分享智慧
共同成長
Full text
As editors of the Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN) and frequent manu and grant reviewers, we often are perplexed when a manu or grant focuses on a topic with a rich foundation of supportive science and yet classic references in that science are not cited. Guidance to journal authors may send an unclear message that leads to this practice. Recent work by Owens et al. (2020) indicates many journal editors and faculty stipulate references not be more than 5 years old. Consequently, the message being conveyed, inadvertently we believe, is that work older than five years is no longer relevant. But that is not necessarily the case as readers, editors, and reviewers expect authors to demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the science of which they write. Thus, in this editorial, we discuss the omission of (1) crucial foundational work and (2) critical current work.
Why is including classical work important? Omitting crucial foundational references may result in the unnecessary expenditure of human and other resources in an attempt to address a problem previously addressed and disseminated. Gottlieb (2003) argues that omitting such occurrences reflects “a sort of ageism of knowledge—discarding the old to create the illusion of the new” (p. 3). Moreover, although it is important to have current information in clinical practice [we would add educational practice as well], she argues that the nursing discipline extends beyond interventions to understanding the human condition. Thus, scholars need not redo knowledge gained from earlier work; rather, scholars need to apply and extend this knowledge. Law and Lybeck (2015), both sociologists, suggest that placing year limits on literature searches contributes to disciplinary amnesia, and highlight that focusing on “winners”—or in the case of this editorial recent literature—can diminish disciplinary knowledge and understanding. Gottlieb (2003) captures continuing concerns about placing limitations on currency of references well. She says:
“If we fail to stop and think about what we are doing and why we are doing it, we risk taking nursing science backward instead of forward. We risk re-inventing the wheel, or at best spinning our wheels. We run the risk of unwittingly promoting ageism of knowledge, and in so doing planning trees with very shallow roots”
What about including current work? Including current work is critical, given how quickly information can change, particularly in relation to clinical issues. Readers, editors and reviewers expect scholars to be up to date on the most recent efforts being undertaken to address a clinical issue, in part, as scholar work is evaluated in terms of the contribution he or she is making. Omitting an important recent reference may lead readers, reviewers and editors to question the veracity and contribution the scholar is making in a specific area. Thus, the need to include recent work is well-founded. Consequently, including classical references may not be as relevant or helpful in understanding current thinking on a specific topic.
What factors could contribute to these omissions? In addition to editor and faculty stipulations regarding currency of references (Owens et al., 2020), author guidelines may limit the number of references included in a manu, requiring the author to make difficult decisions about what to include: crucial foundational work or more recent information. Such is the case with this journal. The maximum number of references is 25; should authors exceed that number, they are asked to provide rationale for the additional references. Such restrictions are in place to avoid excessive references and more importantly, to avoid citation manipulation which has dire consequences for journals.
Increasingly, outcomes of nursing doctoral programs include required submission of manus to peer-reviewed journals. Omission of either classical or recent literature may reflect undue haste in searching the literature or ignorance of key moments in the field, a possibility when scholars are trying to meet course or program deadlines. Thus, these novice authors need guidance by faculty in balancing classic and current references. Such guidance requires considerable time, critical judgment, the ability to decide what are the most important papers in the field, and professional investment on faculty's part and can be challenging to realize.
What can scholars do to avoid disciplinary amnesia? It is not atypical for scholars to struggle with how best to reference their thoughts and to demonstrate their command of the topic they are addressing, particularly in terms of the number and recency of references. The challenge all scholars face is how best to convey their expertise on a topic, being cognizant that “It is best practice to base scholarly work on recent literature” (Owens et al., 2020, p. 1). However, determining which references to cite can be problematic “when there is little recent published information or a great deal of important historical and influential work on a topic” (Owens et al., 2020, p. 1).
