HA599 Discussion Unit 3
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2 153
Nurses
Nurses are often reticent to write for publication. All too often, nurses are heard to say things like, “I’m not teaching, so why should I publish?” or “I’m too busy, and even if I had something to write about, I’m sure someone else could say it better.” Whatever the reason, for many nurses, profes- sional writing and submitting a manuscript for publication is a daunting task. However, nurses with clinical experi- ences can positively impact the profession and patient out- comes by contributing to nursing knowledge through pub- lications. “Nurses have a wealth of knowledge gained through direct clinical experience. Writing for publication provides an opportunity to share this knowledge with col- leagues and contribute to nursing knowledge in a broader sense” (Happel, 2012, p. 34). This article discusses the pur- pose of publishing and the types of articles more likely to get published, and provides steps and resources to help nurse authors in both clinical and academic settings devel- op manuscripts that lead to publication.
Reasons for Publishing Writing for publication is a valuable method used by
nurses to communicate their knowledge and experiences to a broader audience. Publication is critical to extend nursing knowledge borders and to further develop nursing as a profession. Lessons learned regarding practice improvement, both successes and failures, can be benefi- cial to colleagues in other organizations or in other coun- tries (Dixon, 2001). Oermann and Hays (2016) assert that
Copyright 2020 American Nephrology Nurses Association Montoya, V., Astroth, K.S., & Decker, V. (2020). Nurses need to
publish scholarly articles: Overcoming reticence to sharing valuable experience. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 47(2), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.37526/1526-744X.2020.47.2. 153
This article is part of the “Exploring the Evidence: Focusing on the Fundamentals” series. It provides nephrology nurs- es with basic principles related to writing for publication, information regarding different types of professional arti- cles that may be used for the dissemination of nursing knowledge, as well as steps to follow and issues to consid- er in the planning and preparation of a manuscript.
Key Words: Publishing, scholarly writing, authorship, plagiarism, conflict of interest, practice-based articles, quality improvement articles, peer review.
Vicki Montoya, PhD, APRN, FNP-BC, is an Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL; and the Chair Designate of the ANNA Research Committee 2020-2021. Kim Schafer Astroth, PhD, RN, is a Professor, Illinois State University; Chair, ANNA Research Committee 2019-2020; and a member of ANNA’s Heart of Illinois Chapter. Veronica Decker, DNP, APRN, PMHCNS-BC, MBA, is an Assistant Professor, the University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL Statement of Disclosure: The authors reported no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this continuing nursing education activity. Note: Additional statements of disclosure and instructions for CNE eval- uation can be found on page 163.
Exploring the Evidence is a department in the Nephrology Nursing Journal designed to provide a summary of evidence- based research reports related to contemporary nephrology nursing practice issues. Content for this department is provided by members of the ANNA Research Committee. Committee members review the current literature related to a clinical practice topic and provide a summary of the evidence and implications for best practice. Readers are invited to submit questions or topic areas that pertain to evidence-based nephrology practice issues. Address correspondence to: LInda Wright, Exploring the Evidence Department Editor, at NNJEvidence@ajj.com. The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Nephrology Nurses Association.
Nurses Need to Publish Scholarly Articles: Overcoming Reticence to Sharing Valuable Experience Vicki Montoya, PhD, APRN, FNP-BC, Kim Schafer Astroth, PhD, RN, and Veronica Decker, DNP, APRN, PMHCNS-BC, MBA
1.3 contact hours
N e p h r o l o g y N u r s i N g J o u r N a l
Exploring the Evidence: Focusing on the Fundamentals
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2154
there are five main reasons why nurses write for publica- tion: to share ideas and experiences with others; to dissem- inate research findings and the outcomes of evidence- based projects; for promotion, tenure, and career develop- ment; to expand personal knowledge and skills through the writing process; and to achieve a personal sense of accomplishment.
Article Types Several article types are at the writer’s disposal. These
include practice-based articles, reports on quality improve- ment (QI) initiatives, original research, education, and pro- fessional issues. Table 1 includes a list of article types with published exemplars for each.
