Call for Associate Editor: Journal for Nurse Practitioners

S1555415513X00078_cov200h

JNP: The Journal for Nurse Practitioners offers high-quality, peer-reviewed clinical articles, original research, continuing education, and departments that help practitioners excel as providers of primary and acute care across the lifespan. JNP supports advocacy by demonstrating the role that policy plays in shaping practice and influencing outcomes. The journal is an official publication of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and is affiliated with the Australian College of Nurse Practitioners.

The successful candidate for the position of Associate Editor will be recognized for his or her academic and research achievements and will have an impressive track record of publications or presentations. The ideal candidate will possess the following traits:

  • Solid professional standing
  • Sound scientific judgment
  • Strong publications history
  • Excellent written and verbal communication skills
  • Ability to work to tight deadlines

The main functions within this role are:

  • Oversee departments to ensure prompt publication of high-quality, clinically relevant content and work with department editors to select topics and contributors
  • Collaborate with the editor-in-chief to solicit, develop, and review content for case challenges
  • Support the editor-in-chief in overall journal management, including soliciting manuscripts, authors, and reviewers
  • Attend editorial board meetings
  • Write two editorials a year

The paid post also involves working closely with the Publisher and the Editorial Board and requires a consistent, weekly commitment of time, with additional time for meetings or conference calls. Appointment initially will be for a 2-year term.

Applications should include a curriculum vitae and a letter outlining the skills the applicant would bring to this position. Interviews with shortlisted candidates will take place by telephone. Applications should be sent to Managing Editor Dawn Nahlen at d.nahlen@elsevier.com by May 15, 2014.

New Editor-in-Chief Appointed for Nurse Educator

marilyn oMarilyn Oermann, PhD, RN, FAAN, ANEF has been appointed as the Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Educator. This message from the publisher, Beth Guthy, was posted on the journal’s website:

Dear Nursing Educators and Researchers,

Please join me in welcoming  Marilyn H. Oermann, PhD, RN, ANEF, FAAN to the role of Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Educator.  As Director of Evaluation and Educational Research at Duke University School of Nursing, Dr. Oermann will bring her rich experience and voice to Nurse Educator.   A prolific author, speaker and mentor, you may also recognize Dr. Oermann as the Editor of the Journal of Nursing Care Quality.  We are delighted to welcome her to Nurse Educator and look forward to the leadership and expertise that she brings to the Journal and to the nursing education community.

At this time we would also like to offer our sincere thanks to Karen S. Hill, DNP, RN, NEA-BC, FACHE, FAAN and Editor-in-Chief of JONA for her enormous efforts as Interim Editor of Nurse Educator over the last few months, and for the seamless transition to Dr. Oermann this February.  Thank you, too,  to the many board members, column editors, reviewers and authors who stepped in to offer strong support and ensure the ongoing success of Nurse Educator after the unexpected loss of our Editor, mentor and friend Suzanne P. Smith, RN, EdD, FAAN last Fall.

Please continue to share your ideas, contents and expertise with Nurse Educator.  We are looking forward to an exciting 2014 as Dr. Oermann takes the helm and works with the editorial board  to grow Nurse Educator, maintain relevance through outstanding evidence-based content and increase our reach in the education segment.

Beth L. Guthy
Publisher, Nurse Educator

Congratulations to Marilyn! Please leave best wishes or other words of encouragement for her in the comments.

Editor Search: Journal of Clinical Nursing

olbannerleft

Applications are invited for the position of
Editor
Journal of Clinical Nursing

We are currently seeking applications for the position of Editor on the Journal of Clinical Nursing, to complete a team of an Editor-in-Chief and three Editors working on this leading international nursing journal.

The Journal of Clinical Nursing (JCN) is an international, peer reviewed, scientific journal that seeks to promote the development and exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to all spheres of nursing and midwifery practice. The primary aim is to promote a high standard of clinically related scholarship which supports the practice and discipline of nursing and midwifery. Detailed information about the journal can be found at www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jocn.

The successful candidate for the position of Editor will: be recognized internationally for the quality of her or his academic and research achievements; have worked at a strategic level within academia or healthcare; and have an impressive track record of publications and presentations at conferences. The ideal candidate will possess the following skills and knowledge:

  • Sound scientific judgment
  • Broad knowledge of nursing and midwifery on an international level
  • Awareness of trends and standards within knowledge dissemination
  • Excellent written and verbal communication
  • Ability to work to tight deadlines
  • Ability to work effectively as a team member as well as individually
  • Demonstrated track record in peer review activities for scholarly journals
  • Previous experience in Editor-type role

The main functions within this role are: manuscript handling and quality control, preparation of issues, strategic development, and journal promotion. The position involves working closely with other members of the Editorial Team which includes the Publisher, the other two Editors, and the Editor-in-Chief.