Understanding what is known about a topic requires both depth and breadth in searching the literature. Although important to appreciate what nurse scholars [discipline] say on topic, it is equally important to know what other disciplines [synthesizing] are doing. Gardner (2006) emphasizes these two issues in his book Five Minds for the Future. Importantly, he differentiates between subject matter and discipline, emphasizing a disciplined mind is a “distinctive way of thinking about the world” (p. 27). Depth in searching the literature helps scholars understand the disciplinary perspective on a topic. Breadth in searching contributes to developing a synthesizing mind, that is, a mind that reflects accessing, reviewing and integrating literature from outside nursing into a scholar's work.
A first step is to strive for a balanced perspective (Owens et al., 2020) and to use available resources. Scholars should consult a librarian as a critical first step as they begin exploring a problem by reviewing the literature. Although this statement may seem self-evident, scholars do not always undertake this first step, limiting the comprehensiveness of a literature search. A good practice is to not limit searches to the most recent 5 years as some authorities consider time frames to between 5 and 10 years appropriate (Owens et al.,2020). Doing so becomes even more important as it is possible that important historical work will be older than this timeline. Consequently, extending the year range seems a reasonable approach in an effort to ensure critical literature is not missed. Certainly, as a scholar there is nothing worse than having someone indicate a scholar has omitted inclusion of critical work in his or her work. Moreover, conducting a comprehensive search of the literature may result in the discovery of important work long after the paper was published but that is not referenced in more recent work on the topic; Song et al. (2018) call such papers a sleeping paper. In other words, sleeping papers are those that are rediscovered years after having been published, reflecting they experienced a hibernation period from time of publication to time of rediscovery that can span several decades. The important contribution being made by sleeping papers does not occur until their rediscovery.
Another strategy is to reflect on why scholars support their work with references. Given “modern science is based on trust” (Milojevic, 2012, p. e49176), references provide a visible record of how thinking on a subject evolves over time. In other words, references “are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science” (Camacho-Mi?anoNú?ez-Nickel, 2009, p. 754). Placing ones work within the larger context of what is known can help identify critical older works that warrant referencing.
Decision making algorithms can be helpful. Owens et al. (2020) provide three decision-making algorithms to assist scholars in determining appropriateness and number of references to use: one outlines the process; one provides strategies by which to evaluate currency of references; and one offers guidelines for determining an appropriate number of references. In addition, scholars need to consider how quickly information is developing in their particular area of expertise, as recency of references can be crucial to disciplinary understanding on a topic. This point is particularly relevant when considering submitting to a journal which is clinically focused.
All scholars want to provide support for their ideas. Making certain they demonstrate breadth and depth of understanding requires willingness to go “back in time” so they avoid disciplinary amnesia. Continuing to foster curiosity about what is known is critical and requires a balanced approach that includes accessing a range of literature within and outside the discipline. Not doing so could limit the contribution their work could make. No scholar wishes for this.
In conclusion, readers, reviewers and editors expect that authors will demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the science of which they write. Please do not forget the classics! Those scientists and authors are leaders that paved the way for the rich nursing science that continues to benefit international public health and advances the nursing workforce.