Practice-Based Articles Practice-based articles are those that target experiential
aspects of nursing practice and patient care. They are less theoretical and more practice-based. These types of articles can illustrate problem-solving skills and/or clinical deci- sion-making (Happell, 2012), and usually report specific instances of an interesting phenomenon in patient care.
Case studies. Before the dominant use of large, ran- domized clinical trials and evidence-based literature to support patient care standards, published case studies were a commonly used, primary source of nursing information (Alpi & Evans, 2019; Rosoff, 2019). For nurses who are new to writing for professional publication, or who have encountered a case that they believe their peers can learn from, a case study is a good place to begin. Journals often endorse the use of international standards for clinical case report publications, and these can be found through CARE guidelines (CAse REport Guidelines, n.d.).
Evidence-based practice. Practice-based articles may also be used to describe the implementation of an evi- dence-based practice (EBP) in a specific clinical site. EBP is a thoughtful and deliberate use of current best evidence in practice in combination with clinical expertise and patient values as a problem-solving approach to clinical decision-making (Titler, 2008). The process begins with a relevant clinical question (Oermann et al., 2018). While results of one EBP project may not be generalizable to a different site, the results of a published EBP project can be used to inform others who might be interested in solving similar problems in their own clinical environment.
Quality improvement article. A current emphasis on health care quality and safety has resulted in the growth of quality improvement (QI) initiatives and studies, and nurses are often involved in these initiatives (Silver et al., 2016). QI typically results from a combined effort between health care staff and stakeholders to diagnose and treat problems in the health care system (Silver, et al., 2016). Common frameworks used for QI include the Model for Improvement using “Plan-Do-Study-Act” (PDSA) prob- lem solving, Lean, and Six Sigma process improvement methodology (Silver et al., 2016; U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services Health [DHHS] Resources and Services Administration, 2011), as well as The Care Model and Focus-Analyze-Develop-Execute (FADE) Model (DHHS Resources and Services Administration, 2011). QI projects are usually specific to a practice site or institution but may include a collaborative effort between multiple sites (DHSS Resources and Services Admi - nistration, 2011; Newhouse et al., 2006). QI utilizes a sys- tematic approach to focus on the translation of existing knowledge from research into clinical practice, instead of a focus on developing or contributing to generalizable knowledge (Newhouse et al., 2006). QI articles increasing- ly represent Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) projects (Broome et al., 2013). Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 guidelines provide a schema for the reporting of new knowledge regarding methods to improve health care and can be adapted for use with any QI framework (Ogrinc et al., 2016).
Original Research Articles Research articles are based on a systematic investiga-
tion of a phenomenon with a purpose of generating new knowledge for practice or adding to existing evidence (Newhouse et al., 2006). The scientific method is used to answer research questions or test a hypothesis in an orderly and sequential manner (Polit & Beck, 2008). Research can be categorized as quantitative (data are precise measure- ments, and statistical analysis is typically included), qualita- tive (collection and analysis of narrative data), mixed meth- ods (quantitative and qualitative data are both collected to answer separate, related questions), or a secondary analysis (reanalysis of data collected in another study to answer a new question) (Polit & Beck, 2008).
When writing a manuscript that describes a research study or a QI project with a research component, a struc- tured format typically follows the research process (Oermann & Hays, 2016). In research studies, the Methods section should include a statement indicating that the research was approved by an independent local, regional, or national review body, such as an ethics committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Exploring the Evidence: Focusing on the Fundamentals
Nephrology Nursing Journal Author Guidelines: https://www.annanurse.org/nnj/author-guidelines
For additional information, listen to the writing for publica- tion session presented by Beth Ulrich, EdD, RN, FACHE, FAONL, FAAN, Editor-in-Chief of the Nephrology Nursing Journal during the 2019 ANNA National Symposium: Ulrich, B. (2019, April 16). From idea to article: Writing for pub-
lication [Conference session]. American Nephrology Nurses Association National Symposium, Dallas, TX. https://library.annanurse.org/anna/sessions/6672/view
Nephrology Nursing Journal Author Resources
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2 155
Nurses Need to Publish Scholarly Articles: Overcoming Reticence to Sharing Valuable Experience T a b
le 1
T y p
e s o
f A
rt ic
le s a
n d
E x e m
p la
rs
Ty p
e o
f A
rt ic
le S
u b
c a
te g
o ri
e s
D e
s c
ri p
ti o
n E
x e
m p
la rs
*
Li te
ra tu
re re
vi ew
• Sy
st em
at ic
re vi
ew
• M
et a-
an al
ys is
•
M et
a- sy
nt he
si s
• Li
te ra
tu re
re vi
ew –
A n
ob je
ct iv
e sy
nt he
si s
of th
e cu
rre nt
s ta
te o
f ev
id en
ce o
n a
to pi
c (P
ol it
& Be
ck ,
20 08
). •
Sy st
em at
ic re
vi ew
– In
te gr
at es
re se
ar ch
ev
id en
ce a
bo ut
a re
se ar
ch q
ue st
io n
us in
g a
pr es
el ec
te d
pr ot
oc ol
a s
a gu
id e.
