Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This editorial marks a significant moment for Nursing Inquiry. After over 10 years as editor-in-chief, I am delighted to be handing over to Sally Thorne, professor at University of British Columbia. The editorship of Nursing Inquiry has provided me with a wonderful opportunity for academic growth that I owe entirely to Judith Parker, who skillfully managed to slot me into the driver’s seat before I realized what was happening. Over the years, I have tried to stay true to the brilliant vision of Parker and her co-conspirators and to ensure Nursing Inquiry functions as a forum for new ways of thinking about practice. The importance of such a forum cannot be underestimated. Impact factors and H-index rankings can make us output orientated and risk averse. Moreover, it is increasingly difficult to publish scholarship that is not ‘data-driven’ in the health sciences and therefore Nursing Inquiry plays a critical role in fostering debate, engaging with divergent scholars and supporting the theoretical work that is the foundation of good empirical work. Nursing Inquiry has always maintained the highest production standards, patiently insisted on rigorous reviews from world experts, and worked hard to remain receptive to new ideas and new approaches to practice from scholars around the world. The opportunities to reach this global scholarly community have been enormously enhanced by the expanded e-platforms provided by Wiley-Blackwell and their formidable marketing and distribution network. It has been very exciting as editor to discover the real connection nurses have with Nursing Inquiry in places as diverse as Brazil and Singapore. It is a unique scholarly community – eclectic, creative, risk taking and, at times, iconoclastic. One vital element of our constituency has been doctoral students who have looked to Nursing Inquiry during their struggles with their theory chapters. A great many of our papers eventually come from these very students, as they complete their studies and are then in a position to add to the scholarship that guided them through their doctoral work. The community that supports Nursing Inquiry, whose voice it represents, includes philosophers, anthropologists, historians, political scientists, social theorists, psychoanalysts, ethicists and sociologists. It is this rich interface between nurses, health professionals, the social sciences and the humanities that has made this journal unique. Its conceptualization of nursing scholarship has been broad – defined by the topic of interest rather than the disciplinary field. Although controversial in some quarters, in my view this path has proved its worth as Nursing Inquiry has continued to publish fresh and interesting work, work that makes us think again, over the years. While the editor-in-chief is the public face of the journal, Nursing Inquiry has always been a team effort. The two deputy editors, Michael Traynor in the UK and Judith Parker in Australia, have played a critical role in maintaining the quality and consistency of the journal over the years and I need to thank them for their willingness to pick up whatever I have asked of them. Their advice has always been unerring. Carla Taines, the editorial manager, has been with Nursing Inquiry since its early days and has been a joy to work with. Carla is a remarkable editor, and as the many hundreds of authors who have worked with her over the years will attest, her professionalism and wisdom have provided the backbone to the journal and certainly kept me on track. Many will have interacted with the editorial assistant in their dealings with the journal. I have had the pleasure of working for many years with Debbie Fleming (in Melbourne) and Brigid Nelson (in Toronto). Both were wonderful to work with, very responsive to authors and reviewers (and on occasion caught in the middle) and always highly professional. Colleagues at Blackwell, now Wiley-Blackwell, too, have been enormously committed to the journal’s success and very supportive of the editorial team. Nursing Inquiry is now in great hands. Sally Thorne will be a terrific editor-in-chief and will take the journal and its very special community of scholars exactly where it needs to be. I know it will continue to be a beacon for doctoral students and scholars around the world as they grapple with the ever deepening complexities of practice. My editorship has been a wonderful and privileged learning experience. I thank everyone for their support and look forward to seeing the journal go from strength to strength under Sally’s leadership.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».