Applicants should note that this position requires a weekly commitment of time, with additional days required for meetings. The Editor can be based in any international location.

Applications should include a curriculum vitae, a short assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of JCN, detail of peer-review and previous editorial experience, and an accompanying letter outlining the skills you would bring to this position.

A description of the role and an information pack about the journal are available on request. Please send your application, in confidence, to:

Rosie Hutchinson, Journal Publishing Manager, Wiley-Blackwell, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK. Email to rosie.hutchinson@wiley.com

Applications to arrive no later than 31st March 2014

COPE Digest: A New Newsletter Resource

Ginny Barbour, COPE Cahir

COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics) has created a new newsletter. The inaugural issue can be found here.  As described in the Letter from the Chair:

Welcome to the inaugural edition of COPE Digest: Publication ethics in practice. Our aim was for a newsletter that was able to provide a timely resource on publication ethics, in a format that makes it easy to browse and reflect what COPE does best—provide practical support to members. The newsletter will therefore be coming out monthly and we intend it to reflect the dynamic nature of information on the web nowadays with links to content from within and external to COPE. The newsletter has come to life thanks to the inspiration, experience and work of three key members of COPE: Natalie Ridgeway, COPE Operations Manager, Irene Hames, COPE Council member, and Charlotte Haug, COPE Vice-Chair.

This looks like a great resource. I would suggest everyone bookmark the site and check back monthly.

Dr. Spitzer Writes the Letter That He Needed to Write

I posted last week about Dr. Robert Spitzer and his requested retraction of his work, published in 2003 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. He wanted the retraction to occur via an online article not related to the original publication. I asked if this was really a retraction or a repudiation. Several commenters suggested that what Spitzer needed to do was write to Dr. Ken Zucker, editor of the journal. Dr. Zucker had even indicated that he would be receptive to receiving and publishing such a letter.

Well, Spitzer’s done what he needed to do. The letter is written to Zucker and has been shared as an exclusive with Truth Wins Out. (For those who might not know, Truth Wins Out is a non-profit organization that fights anti-gay religious extremism. This includes debunking myths about “reparative therapy.”)

The letter starts out:

Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.

To read the whole thing, click here.

It does not say in the blog if the letter will be be published in the journal but I certainly hope it will be. That will set the matter straight in the scientific indexes (such as PubMed) which needs to be done.

Good for Dr. Spitzer for doing the right thing, at last, but it is unfortunate that 11 years have passed since the original study “results” were presented at the APA annual meeting. As many said in the comments to my first post, this research did not have just scientific implications but also social and political and has been damaging to the LGBTQ community. Let’s hope his repudiation can help to put the nail in the coffin of “reparative therapy,” once and for all.

Comments, as always, are welcome.

More on Retraction…from the New York Times

Given the previous post and discussion, I thought this would be of interest to the group.

A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform

By CARL ZIMMER

Dr. Ferric C. Fang

In the fall of 2010, Dr. Ferric C. Fang made an unsettling discovery. Dr. Fang, who is editor in chief of the journal Infection and Immunity, found that one of his authors had doctored several papers.

It was a new experience for him. “Prior to that time,” he said in an interview, “Infection and Immunity had only retracted nine articles over a 40-year period.”

The journal wound up retracting six of the papers from the author, Naoki Mori of the University of the Ryukyus in Japan. And it soon became clear that Infection and Immunity was hardly the only victim of Dr. Mori’s misconduct. Since then, other scientific journals have retracted two dozen of his papers, according to the watchdog blog Retraction Watch.

“Nobody had noticed the whole thing was rotten,” said Dr. Fang, who is a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Dr. Fang became curious how far the rot extended. To find out, he teamed up with a fellow editor at the journal, Dr. Arturo Casadevall of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. And before long they reached a troubling conclusion: not only that retractions were rising at an alarming rate, but that retractions were just a manifestation of a much more profound problem — “a symptom of a dysfunctional scientific climate,” as Dr. Fang put it.

Dr. Casadevall, now editor in chief of the journal mBio, said he feared that science had turned into a winner-take-all game with perverse incentives that lead scientists to cut corners and, in some cases, commit acts of misconduct.

“This is a tremendous threat,” he said.