•
M et
a- an
al ys
is –
S ys
te m
at ic
re vi
ew th
at
in vo
lv es
s ta
tis tic
al in
te gr
at io
n of
fin
di ng
s.
• M
et a-
sy nt
he si
s –
Sy st
em at
ic re
vi ew
o f
qu al
ita tiv
e st
ud ie
s th
at y
ie ld
n ew
in
te rp
re ta
tio ns
.
L it
e ra
tu re
R e
vi e
w
H ar
as , M
.S .,
As tro
th , K
.S .,
W oi
th , W
.L .,
& Ko
ss m
an , S
.P . (
20 15
). Ex
pl or
in g
ad va
nc e
ca re
p la
nn in
g fro
m th
e ne
ph ro
lo gy
n ur
se
pe rs
pe ct
iv e:
A li
te ra
tu re
re vi
ew . N
e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
4 2
(1 ),
23 -3
6. tt
ps ://
lib ra
ry .a
nn an
ur se
.o rg
/a nn
a/ ar
tic le
s/ 12
13 /v
ie w
Sy
s te
m a
ti c
R e
vi e
w
H ar
w oo
d, L
., W
ils on
, B .,
Py e,
D .,
& St
ro ud
, N . (
20 19
). Ev
id en
ce -
ba se
d re
vi ew
s: T
re nd
s in
n ep
hr ol
og y
nu rs
in g.
N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
4 6
(2 ),
24 9-
25 0.
h ttp
s: //l
ib ra
ry .a
nn an
ur se
. or
g/ an
na /a
rti cl
es /2
29 2/
vi ew
Re se
ar ch
• Q
ua nt
ita tiv
e •
Q ua
lit at
iv e
• M
ix ed
m et
ho ds
•
Se co
nd ar
y an
al ys
is
• Q
ua nt
ita tiv
e –
St ud
y of
p he
no m
en on
th
at c
an b
e m
ea su
re d
pr ec
is el
y an
d qu
an tif
ie d,
o fte
n us
in g
a rig
or ou
s an
d co
nt ro
lle d
de si
gn .
• Q
ua lit
at iv
e –
St ud
y th
at in
ve st
ig at
es a
ph
en om
en on
th ro
ug h
a co
lle ct
io n
of
na rra
tiv e
m at
er ia
ls , u
si ng
a m
or e
fle xi
bl e
de si
gn .
• M
ix ed
m et
ho ds
– S
tu dy
th at
c ol
le ct
s an
d an
al yz
es b
ot h
qu an
tit at
iv e
an d
qu al
ita tiv
e da
ta ; u
se d
to a
dd re
ss
di ffe
re nt
b ut
re la
te d
qu es
tio ns
. •
Se co
nd ar
y an
al ys
is –
D at
a co
lle ct
ed in
a
st ud
y ar
e re
an al
yz ed
in a
no th
er
an al
ys is
to a
ns w
er n
ew q
ue st
io ns
.
S e
c o
n d
a ry
A n
a ly
s is
H
ar fo
rd , R
., C
la rk
, M .J
., N
or ris
, K .C
., &
Ya n,
G . (
20 16
). Re
la tio
ns hi
p be
tw ee
n ag
e an
d pr
e- en
d st
ag e
re na
l d is
ea se
ca
re in
e ld
er ly
p at
ie nt
s tre
at ed
w ith
m ai
nt en
an ce
he
m od
ia ly
si s.
