Qualitative Research Publication Rates in Top-Ranked Nursing Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Journal publication is the traditional means of disseminating research. Few top-ranked general medical and health services and policy research journals publish qualitative research. OBJECTIVES: This study examined qualitative research publication rates in top-ranked nursing journals with varying characteristics (general vs. specialty focus, number of issues per year) and compared publication rates with those previously reported for journals in related fields. METHODS: A bibliometric approach was used to identify and quantify qualitative articles published in 10 top-ranked nursing journals from 2002 to 2011. RESULTS: The percentage of qualitative empirical studies varied within and across nursing journals with no apparent association with journal characteristics. Although variable, qualitative research appears more common in high-ranking nursing journals than in general medical and health services and policy research journals. DISCUSSION: Examining factors that contribute to inconsistent rates may identify strategies to optimize qualitative research reporting and publication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.186 | 0.541 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.045 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".