Environments for nursing scholarship and journal impact factor in five countries

• Published in: International nursing review 2010-09, Vol.57 (3), p.343-351
• Main Authors: Ketefian, S., Dai, Y.-T., Hanucharurnkul, S., Mendes, I.A.C., Norman, I.J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Americas; Asia; Brazil; Environments for Nursing Scholarship; Faculty, Nursing - organization & administration; Humans; Impact Factor; Impact factors; Informants; Nursing; Nursing Research - organization & administration; Nursing Research - trends; Nursing Science; Organizational Policy; Periodicals; Periodicals as Topic - trends; Professors; Publishing - trends; Taiwan; Thailand; United Kingdom; United States of America
• ISSN: 0020-8132; 1466-7657
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2010.00819.x

KETEFIAN S., DAI Y.‐T., HANUCHARURNKUL S., MENDES I.A.C. & NORMAN I.J. (2010) Environments for nursing scholarship and journal impact factor in five countries. International Nursing Review57, 343–351 Background:  Universities worldwide are seeking objective measures for the assessment of their faculties' research products to evaluate them and to attain prestige. Despite concerns, the impact factors (IF) of journals where faculties publish have been adopted. Research objective:  The study aims to explore conditions created within five countries as a result of policies requiring or not requiring faculty to publish in high IF journals, and the extent to which these facilitated or hindered the development of nursing science. Design:  The design was a multiple case study of Brazil, Taiwan, Thailand (with IF policies, Group A), United Kingdom and the United States (no IF policies, Group B). Key informants from each country were identified to assist in subject recruitment. Methods:  A questionnaire was developed for data collection. The study was approved by a human subject review committee. Five faculty members of senior rank from each country participated. All communication occurred electronically. Findings:  Groups A and B countries differed on who used the policy and the purposes for which it was used. There were both similarities and differences across the five countries with respect to hurdles, scholar behaviour, publishing locally vs. internationally, views of their science, steps taken to internationalize their journals. Conclusions:  In group A countries, Taiwan seemed most successful in developing its scholarship. Group B countries have continued their scientific progress without such policies. IF policies were not necessary motivators of scholarship; factors such as qualified nurse scientists, the resource base in the country, may be critical factors in supporting science development.