N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
4 3
(2 ),
10 1-
10 7.
ht
tp s:
//l ib
ra ry
.a nn
an ur
se .o
rg /a
nn a/
ar tic
le s/
12 85
/v ie
w
Q u
a lit
a ti
ve
N ic
ho la
s, D
.B .,
Ka uf
m an
, M .,
Pi ns
k, M
., Sa
m ue
l, S.
, H am
iw ka
, L.
, & M
ol za
hn , A
.E . (
20 18
). Ex
am in
in g
th e
tra ns
iti on
fr om
ch
ild to
a du
lt ca
re in
c hr
on ic
k id
ne y
di se
as e:
A n
op en
ex
pl or
at or
y ap
pr oa
ch . N
e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
4 5
(6 ),
55 3-
55 9.
h ttp
s: //l
ib ra
ry .a
nn an
ur se
.o rg
/a nn
a/ ar
tic le
s/ 21
64 /v
ie w
Q I p
ro je
ct s/
pr ac
tic e
im pr
ov em
en t
• D
N P
pr oj
ec ts
• Q
ua lit
y im
pr ov
em en
t – S
ys te
m at
ic a
nd
co nt
in uo
us a
ct io
ns in
o rg
an iz
at io
ns
le ad
in g
to m
ea su
ra bl
e im
pr ov
em en
t i n
he al
th ca
re s
er vi
ce s
an d
he al
th s
ta tu
s of
sp
ec ifi
c pa
tie nt
g ro
up s
(U .S
. D
ep ar
tm en
t o f H
ea lth
a nd
H um
an
Se rv
ic es
h ea
lth R
es ou
rc es
a nd
Se
rv ic
es A
dm in
is tra
tio n,
2 01
1)
G ee
r, J.
J. (2
01 6)
. I nc
re as
in g
va cc
in at
io n
ra te
s in
a p
ed ia
tri c
ch ro
ni c
he m
od ia
ly si
s un
it. N
e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
4 3
(1 ),
31 -3
3, 3
7. h
ttp s:
//l ib
ra ry
.a nn
an ur
se .o
rg /a
nn a/
ar tic
le s/
12 77
/v ie
w
co n
tin u
e d
o n
n e
xt p
a g
e
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2156
Exploring the Evidence: Focusing on the Fundamentals T a b
le 1
( c o
n ti
n u
e d
) T y p
e s o
f A
rt ic
le s a
n d
E x e m
p la
rs
Ty p
e o
f A
rt ic
le S
u b
c a
te g
o ri
e s
D e
s c
ri p
ti o
n E
x e
m p
la rs
*
Ev id
en ce
-b as
ed
pr ac
tic e
(E BP
) in
iti at
iv es
• Im
pl em
en ta
tio n
of e
vi de
nc e-
ba se
d in
iti at
iv es
o r g
ui de
lin es
in to
p ra
ct ic
e. D
ut ka
, P .,
& Br
ic ke
l, H
. ( 20
10 ).
A pr
ac tic
al re
vi ew
o f t
he K
id ne
y D
ia ly
si s
O ut
co m
es Q
ua lit
y In
iti at
iv e
(K D
O Q
I) gu
id el
in es
fo r
he m
od ia
ly si
s ca
th et
er s
an d
th ei
r p ot
en tia
l i m
pa ct
o n
pa tie
nt
ca re
. N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
3 7
(5 ),
53 1.
h ttp
s: //l
ib ra
ry .
an na
nu rs
e. or
g/ an
na /a
rti cl
es /2
53 /v
ie w
H ea
lth p
ol ic
y an
al ys
is •
An al
ys is
o f h
ea lth
p ol
ic y
or e
nv iro
nm en
t re
ga rd
in g
a sp
ec ifi
c po
pu la
tio n,
di
ag no
si s,
o r t
re at
m en
t.
Ka o,
Y .S
. ( 20
15 ).
N ep
hr ol
og y
ad va
nc ed
p ra
ct ic
e re
gi st
er ed
n ur
se
he al
th p
ol ic
y: W
he re
a re
w e?
W ha
t i s
ou r f
ut ur
e?
