A new article on the Nurse Author & Editor website :
Reporting Nursing Research, An Essay on Style: Beginnings
I highly recommend the Nurse Author & Editor website if you are writing anything from an abstract for a conference to a book from your thesis or dissertation. Keep disseminating your good work!
Musings: For me the most difficult to write sections of a research report are the Intro/Background and Discussion. And yet, those are apparently the easiest to read for many. My students at least tend to read only those sections and skip the rest.
Why? For the author, Intro/Background and Discussion require 
hard, critical thinking about what is already known about the topic (Intro/Background) and then what one’s findings mean in light of that (Discussion). For research consumers, the language used in these sections is more familiar, ordinary sounding words. On the other hand, writing the technical nature of other sections (Methods, Instruments, Results) is pretty straightforward with scientifically standardized vocabulary and structure. But, for readers, those same sections contain potentially unfamiliar research terminology that is not part of everyday conversation– i.e., scientific vocabulary. Quantitative studies often create more reader difficulty.
My solution for myself as a writer? To spend time making sure that the first sentence of every paragraph in Intro/Background and Discussion makes a step-by-step argument supported by the rest of the paragraph. Follow standardized structure for the rest. Keep language precise yet simple as possible.
Solution for research readers? Read the whole article understanding what you can and keep a research glossary handy (e.g., https://sites.google.com/site/nursingresearchaid/week-1. Even if practice doesn’t make you perfect, it works in learning a new language–whether it is a ‘foreign’ language or a scientific one.
Critical Thinking: Test out your reading skills with this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6503597/ . Do the authors make systematic arguments in Intro/Background & Discussion? What makes this article hard or easy to read?
Happy Summer! -Dr.H
Cool. You completed your project and now want to publish it.
Beware! Predatory journals are ready to snap up your work! It helps them, but not you.
What is a predatory journal? One that can eat you and your paper alive.
Predatory journals don’t meet quality peer-review standards.Many predators are Open Access Journals. What are Open Access Journals? Ones “that use a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access” (https://doaj.org/faq#definition).
Open Access Journals may be legitimate OR predatory.
How can you identify predatory journals? While perhaps not Mighty Mouse—yep, I’m showing my age—help from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is on the way. DOAJ provides a searchable list of LEGITIMATE open access journals (click here). A quick search for “nursing” yielded 7.
How does DOAJ define quality of journals? Quality open access journals “must exercise peer-review with an editor and an editorial board or editorial review (particularly in the Humanities) carried out by at least two editors” (https://doaj.org/faq#definition).
Is there a list of predatory open access journals? YES. To see one that is updated, click here. Also, you can help! If you find an open access journal that claims to have the DOAJ quality seal, but isn’t on the DOAJ legitimate journal list, DOAJ wants to hear from you!
For more on DOAJ, see https://doaj.org/: “DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals. DOAJ is independent.”
Stay safe. As Randy Newman sings, “It’s a jungle out there.”
-Dr.H
So…after you do research or finish out your evidence-based practice project, you have to disseminate your findings, right? That means good writing skills are necessary.
I stumbled into the GRAMMAR PARTY blog today when I wondered whether or not to italicize coup d’état. Do you know? I didn’t. Check out this helpful resource.
Want to know the standardized format for writing up your research study, QI report, 
case study, systematic review, or clinical practice guideline? Check out these standardized reporting guidelines: http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/
Of course you should always give priority to the author instructions for the particular journal in which you want to publish, but most adhere generally or fully to these standardized guides.
Write away!
Want to know how to write an introduction/background section of a paper? Pay attention to STRUCTURE & evidence-based ARGUMENT in order to DIY (do-it-yourself) your own intro/background for a school paper or research report!
Let’s use this 2015 free full-text article by Marie Flem Sørbø et al. as a model! Past and recent abuse is associated with early cessation of breast feeding: results from a large prospective cohort in Norway . (Hint: Clicking on the article’s pdf tab may make it easier to read.)
Focus only on the INTRO/BACKGROUND section for now. Check out the STRUCTURE then the EVIDENCE-BASED ARGUMENT of the Intro/Background. This is how you should write your own.
STRUCTURE of INTRO/BACKGROUND in Sørbø et al. (2015):
ARGUMENTS in INTRO/BACKGROUND in Sørbø et al. (2015):
All this leads naturally, logically to …(drum roll please!)…the research questions/hypotheses, which are the gaps in our knowledge that the research will fill. This sets up the rest of the research article!