Last month, in a pair of editorials in Infection and Immunity, the two editors issued a plea for fundamental reforms. They also presented their concerns at the March 27 meeting of the National Academies of Sciences committee on science, technology and the law.

Members of the committee agreed with their assessment. “I think this is really coming to a head,” said Dr. Roberta B. Ness, dean of the University of Texas School of Public Health. And Dr. David Korn of Harvard Medical School agreed that “there are problems all through the system.”

o one claims that science was ever free of misconduct or bad research. Indeed, the scientific method itself is intended to overcome mistakes and misdeeds. When scientists make a new discovery, others review the research skeptically before it is published. And once it is, the scientific community can try to replicate the results to see if they hold up.

But critics like Dr. Fang and Dr. Casadevall argue that science has changed in some worrying ways in recent decades — especially biomedical research, which consumes a larger and larger share of government science spending.

In October 2011, for example, the journal Nature reported that published retractions had increased tenfold over the past decade, while the number of published papers had increased by just 44 percent. In 2010 The Journal of Medical Ethics published a study finding the new raft of recent retractions was a mix of misconduct and honest scientific mistakes.

Several factors are at play here, scientists say. One may be that because journals are now online, bad papers are simply reaching a wider audience, making it more likely that errors will be spotted. “You can sit at your laptop and pull a lot of different papers together,” Dr. Fang said.

But other forces are more pernicious. To survive professionally, scientists feel the need to publish as many papers as possible, and to get them into high-profile journals. And sometimes they cut corners or even commit misconduct to get there.

To measure this claim, Dr. Fang and Dr. Casadevall looked at the rate of retractions in 17 journals from 2001 to 2010 and compared it with the journals’ “impact factor,” a score based on how often their papers are cited by scientists. The higher a journal’s impact factor, the two editors found, the higher its retraction rate.

The highest “retraction index” in the study went to one of the world’s leading medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine. In a statement for this article, it questioned the study’s methodology, noting that it considered only papers with abstracts, which are included in a small fraction of studies published in each issue. “Because our denominator was low, the index was high,” the statement said.

Monica M. Bradford, executive editor of the journal Science, suggested that the extra attention high-impact journals get might be part of the reason for their higher rate of retraction. “Papers making the most dramatic advances will be subject to the most scrutiny,” she said.

Dr. Fang says that may well be true, but adds that it cuts both ways — that the scramble to publish in high-impact journals may be leading to more and more errors. Each year, every laboratory produces a new crop of Ph.D.’s, who must compete for a small number of jobs, and the competition is getting fiercer. In 1973, more than half of biologists had a tenure-track job within six years of getting a Ph.D. By 2006 the figure was down to 15 percent.

Yet labs continue to have an incentive to take on lots of graduate students to produce more research. “I refer to it as a pyramid scheme,” said Paula Stephan, a Georgia State University economist and author of “How Economics Shapes Science,” published in January by Harvard University Press.

In such an environment, a high-profile paper can mean the difference between a career in science or leaving the field. “It’s becoming the price of admission,” Dr. Fang said.

The scramble isn’t over once young scientists get a job. “Everyone feels nervous even when they’re successful,” he continued. “They ask, ‘Will this be the beginning of the decline?’ ”

University laboratories count on a steady stream of grants from the government and other sources. The National Institutes of Health accepts a much lower percentage of grant applications today than in earlier decades. At the same time, many universities expect scientists to draw an increasing part of their salaries from grants, and these pressures have influenced how scientists are promoted.

“What people do is they count papers, and they look at the prestige of the journal in which the research is published, and they see how many grant dollars scientists have, and if they don’t have funding, they don’t get promoted,” Dr. Fang said. “It’s not about the quality of the research.”

Dr. Ness likens scientists today to small-business owners, rather than people trying to satisfy their curiosity about how the world works. “You’re marketing and selling to other scientists,” she said. “To the degree you can market and sell your products better, you’re creating the revenue stream to fund your enterprise.”

Universities want to attract successful scientists, and so they have erected a glut of science buildings, Dr. Stephan said. Some universities have gone into debt, betting that the flow of grant money will eventually pay off the loans. “It’s really going to bite them,” she said.

With all this pressure on scientists, they may lack the extra time to check their own research — to figure out why some of their data doesn’t fit their hypothesis, for example. Instead, they have to be concerned about publishing papers before someone else publishes the same results.

“You can’t afford to fail, to have your hypothesis disproven,” Dr. Fang said. “It’s a small minority of scientists who engage in frank misconduct. It’s a much more insidious thing that you feel compelled to put the best face on everything.”