N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
4 2
(3 ),
28 9-
29 3.
h ttp
s: //l
ib ra
ry .
an na
nu rs
e. or
g/ an
na /a
rti cl
es /1
24 3/
vi ew
N ew
o r e
vo lv
in g
AP N
o r n
ur si
ng
is su
es
• In
cl ud
es im
po rta
nt to
pi cs
in n
ep hr
ol og
y nu
rs in
g re
ga rd
in g
cu rre
nt p
at ie
nt c
ar e
or p
ra ct
ic e
pr ob
le m
s th
at w
ar ra
nt
de ba
te o
r d is
cu ss
io n.
H ai
n, D
., Su
ra fa
m , U
., &
Be ja
r, C
. ( 20
19 ).
Is su
es in
p al
lia tiv
e ca
re : P
ai n
m an
ag em
en t f
or a
du lts
w ith
e nd
s ta
ge re
na l
di se
as e.
N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al , 4
6 (4
), 43
7- 44
6.
ht tp
s: //l
ib ra
ry .a
nn an
ur se
.o rg
/a nn
a/ ar
tic le
s/ 23
93 /v
ie w
Ed uc
at io
n re
se ar
ch •
Si m
ul at
io n
us e
• Te
ac hi
ng m
et ho
ds •
C an
b e
fo cu
se d
on n
ep hr
ol og
y nu
rs es
or
s ta
ff (a
ny le
ve l)
w ho
p ro
vi de
c ar
e fo
r pa
tie nt
s or
o n
m et
ho ds
o f p
at ie
nt
ed uc
at io
n.
H ud
so n,
D .,
D un
ba r-R
ei d,
K .,
& Si
nc la
ir, P
.M . (
20 12
). Th
e in
co rp
or at
io n
of h
ig h-
fid el
ity s
im ul
at io
n tra
in in
g in
to
he m
od ia
ly si
s nu
rs in
g ed
uc at
io n:
P ar
t 2 –
A p
ic to
ria l g
ui de
to
m od
ify in
g a
hi gh
-fi de
lit y
si m
ul at
or fo
r u se
in s
im ul
at in
g he
m od
ia ly
si s.
N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
3 9
(2 ),
11 9-
12 3.
ht
tp s:
//l ib
ra ry
.a nn
an ur
se .o
rg /a
nn a/
ar tic
le s/
10 04
/v ie
w
C os
t- ef
fe ct
iv en
es s
• Ec
on om
ic a
na ly
si s
of h
ea lth
c ar
e in
te rv
en tio
ns o
r pa
tie nt
c ar
e
• An
al ys
is p
ro vi
de s
ev id
en ce
o f t
he c
os ts
an
d ef
fe ct
iv en
es s
of n
ur si
ng a
nd /o
r pa
tie nt
c ar
e in
te rv
en tio
ns c
om pa
re d
to
us ua
l c ar
e or
o th
er a
lte rn
at iv
es
(B en
si nk
e t a
l., 2
01 3)
.
D ay
, J . (
20 17
). In
pa tie
nt d
ia ly
si s
un it
pr oj
ec t d
ev el
op m
en t:
Re de
si gn
in g
ac ut
e he
m od
ia ly
si s
ca re
. N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
Jo
u rn
al ,
4 4
(3 ),
25 1-
25 5.
h ttp
s: //l
ib ra
ry .a
nn an
ur se
.o rg
/a nn
a/ ar
tic le
s/ 16
14 /v
ie w
co n
tin u
e d
o n
n e
xt p
a g
e
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2 157
Nurses Need to Publish Scholarly Articles: Overcoming Reticence to Sharing Valuable Experience T a b
le 1
( c o
n ti
n u
e d
) T y p
e s o
f A
rt ic
le s a
n d
E x e m
p la
rs
Ty p
e o
f A
rt ic
le S
u b
c a
te g
o ri
e s
D e
s c
ri p
ti o
n E
x e
m p
la rs
*
Pr ac
tic e-
ba se
d ar
tic le
s •
C as
e st
ud ie
s
• In
no va
tiv e
cl in
ic al
pr
ac tic
es
• Sy
nt he
si s
of
ex is
tin g
kn ow
le dg
e an
d gu
id el
in es
fo r
be st
p ra
ct ic
e •
Ex is
tin g
pr ac
tic es
in
di ffe
re nt
c lin
ic al
se
tti ng
s •
C lin
ic al
d ile
m m
as /
ho w
p ot
en tia
lly
ad dr
es se
d
• Ta
rg et
e xp
er ie
nt ia
l a sp
ec ts
o f n
ur si
ng
pr ac
tic e
an d
pa tie
nt c
ar e
(H ap
pe ll,
20
12 ).
