It takes a village to create the evidence: you, your research, and

the JMLASusan S. Starr, Ph.D.

Editor, JMLAApril 2010

“Intimidating, isn’t it?”

Role of the JMLAThe Publication ProcessTips for Contributors – You!Changes on the Horizon

Topics for today

“Creating and Communicating our Knowledge by helping to develop the knowledge base of health information research and practice to demonstrate the value of health information for improved health, improve professional practice, and support lifelong learning.”

• MLA Strategic Plan

Why does MLA have a journal?

Purpose of the JMLA “The JMLA is an international, peer-reviewed

specialty journal that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship and information provision.”

• From JMLA Information for authors: http://www.mlanet.org/publications/jmla/jmlainfo.html#scope

Why the JMLA?

Information Dissemination

Quality control

Canonical archive

Author Recognition

JMLA – part of the MLA communication network

Section Listservs

Quality Control, Author Recognition, and Archiving

JMLA: Scholarly and Professional

Scholarly: In depth original research, reviewed by other scholars

Professional: Also contain profession or industry related news

“The JMLA subscribes to the Department of Health and Human Services definition of research, “a systematic investigation … designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge”

From JMLA Information for Authors

Full length papers

“Manuscripts that report interesting and important developments related to the practice of health sciences librarianship but do not aim to be comprehensive or research oriented in nature may be published as brief communications.”

From JMLA Information for Authors

Brief Communications

“Manuscripts reporting the resolution of a problem or issue important to health sciences librarianship in an in-depth manner may be published as case studies.”

From JMLA Information for Authors

Case Studies

JMLA: Scholarly and Professional

Research papers

33%

Brief Com.50%

Case Study8%

Editorials8%

It Takes a Village

Contributors

Readers

Editors

Reviewers

88%

5% 7%

81 Publications

U.S Canada Other

ContributorsMay 2008-April 2010

72%5%4%

20%

196 Submissions

US CanadaChina Other

Readers

8500 Articles in PMC

1200 HTML views/day

500-600 PDF’s viewed/day

5 Year impact factor of 1.71CRL = 1.16Health Info & Libraries = .94

1. Use of Facebook in academic health sciences libraries2. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? 3. Mapping the literature of case management nursing 4. Mapping the literature of transcultural nursing 5. Web 2.0 tools in medical and nursing school curricula6. Mapping the literature of nursing education 7. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar8. The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD)

structure: a fifty-year survey 9. Development and evaluation of evidence-based nursing (EBN)

filters and related databases 10. Google Scholar

What are they reading? (pdf views)

Average number of manuscripts processed = 90Reviews per manuscript = 3Number of Peer Reviewers = 23 (plus subject

specialists)

Reviewers are asked to comment on: Scope, Objectives Content Organization Methodology, Approach, Conclusions Writing Style, References

Reviewers

The article is well written, the methodology is appropriate, and the content is of interest to the readers of JMLA. My only concern is that the study started in 2003 and ended in 2006.

On p. 3, you start talking about the NCBI search engine and PubMed content without having introduced what they are.  Even in the next paragraph where you give these terms some  context, you need to spell out NCBI.  

You need to be more explicit about the logic of using the MeSH headings found in a PubMed search of a topic as the headings used to search your resources.

Typical Comments

The paper proceeds logically but needs a stronger statement of purpose at the beginning of the paper – a statement about the who, what, and how many of the current study. Indeed, it wasn’t until the Results/Discussion section that the survey period - 2008 - is clarified. Only by adding the figures in Table 1 is the total number of programs (177) revealed.

This project is a great example of the added value librarians can provide to instruction at almost any level, and the Brief Communication format could inspire some early adopters. The authors simply need to promote the librarian responsibilities a little more and provide additional detail regarding the methodology

Typical Comments

Editorial TeamSusan Starr, Editor

Associate EditorsCase Studies: Josephine Dorsch, AHIPBook Reviews: Janet M. CogganBuilding Projects: Logan Ludwig, AHIPElectronic Resources Reviews: Jennifer ReiswigHistory/Obituaries: Ellen Gay DetlefsenHospital Libraries: Michele S. Klein Fedyshin, AHIPProceedings: Kristine Alpi, AHIP and Diana Delgado, AHIP

Editorial Team

Relevance◦ Is this important to health science librarians

Reliability◦ Are the results likely to be replicable?

Validity◦Do the results mean what the author says they mean or are

there other plausible explanations?

What Editors look for

Originality◦ Published elsewhere?

Clarity◦ Can it be edited?

Implications◦Will our readers be interested?

Fit with JMLA category requirements◦ Full-length, brief communication, case study

What Editors look for

Do’s and Don’ts : the beginning

Do Don’t

Have an interesting question (to you and to others)

Always refer to the literature to provide context for your question

Assume everyone else thinks the question is interesting too

Twist the literature to support your viewpoint

Method Do’s and Don’ts

Do Don’t

Use a standard methodology

Read other JMLA papers to see what information is required

Skip over details Use a biased sample Use complex statistics

you don’t understand

The KISS Strategy works best!!

Format Do’s and Don’ts

Do Don’t

Let the abstract format be your guide◦ Research paper◦ Case Study

Include implications in your Discussion

Integrate Results and Discussion

Submit a project description without including some evaluation

Overstate your results

Do: write for your audience Do: provide enough information for reviewers to

judge the validity of your results Don’t: submit a small scale survey, project report or

benchmarking survey as a full-length paper Don’t: be surprised if your paper requires

substantial editing prior to publication

In general

Scholarly Journals

Wikis

BlogsListservs

Institutional Repositories

Horizon Issues

A new unit of publication

Not the Issue But the Article

Cover art Editorials Columns Advertisements Book reviews THE BRAND

On the “cutting room floor”

The Answer?

Information Dissemination

Quality control

Canonical archive

Author Recognition

SCHOLARLY JOURNAL

Implications

Scholarly Journals

Scholarly Journals

More Disintermediation for Libraries?

Competitors are out there

Researchblogging.orgAutomatically posted comments on peer reviewed research from qualified bloggers

Scienceblogs.comUp to date issues and research from expert scientists

And…the more things change…

In Conclusion….It Takes a Village

Contributors

Readers

Editors

Reviewers