Adding to the pressure, thousands of new Ph.D. scientists are coming out of countries like China and India. Writing in the April 5 issue of Nature, Dr. Stephan points out that a number of countries — including China, South Korea and Turkey — now offer cash rewards to scientists who get papers into high-profile journals. She has found these incentives set off a flood of extra papers submitted to those journals, with few actually being published in them. “It clearly burdens the system,” she said.

To change the system, Dr. Fang and Dr. Casadevall say, start by giving graduate students a better understanding of science’s ground rules — what Dr. Casadevall calls “the science of how you know what you know.”

They would also move away from the winner-take-all system, in which grants are concentrated among a small fraction of scientists. One way to do that may be to put a cap on the grants any one lab can receive.

Such a shift would require scientists to surrender some of their most cherished practices — the priority rule, for example, which gives all the credit for a scientific discovery to whoever publishes results first. (Three centuries ago, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz were bickering about who invented calculus.) Dr. Casadevall thinks it leads to rival research teams’ obsessing over secrecy, and rushing out their papers to beat their competitors. “And that can’t be good,” he said.

To ease such cutthroat competition, the two editors would also change the rules for scientific prizes and would have universities take collaboration into account when they decide on promotions.

Ms. Bradford, of Science magazine, agreed. “I would agree that a scientist’s career advancement should not depend solely on the publications listed on his or her C.V.,” she said, “and that there is much room for improvement in how scientific talent in all its diversity can be nurtured.”

Even scientists who are sympathetic to the idea of fundamental change are skeptical that it will happen any time soon. “I don’t think they have much chance of changing what they’re talking about,” said Dr. Korn, of Harvard.

But Dr. Fang worries that the situation could be become much more dire if nothing happens soon. “When our generation goes away, where is the new generation going to be?” he asked. “All the scientists I know are so anxious about their funding that they don’t make inspiring role models. I heard it from my own kids, who went into art and music respectively. They said, ‘You know, we see you, and you don’t look very happy.’ ”

Source: The New York Times

An Interesting Situation: Repudiation or Retraction?

An interesting situation is unfolding in the blogosphere (and I assume, eventually the news) today which I wanted to bring to my colleagues’ attention–and I hope, generate some discussion. It’s a question of words and perhaps semantics but I think in this case, the words have a great deal of meaning as well as repercussions for science now and into the future. A recap of the situation:

In 2001, Robert Spitzer, MD, conducted structured interviews with 200 participants who had undergone some form of “reparative therapy,” which is the name for the theory that  homosexual sexual orientation can be changed by psychotherapy. He published his findings in 2003 in The Archives of Sexual Behavior, a peer reviewed journal that is the official publication of the International Academy of Sex Research. (For anyone who is curious, it has an impact factor of 3.66).

Since the publication of this paper, many “ex-gay” organizations, such as Focus on the Family and PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) have touted Spitzer’s findings as “proof” that sexual orientation can be changed permanently. Spitzer has long claimed that this is a misinterpretation of his findings and has tried to distance himself from these groups. (I think it is worth noting that Spitzer led the 1973 effort to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness.)

Today (April 11, 2012) The American Prospect published a lengthy article by Gabriel Arana, a man who himself had undergone “reparative therapy” in the late 1990s. Titled “My So-Called Ex-Gay Life,” the article promises (and delivers) “a deep look at the fringe movement that just lost its only shred of scientific support.”

In the article, Arana includes an interview with Spitzer, asking him about his research from 2001. As part of the conversation, Arana writes:

Spitzer was drawn to the topic of ex-gay therapy because it was controversial—“I was always attracted to controversy”—but was troubled by how the study was received. He did not want to suggest that gay people should pursue ex-gay therapy. His goal was to determine whether the counterfactual—the claim that no one had ever changed his or her sexual orientation through therapy—was true.

I asked about the criticisms leveled at him. “In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct,” he said. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” He said he spoke with the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior about writing a retraction, but the editor declined. (Repeated attempts to contact the journal went unanswered.)

Spitzer said that he was proud of having been instrumental in removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Now 80 and retired, he was afraid that the 2001 study would tarnish his legacy and perhaps hurt others. He said that failed attempts to rid oneself of homosexual attractions “can be quite harmful.” He has, though, no doubts about the 1973 fight over the classification of homosexuality.

At the conclusion of the section with Spitzer’s interview, comes this comment:

Spitzer was growing tired and asked how many more questions I had. Nothing, I responded, unless you have something to add.