C a
s e
S tu
d y
Aj i,
L. , &
B ec
k, D
. ( 20
17 ).
Ef fe
ct o
f f lu
id s
ta tu
s on
a cc
es s
bl oo
d flo
w m
ea su
re m
en ts
a s
ob se
rv ed
in a
h os
pi ta
l-b as
ed
he m
od ia
ly si
s un
it se
rv ic
in g
in pa
tie nt
s an
d ou
tp at
ie nt
s.
N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
4 4
(5 ),
46 2-
46 4.
ht
tp s:
//l ib
ra ry
.a nn
an ur
se .o
rg /a
nn a/
ar tic
le s/
16 69
/v ie
w
Sy n
th e
s is
Th
om ps
on -M
ar tin
, Y .,
M cC
ul lo
ug h,
P .A
., &
Ag ra
w al
, V . (
20 15
). Im
pa ct
o f a
n ed
uc at
io na
l p ro
gr am
fo r a
dv an
ce d
pr ac
tic e
nu rs
es o
n kn
ow le
dg e
of K
id ne
y D
is ea
se O
ut co
m es
Q ua
lit y
In iti
at iv
e G
ui de
lin es
. N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
4 2
(5 ),
45 5-
46 1.
h ttp
s: //l
ib ra
ry .a
nn an
ur se
.o rg
/a nn
a/ ar
tic le
s/ 12
57 /v
ie w
Te ch
no lo
gy •
N ew
te ch
no lo
gy
ap pl
ic at
io ns
to
im pr
ov e
th e
ca re
an
d liv
es o
f p at
ie nt
s
• H
ig hl
ig ht
u se
o f n
ew te
ch no
lo gi
ca l
in te
rv en
tio ns
in c
lin ic
al p
ra ct
ic e.
H of
fa rt
N . (
20 09
). A
lo ok
b ac
k. ..
N ep
hr ol
og y
nu rs
in g
19 15
-1 97
0:
A hi
st or
ic al
s tu
dy o
f t he
in te
gr at
io n
of te
ch no
lo gy
a nd
c ar
e [R
ep rin
te d
fro m
A N
N A
J o
u rn
al , v
ol . 1
6, n
o. 3
, p p.
1 69
-1 78
]. N
e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al ,
3 6
(2 ),
18 1-
19 1.
h ttp
s: //l
ib ra
ry .
an na
nu rs
e. or
g/ an
na /a
rti cl
es /1
59 /v
ie w
Le tte
r t o
th e
ed ito
r. •
C om
m en
ts a
s re
sp on
se s
(p os
iti ve
or
n eg
at iv
e) to
a
pr ev
io us
ly
pu bl
is he
d ar
tic le
•
Fe ed
ba ck
o n
ca se
re
po rts
•
Br ie
f f ee
db ac
k on
cl
in ic
al o
r r es
ea rc
h da
ta
• Ty
pe s
of s
ho rt
co m
m un
ic at
io ns
at
tra ct
in g
at te
nt io
n of
re ad
er s
to
ob je
ct iv
es o
r d is
cu ss
io ns
o n
m ed
ic al
, sc
ie nt
ifi c,
o r g
en er
al to
pi cs
(S üe
r &
Ya m
an , 2
01 3)
.
M cC
al l,
L. (2
01 8)
. L et
te r t
o th
e ed
ito r.
N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
Jo
u rn
al ,
4 5
(2 ),
22 3.
h ttp
s: //l
ib ra
ry .a
nn an
ur se
.o rg
/a nn
a/ ar
tic le
s/ 18
62 /v
ie w
*J ou
rn al
a rti
cl es
p ub
lis he
d in
th e
N e p
h ro
lo g
y N
u rs
in g
J o
u rn
al (b
eg in
ni ng
in 2
01 0)
a re
a va
ila bl
e w
ith ou
t c ha
rg e
to A
N N
A m
em be
rs .
