research in the Journal of Emergency Nursing

The Journal of Emergency Nursing strongly encourages nurses to write articles reporting their research, quality assurance project, or thesis. A study should be presented as a study (not as an article which discusses only clinical implications, or some other single aspect.)

We suggest studies be presented in the IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion).

INTRODUCTION

• Review of the literature which succinctly and tightly pulls together literature pertinent to the specific angle/focus of your topic. A common mistake is that the literature review tries to cover much too broad an area and ends up sketchy, superficial, and/or irrelevant to the specific study.
• The introduction should clearly point to the need for your study and clearly reveal the research question and its importance. Do not separately list numbered hypotheses out of the context of the introduction.
• Avoid laundry lists of statements. (Eg: "Smith states A. Jones states B. Miller states C...") Instead, synthesize and digest the literature for the reader and then summarize it. (Eg: "Most experts in the field agree that A is the therapy of choice, with the exception of Smith who argues unconvincingly for method B and Jones, who maintains that there is no conclusive documentation of any effective therapy whatsoever.")
• Omit theoretical/conceptual frameworks unless they are relevant, integral parts of the study. We are not opposed to applying theory. It is just that it is common to see theoretical frameworks that don't inform the research and which seem to be added gratuitously.

METHODS

>
• Include a description of the sample population and how it was decided upon and included in the study.
• Describe tools clearly, ideally including an entire list of questions or a representative few. Note the validity and reliability of the tool when applicable.
• Describe how the tool was administered, who specifically administered it, etc.
• Omit institutional permissions, and elaborate assurances of informed consent, etc. We assume that researchers' work is informed by, and conforms to, acceptable moral, ethical, and legal codes.
• Omit definitions, except for terms which will not be readily understood by our audience.
• Qualitative research is not exempt from the need to give a complete picture of how data were elicited/gathered. (Eg: If subjects were interviewed, how structured was the format? Were questions followed with probes? How was information from the interviews sorted and compiled?)

RESULTS

• Include final sample size/number of respondents, and their characteristics.
• While the subject of a study will dictate how this is presented, include results that are most important and relevant to our audience. First, make sense of the results in your own mind, and then present them in a logical and prioritized way. Be clear, careful, and precise in describing what you found or didn't find.
• Don't discuss statistics for their own sake. When they're discussed in seeming isolation from your results, the whole point--the significance of you what you found--is lost.
• Clearly say what you found: "there was no difference between therapy A and B," or "there was no correlation between A and B", and immediately indicate if the results are statistically significant, or, in other words, how sure you are that the results did not simply happen by chance. (Eg: give the p value, or whatever value is appropriate to the statistical analysis.)
• Tables, graphs, and pictures are a wonderful way to illustrate findings. Every illustration must have a legend, and must, in fact, illustrate something. Make sure that each table or other illustration is self-explanatory and can be completely understood alone, just by reading the headings and legend, without referring to the article.

DISCUSSION

• Summarize your major and most interesting findings in the first few sentences.
• Discuss your results. What do you make of them? What do they mean? Were they expected? Were they valid? How do you explain surprising results? How do they reconcile with those of other studies? Were there any weaknesses/limitations which could have affected the validity of the results? Did you learn anything by serendipity? Say what you really think about what you found.
• The discussion section should never rehash the review of the literature, or dwell on obvious truisms (Eg: "In these days of...with increasing numbers of...it is extremely important that nurses be sensitive to... and always...."), sentiments which were already conventional wisdom before the study.
• If appropriate, place your findings in the context of other studies and discuss if/how they differ from or support the literature.
• Do not have a discussion that ignores or contradicts your data. (Eg: "Regardless of our sample's negative responses to the A method, this author feels strongly that the A method is the only way to ensure quality patient care.")
• What are your recommendations for further research in the area after, and/or as a result of, your study?
• Avoid discussing implications for nursing practice just for the sake of having such a section. Implications are frequently obvious. If they aren't, then by all means highlight them.

REFERENCE STYLE

The Journal uses the Vancouver style of reference citation. A few samples of this style are listed below. A detailed list is available from the managing editor.

Journals

1. You CH, Lee KY, Chey RY, Menguy R. Electrogastrographic study of patients with unexplained nausea, bloating and vomiting. Gastroenterology 1980;79:311-4.

Books

1. Eisen HN. Immunology: an introduction to molecular and cellular principles of the immune response. 5th ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1974:406.
2. Dausset J, Colombani J, eds. Histocompatibility testing. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1973:12-8.

Monographs

1. Hunninghake GW, Gadek JE, Szapiel SV, et al. The human alveolar macrophage. In: Harris CC, ed. Cultured human cells and tissues in biomedical research. New York: Academic Press, 1980:54-6.

TURN-AROUND TIME

An important goal of the Journal is to make a decision on all manuscripts within 6 weeks' time.

• There may, very occasionally, be a delay past the six weeks. The Journal of Emergency Nursing is, after all, a product of volunteers. It does not have the luxury of a large paid staff as do commercial, general nursing audience journals, and very much depends on the kindness of those who volunteer their valuable time to write, review, and edit.
• If a delay should occur, authors are encouraged to call and enquire about their manuscript. A collegial call is not a negative; in fact, we appreciate the reminder.

PEARLS OF WISDOM

• Staying within the 6-10 pages may be difficult, but keep in mind that it's a brief report of your study that you're writing, not the entire study. Also, there is a positive correlation between how short your research article is and how many people will read it.
• Look at other similar studies published recently in the Journal to get an idea of style.
• If you're not sure about something, don't hesitate to call the Managing Editor (Annie Kelly, work: 800/900-9659 ext. 4044 or 413/549-1490). Also, consider asking for feedback from one of the Journal's consulting or contributing editors in your area.

* All suggestions for number of pages are only rough estimates and err on the side of brevity. Length, of course, will depend on each individual study.

NB: A copy of Elizabeth Tornquist's classic article (Tornquist, EM. Strategies for publishing research. Nursing Outlook 1983;31:180-3) on publishing research is recommended highly. A list of suggested reading follows.

Lenehan GP, 1993

Publishing Research Bibliography

• Tornquist EM. From proposal to publication: An informal guide to writing about nursing research. Addison Wesley Publishing Co. 1986.
• Cormak DFS. Writing a research article. Nurse Educ Today 1986;April: 6(2):64-8.
• Watson PG. Publishing the results of clinical research projects. J Enterostom Ther 1986; May/June: 13(3):108-10.
• Blancett SS. Getting your researched published...in JONA. J Nurs Adm 1986; Feb: 16(2):6.
• del Campo EJ, Pollack L, Hall J. Tell the world your ideas...nursing’s future...the importance of publishing. Nurs Success Today 1985; Feb 2(2): 12-5.
• Jones IH. From inspiration to publication...nursing textbooks. Nurs Mirror 1984; Feb 15; 158(7):43-6.
• Silva MC. Opportunities for publishing nursing research. VA Nurse 1987; Spring; 55(2):15-6.
• Pardue SF. Tips for getting your research published. Tex Nurs 1987; Apr; 61(4):8, 11.
• White JH. The journal publication process: The perspective of the nurse author. J Adv Nurs 1987; Jan; 12(1):121-7.