He did. Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, “so I don’t have to worry about it anymore”?

This last statement is what has the blogosphere hopping. Towleroad, Good As You, AmericaBlog, and Truth Wins Out have all reported on the “retraction.” Now let me go on record as saying that I am delighted with this turn of events and the fact that Dr. Spitzer has declared publicly that he no longer stands behind his findings. But (and maybe I am splitting hairs here, but I don’t think so), this isn’t a retraction, it’s a repudiation. A retraction would need to occur with action by the journal editor and/or the International Academy of Sex Research. Until that happens, the article will continue to be indexed at various sites, including MEDLINE, with no indication that the author no longer supports his work.

Note that if the article is retracted, this information will be included with the original citation. The picture below is an example from a recent high-profile retraction from Lancet.

A question that comes to mind (and one I would like to discuss) is when does an editor take action? Note that in Arana’s article, Spitzer says he contacted the editor about a retraction but that “the editor declined.” Certainly, as an editor, a retraction is a very serious step and not one that is taken lightly. I can understand why an editor might be reluctant to take action based on a request from an author.

However, what I think what is interesting about this case, and a bit of a different twist from retracted articles that I have read about in the past, is that in this situation it is the author who no longer supports his work. I think more commonly, the issue comes to light through an investigation of scientific misconduct, falsification of data, fraudulent findings and so on. Indeed, Andrew Wakefield, author of the retracted Lancet article continues to maintain that his research was sound and that there was no evidence of a hoax or fraud.

Even though the editor of The Archives of Sexual Behavior  made an initial decision, should he do something now? If so, what? One option is to let the article stand–take no action as originally intended. The case could be made that the paper went through the usual peer review process and was found to be sound–what has changed is that the findings are no longer relevant, particularly in light of the author’s change of heart. I am sure it wouldn’t take much digging to find many examples of studies that have been previously published and are not longer accurate or meaningful. Are people taking steps to retract those papers? I don’t think so.

On the other hand, if the journal takes no official action, how are others to learn of the repudiation of the work? While it remains in the extant body of literature, it can be cited, quoted, and put forth as evidence that “reparative therapy” should be considered as an intervention for those persons who are uncomfortable with their sexual identity. Organizations such as those mentioned earlier are free to leave the citation on their websites and in their literature. Is this ethically defensible?

Writing this has helped me clarify in my mind what I would do as an editor: retract the paper given the circumstances. But I welcome discussion from my colleagues because I think this is an important, timely, ethical, and complex issue and I am interested in  viewpoints other than mine. I look forward to  your comments.

Citation: Spitzer RL. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Arch Sex Behav. 2003 Oct;32(5):403-17; discussion 419-72. PubMed PMID: 14567650.

Peer Review Congress

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication will be held September 8-10, 2013, in Chicago, IL. As with the previous Congresses, our aim is to improve the quality and credibility of biomedical peer review and publication and to help advance the efficiency, effectiveness, and equitability of the dissemination of biomedical information throughout the world.

These congresses are held every 4 years. Additional information on the Seventh Congress will be available soon.

Updated information will be posted at this site.

You can read the Call for Research here and a list of suggested topics here.

Social Media for Researchers

network globe from social media for researchersThis resource came to my attention today on twitter!  It seems that our focus for the August INANE meeting is so timely — maybe even a bit “late” in coming!  But if other nursing journal editors are like me, getting into all of this has seemed overwhelming!  So this is a great resource, even for those not exactly “doing” research … a great explanation of the various social media tools that are dominating the scene, and what they can offer!  Check it out … http://bit.ly/ekgWfS.

 

Listing Authors and Their Contributions

I know we’ve had many lively discussions at INANE meetings about author contributions to an article, duplicate publication and so on. I think we all have different ways we handle the issue of assessing and documenting that all the listed authors have contributed to the writing of the article. This guidance comes from our publishers as well as our own personal preferences and beliefs. For my journal, CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, I have all authors have to sign a statement that affirms that they have substantially participated in the writing of an article.  I was reading an article in the Journal of Sexual Medicine and came across this, which I thought might be of interest to the group.

Title of article, listing the authors:

At the end of the article is this statement:

I have been pondering if I want to change my procedure to include something like this. I am throwing this out to my colleagues for discussion. Are any of you requiring statements such as presented above? Why or why not? If yes, is it working well? Are authors able to easily give you the documentation you request? Or do they see it as another bit of busy work that we pesky editors require?

I look forward to your comments!