全文翻譯（僅供參考）
為什么包括古典作品很重要？省略重要的基礎參考資料可能會導致不必要的人力和其他資源支出，以試圖解決以前解決和傳播的問題。Gottlieb ( 2003 ) 認為，省略此類事件反映了“一種知識的年齡歧視——丟棄舊的以創造新的幻覺”（第 3 頁）。此外，雖然在臨床實踐中獲得最新信息很重要 [我們也會添加教育實踐]，但她認為護理學科超出了干預范圍，可以理解人類狀況。因此，學者們不需要重做從早期工作中獲得的知識；相反，學者需要應用和擴展這些知識。勞和萊貝克（2015 年）)，兩位社會學家都認為，對文獻搜索設置年份限制會導致學科健忘癥，并強調關注“贏家”——或者在這篇社論近期文獻的情況下——會減少學科知識和理解。Gottlieb ( 2003 ) 很好地捕捉到了關于對參考文獻的流通加以限制的持續關注。她說：
“如果我們不能停下來思考我們在做什么以及為什么要這樣做，我們就有可能使護理科學倒退而不是前進。我們冒著重新發明輪子的風險，或者充其量是旋轉我們的輪子。我們冒著在不知不覺中促進知識年齡歧視的風險，并在這樣做時規劃根非常淺的樹”（第 3 頁）
學者可以做些什么來避免紀律性遺忘？學者們在如何最好地引用他們的想法和展示他們對他們所討論的主題的掌控上掙扎，特別是在參考文獻的數量和新近度方面，這種情況并不少見。所有學者面臨的挑戰是如何最好地傳達他們在某個主題上的專業知識，認識到“將學術工作建立在近期文獻的基礎上是最佳實踐”（Owens 等人，2020 年，第 1 頁）。但是，“當最近發表的信息很少或關于某個主題的大量重要的歷史和有影響力的工作”（Owens 等人，2020 年，第 1 頁）時，確定引用哪些參考文獻可能會出現問題。
了解關于某個主題的已知內容需要在搜索文獻時具有深度和廣度。盡管了解護士學者 [學科] 關于主題的看法很重要，但了解其他學科 [綜合] 正在做什么同樣重要。Gardner ( 2006 ) 在他的《Five Minds for the Future》一書中強調了這兩個問題。. 重要的是，他區分了主題和紀律，強調紀律嚴明的頭腦是“看待世界的獨特方式”（第 27 頁）。文獻檢索的深度有助于學者了解某個主題的學科觀點。廣泛的搜索有助于發展綜合思維，即反映訪問、審查和將外部護理文獻整合到學者工作中的思維。
第一步是爭取平衡的觀點（Owens 等人，2020 年）并使用可用資源。學者在通過查閱文獻開始探索問題時，應首先咨詢圖書館員，這是關鍵的第一步。盡管這種說法似乎不言自明，但學者們并不總是采取第一步，這限制了文獻檢索的全面性。一個好的做法是不要將搜索限制在最近 5 年，因為一些當局認為時間范圍在 5 到 10 年之間是合適的（Owens 等人，2020）。這樣做變得更加重要，因為重要的歷史工作可能比這個時間線更早。因此，延長年份范圍似乎是一種合理的方法，以確保不會錯過重要文獻。當然，作為一名學者，沒有什么比有人指出一位學者在他或她的工作中忽略了批判性工作更糟糕的了。此外，對文獻進行全面搜索可能會在論文發表很久之后發現重要的工作，但在該主題的最近工作中沒有引用；宋等人。( 2018) 稱這些文件為睡紙。換句話說，睡眠論文是那些在發表多年后被重新發現的論文，反映出它們經歷了從發表到重新發現的休眠期，可以跨越幾十年。睡紙所做的重要貢獻直到它們被重新發現才發生。
另一個策略是反思為什么學者用參考文獻支持他們的工作。鑒于“現代科學基于信任”（Milojevic，2012 年，第 e49176 頁），參考文獻提供了關于某個主題的思考如何隨時間演變的可見記錄。換句話說，參考文獻“是一種追蹤科學進化的機制”（Camacho-Mi?anoNú?ez-Nickel，2009 年，第 754 頁）。將作品放在已知的更大背景下可以幫助識別值得參考的重要舊作品。
決策算法可能會有所幫助。歐文斯等人。( 2020 ) 提供三種決策算法，以幫助學者確定使用的適當性和參考文獻數量：一種概述過程；一個提供了評估參考文獻的策略；一個提供了確定適當數量的參考文獻的指南。此外，學者需要考慮信息在其特定專業領域的發展速度，因為參考文獻的新近性對于學科理解某個主題至關重要。在考慮向以臨床為重點的期刊投稿時，這一點尤其重要。
所有學者都希望為他們的想法提供支持。確保他們表現出理解的廣度和深度需要愿意“回到過去”，這樣他們才能避免紀律性健忘癥。繼續培養對已知事物的好奇心至關重要，需要一種平衡的方法，包括訪問學科內外的一系列文獻。不這樣做可能會限制他們的工作可以做出的貢獻。沒有學者希望如此。
THE