Differences in scientific collaboration and their effects on research influence: A quantitative analysis of nursing publications in Latin America (Scopus, 2005–2020)

Saldaña, Diana Marcela Achury; Castañeda-Rodriguez, Lidier Andres; Perianes‐Rodríguez, Antonio

doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11047

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nursing, as the evidence‐based (EB) practice model suggests, must rely its practice on the best available scientific evidence (Cullum, 1997; Melnyk, 2019; Pearson et al., 2006), including RCTs. The current state of scientific production in nursing has increased substantially worldwide (Achury‐Saldaña et al., 2022; Baldi et al., 2014; Hodgson et al., 2014; Kokol & Blažun Vošner, 2019; Munday et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2021). In Latin America, nursing research tends to rely on qualitative, cross‐sectional, or descriptive methodological designs – only a small proportion of studies are experimental – this may be due to the cost and resources needed for RCTs (Achury‐Saldaña et al., 2022; Cullum, 1997; Iribarren et al., 2018; Mendoza‐Parra et al., 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized controlled trials in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams: A scoping review

Medina‐Aedo,

Segura‐Carrillo,

Torralba‐Martinez

et al. 2023

J of Nursing Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductioRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis. RCT identification remains challenging because of limitations in their indexation in major databases and potential language bias. Scientific production in Latin American nursing is steadily increasing, but little is known about its design or main features. We aimed to identify the extent of evidence from RCTs in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams and evaluate their main characteristics, including potential risk of bias.DesignScoping review with risk of bias assessment.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review including a comprehensive electronic search in five relevant databases. We completed a descriptive data analysis and a risk of bias assessment of eligible studies using Cochrane's guidance.ResultsWe identified 1784 references of which 47 were RCTs published in 40 journals. Twenty (42.6%) RCTs were published in journals in English. Chronic diseases were the most common health conditions studied (29.7%). Fifteen (31.9%) RCTs had a high risk of bias. Thirty (75%) journals were included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) catalog and 5 (16.7%) were journals classified under nursing category. Twenty‐one (52.5%) journals explicitly required CONSORT checklist recommendations for RCTs reporting.ConclusionPublication of RCTs in nursing by Latin American authors has increased. Most journals where RCTs are published are in English and not specific to nursing. Searches in journals of other disciplines may be necessary to facilitate identification of RCTs in nursing. CONSORT statements need to be actively promoted to facilitate rigorous methodology and reporting of RCTs.Clinical Relevance StatementThis study highlights the need for an increased research focus on RCTs in nursing in Latin America, and the importance of enhancing the reporting quality of these studies to support evidence‐based nursing practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized controlled trials in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams: A scoping review

Medina‐Aedo,

Segura‐Carrillo,

Torralba‐Martinez

et al. 2023

J of Nursing Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

International cooperation in radiology training: A multipronged approach

Aluja-Jaramillo,

Gutiérrez,

Previgliano

et al. 2024

Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nuevo Qualis publicado: calificaciÃ³n de las revistas espaÃ±olas de ComunicaciÃ³n y DocumentaciÃ³n

Martínez-Ávila

2023

ThinKEPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In December 2022, a new version of the Brazilian indicator for the evaluation of scientific journals Qualis Periodicos was published, corresponding to the period 2017-2020. This new version of the indicator is the only official version since the previous one was published in 2016, in spite of the leaks in recent years of some estimates and discussions on the new values of the journals according to new criteria, in which citations and values from other bibliometric indicators such as CiteScore, Scopus, and Clarivate-JIF percentiles and Google’s h, h5, or h10 indexes have gained more relevance. Qualis Periodicos, practically ubiquitous in Brazil, corresponds to the main factor and motivation that Brazilian researchers have in deciding where to publish their best papers, so its situation and values are of special interest for journals that want to attract quality research from a country as large as Brazil, where recent political changes are expected to prompt greater investment in its scientific system and more resources for publications. This paper presents the values of the Spanish journals in Communication and Information, based on the Fecyt 2021 list and the Documentation and Communication categories of Dialnet Métricas, and identifies some anomalies in the system that should be considered by editors and authors when publishing their results. Resumen En diciembre de 2022 se publicó una nueva versión del indicador brasileño de evaluación de revistas científicas Qualis Periódicos, correspondiente con el cuatrienio 2017-2020. Esta nueva versión del indicador es la única versión oficial publicada desde 2016, pese a que en los últimos años se han filtrado algunas estimaciones y discusiones de los que podrían ser los nuevos valores de las revistas según unos nuevos criterios en los que las citas y los valores de otros indicadores bibliométricos como CiteScore, los percentiles de Scopus y Clarivate-JIF y los índices h, h5 o h10 de Google han cobrado mucho más peso. Qualis Periódicos, de aplicación prácticamente ubicua en Brasil, corresponde de forma efectiva con el principal factor y motivación que tienen los investigadores brasileños para decidir dónde publicar sus trabajos de calidad, por lo que su situación y valores resultan de especial importancia para las revistas que quieran atraer investigaciones de calidad de un país tan amplio como Brasil, en el que se espera que los recientes cambios políticos impulsen una mayor inversión en su sistema científico y más recursos para publicaciones. En este trabajo se presenta la calificación de las revistas españolas de Comunicación e Información, tomando como base las listas con sello Fecyt 2021 y las categorías de Documentación y Comunicación de Dialnet Métricas, y se identifican algunas anomalías en el sistema que deberían ser consideradas por editores y autores a la hora de publicitar sus resultados.

show abstract

Differences in scientific collaboration and their effects on research influence: A quantitative analysis of nursing publications in Latin America (Scopus, 2005–2020)

Cited by 3 publications

References 31 publications

Randomized controlled trials in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams: A scoping review

Randomized controlled trials in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams: A scoping review

International cooperation in radiology training: A multipronged approach

Nuevo Qualis publicado: calificaciÃ³n de las revistas espaÃ±olas de ComunicaciÃ³n y DocumentaciÃ³n

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About