3.9 Article

Trends in scientific editing and good research practices: what do researchers-nurses know?

Journal

REVISTA DA ESCOLA DE ENFERMAGEM DA USP
Volume 56, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

UNIV SAO PAOLO
DOI: 10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2021-0393

Keywords

Nursing; Research Personnel; Research; Publishing; Scholarly Communication; Knowledge

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to verify the knowledge of researchers-nurses regarding trends in scientific publishing and good research practices. The results of the survey showed that nurses with master's and doctoral degrees had limited knowledge about these topics, particularly in relation to predatory editorial practices.
Objective: To verify researchers-nurses' knowledge about trends in scientific publishing and good research practices. Method: A descriptive study carried out through an online survey with 197 nurses holding master's and/or doctoral degrees from all Brazilian regions. To raise knowledge, a validated, self-administered and anonymous questionnaire with 18 questions on the subject was used. Descriptive and inferential analyzes were performed on researchers' scores (Mann-Whitney test). Results: Among the specific questions, the mean of correct answers was 7.1: 6.4 for master's and 7.4 for doctoral degree holders. There was a significant difference in the mean of correct answers between masters and doctors (p = 0.025), and between productivity scholarship holders and non-scholarship holders (p = 0.021), according to mean difference tests. Questions about predatory editorial practices were those in which researchers had the worst knowledge. Conclusion: We identified that, regardless of the education level (master's or doctoral degree), nurses have little knowledge about the topics studied, which can compromise the quality of production and the scientific vehicles used to disseminate this knowledge.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available