For more info on Intro/Background: Review my blogpost Intro to Intro’s
*ok, yeh. I cheated and included one additional sentence to capture the authors’ flow of argument.
If you are writing something for publication, watch this 2 minute video before selecting a journal! You’ll thank yourself for doing it.
< 2 minute video that tells you how to think, check, submit:
Don’t be fooled. It’s a lot of work to prepare something to publish, and you want your work to appear in a credible source and be accessible. It’s YOUR reputation!
If you are a student search for literature, it is important to know this also!! You want to use the highest quality evidence you can find for your projects.
Quasi-experiments are a lot of work, yet don’t have the same scientific power to show cause and effect, as do randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An RCT would provide better support for any hypothesis that X causes Y. [As a quick review of what quasi-experimental versus RCT studies are, see “Of Mice & Cheese” and/or “Out of Control (Groups).”]
So why do quasi-experimental studies at all? Why not always do RCTs when we are testing cause and effect? Here are 3 reasons:
#1 Sometimes ETHICALLY the researcher canNOT randomly assign subjects to a control 
and an experimental group. If the researcher wants to compare health outcomes of smokers with non-smokers, the researcher cannot assign some people to smoke and others not to smoke! Why? Because we already know that smoking has significant harmful effects. (Of course, in a dictatorship, by using the police a researcher could assign them to smoke or not smoke, but I don’t think we wanna go there.)
#2 Sometimes PHYSICALLY the researcher canNOT randomly assign subjects to control & 
experimental groups. If the researcher wants to compare health outcomes of
individuals from different countries, it is physically impossible to assign country of origin.
#3 Sometimes FINANCIALLY the researcher canNOT afford to assign subjects randomly 
to control & experimental groups. It costs $ & time to get a list of subjects and then assign them to control & experimental groups using random numbers table or drawing names from a hat.
Thus, researchers sometimes are left with little alternative, but to do a quasi-experiment as the next best thing to an RCT, then discuss its limitations in research reports.
Critical Thinking: You read a research study in which a researcher recruits the 1st 100 patients on a surgical ward January-March quarter as a control group. Then the researcher recruits the 2nd 100 patients on that same surgical ward April-June for the experimental group. With the experimental group, the staff uses a new, standardized pain script for better pain communications. Then the pain communication outcomes of each group are compared statistically.
For more info: see “Of Mice & Cheese” and/or “Out of Control (Groups).”
Share your quality projects for sure! You learned from them & so can the larger community. Make your voice heard.
Let below encourage you to encourage you to publish, present, disseminate your quality improvement projects!!
Davidoff & Batalden in 2005 wrote these words that still apply today:
In contrast with the primary goals of science, which are to discover and disseminate new knowledge, the primary goal of improvement is to change performance. Unfortunately, scholarly accounts of the methods, experiences, and results of most medical quality improvement work are not published, either in print or electronic form. In our view this failure to publish is a serious deficiency: it limits the available evidence on efficacy, prevents critical scrutiny, deprives staff of the opportunity and incentive to clarify thinking, slows dissemination of established improvements, inhibits discovery of innovations, and compromises the ethical obligation to return valuable information to the public.The reasons for this failure are many: competing service responsibilities of and lack of academic rewards for improvement staff; editors’ and peer reviewers’ unfamiliarity with improvement goals and methods; and lack of publication guidelines that are appropriate for rigorous, scholarly improvement work. We propose here a draft set of guidelines designed to help with writing, reviewing, editing, interpreting, and using such reports. We envisage this draft as the starting point for collaborative development of more definitive guidelines. We suggest that medical quality improvement will not reach its full potential unless accurate and transparent reports of improvement work are published frequently and widely.
Critical thinking: What is a QI project on your unit in which others might be interested? Sketch out an outline using headings recommended here: http://ocpd.med.umich.edu/moc-qi/presenting-publishing-qi
For more Info see Davidoff & Batalden. (2005). Toward stronger evidnece on quality improvment. Draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 14, 319-32. doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.014787
Want to write for publication? CHECK OUT NURSE AUTHOR & EDITOR as one of the best places to learn to improve your writing: http://naepub.com/
A few suggestions from me
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Check our Nurse Author & Editor for sure! http://naepub.com/
Discovering Your Inner Scientist 