Dissertations and Theses in Top Nursing Publications: A Bibliometric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective - To investigate the overall prevalence of citations to theses and dissertations, as well as their prevalence in feature articles, editorials, and review articles in top research nursing journals. To evaluate differences between journals and to determine whether there was a change in use over time. Methods - Journals were selected from the Medical Library Association’s Nursing and Allied Health Resource Section’s 2012 Selected List of Nursing Journals. An evaluation was conducted of citations from 3,711 articles published in 2011 and 2018 in 7 top nursing journals. Thesis and dissertation citations were identified and categorized by type of scholarly communication: feature articles, reviews, and editorials. Analysis was conducted for the prevalence of citations for theses and dissertations based on percentage of overall citations and the percentage of articles with a thesis and dissertation citation. Results - Thesis and dissertation citations accounted for 0.41% of all citations. However, 9.43% of the articles contained at least one thesis and dissertation citation. Feature articles contained more thesis and dissertation citations than review articles and editorials. The Journal of Advanced Nursing, Journal of Clinical Nursing, and the Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences published a higher percentage of articles with at least one thesis and dissertation citation. Conclusion - The overall use of theses and dissertations in nursing scholarship is comparatively low compared to other forms of scholarly communication. However, this unique form of scholarship viewed from its impact on the percentage of scholarly articles in nursing demonstrates that theses and dissertations have made more of a contribution than previously reported. Our research provides libraries and the nursing academy with empirical evidence for the value of theses and dissertations. It provides librarians and the nursing academy justification for continuing efforts to preserve, enhance access through digital repositories, and to continue to explore strategies to promote the use of theses and dissertations in research.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchBibliometrics Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.146 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".