Recognizing Excellence in Knowledge Dissemination: The Nursing Journal Hall of Fame
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing knowledge and innovations are disseminated primarily through peer-reviewed publications in scholarly journals. At the present time, there are approximately 250 journals in the profession of nursing, representing all specialties and an international, global focus. Of this group, 25 have been honored by induction into the Nursing Journal Hall of Fame, which was established by the International Academy of Nursing Editors in 2018. This article introduces the Hall of Fame and the journals that have been inducted to date. Hall of Fame journals have a sustained publication history of 50 years or more and represent excellence in nursing through the articles published and journal editorial leadership. Studying the history of this group of journals reveals trends within different specialties as well as the profession of nursing overall. For many of the journals, there were particular editors who were visionary and transformative. Knowing their stories is important for the historical record of nursing publication. Celebrating nursing journal history through the Hall of Fame and understanding the unique leadership role of nursing editors, past and present, is an important and fitting tribute to nursing knowledge during the Year of the Nurse and Nurse Midwife in 2020.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".