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2158
Professional Issues Professional issues articles present important topics in
nursing that warrant discussion or debate. Topics may include varied aspects of patient care, standards of care or guidelines, ethical concerns, political issues, or nursing pro- fessionalism. These articles are typically shorter in length than many other article types and can include personal opinion or private views of the author(s).
Other Types of Articles Examples of other types of articles include literature
reviews, health policy analyses, education, economic analyses of health care interventions or patient care, and technology applications.
Getting Started
Topic and Title As previously discussed, potential topics for manu-
scripts may be found in professional or clinical issues, EBP and QI, and other research projects. Papers the writer has previously completed as part of a graduate or undergradu- ate degree program (e.g., thesis, capstone project, or QI project) may also be revised and submitted for publication in a professional journal.
Once the topic has been identified, a title should be chosen that clearly reflects the topic (e.g., Caring for Patients on Hemodialysis Who Are Depressed). Titles should be specific and straightforward as a general rule, without catchy phrases or clever wording. Title word limits are set by some journals, so changes may be required once a journal has been selected.
Literature Review and Choosing a Journal Next, writers need to think through or search an elec-
tronic library for what has been written on their topic in the
past. It is possible that a plethora of articles on a specific topic may be found when searching the literature. If so, reading the article abstract will help to determine the rele- vance of the article and to narrow the search. Some authors conduct a comprehensive and exhaustive review of the lit- erature on their topics; however, beginning writers may want to limit their search to publications from recognizable experts to start the process.
Writers should make note of journals that yield articles for the literature review and consider submitting their man- uscript to one of those journals. The presence of similar or relevant articles is often an indicator of interest in that topic on the part of a journal’s readers. A letter of query should be sent to the editor or assistant editor of a journal to ascer- tain their interest in the topic and the fit with their journal. Online resources also exist to help new writers find appro- priate journals for their article (see Table 2).
After the journal is selected, the writer should look online at the intended journal’s author guidelines for man- uscript submissions. Instructions for authors will include details like technical format, order of the manuscript, pre- ferred citation and reference style, manuscript categories (with detailed instructions for each category of article), and submission instructions. Most journals will have an online submission process that generally includes submitting a separate title page, abstract, body of the paper, and any fig- ures and tables. Journal staff must be informed if the con- tent has previously been submitted in any form, such as for presentation at a conference.
After Submission Once the manuscript is submitted, the primary author
will usually receive an email from the journal, confirming receipt. Typically, the manuscript is reviewed by the editor or an editorial team for appropriateness for the journal. If the manuscript is not suited for the journal, the author will be apprised of this information in a timely manner (Fisher
Exploring the Evidence: Focusing on the Fundamentals
Table 2 Manuscript Matching Tools and Resources
Resource Website
JANE Journal/Author Name Estimator http://jane.biosemantics.org/
Elsevier Journal Finder https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/
EndNote: Manuscript Matcher* https://endnote.com/product-details/manuscript-matcher/
Springer Journal Matcher https://journalsuggester.springer.com/
Edanz Journal Selector https://en-author-services.edanzgroup.com/journal-selector
Publish or Perish (Harzing, 2020) https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish
International Academy of Nursing Editors Journal Directory http://nursingeditors.com/
*Requires subscription.
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2 159
et al., 2017). If the manuscript is considered suitable for the journal, it will go to the next stage of review (Wood, 2018). This review process occurs in a variety of ways in different journals. The most common process involves peer review, or refereed review (Happell, 2012), in which the manu- script is sent to volunteer reviewers with expertise in the topic. Another term associated with the review process is double-blind. This essentially means reviewers do not know who the authors are, and the authors do not know who the reviewers are. This type of review ensures a fair and unbiased response (Happell, 2012). Peer reviewers (generally two to four) return their feedback to the journal editor, who will decide whether to ask for revisions to the manuscript, accept the manuscript with or without further revisions, or reject it. This decision will then be communi- cated to the primary author. The average time for the peer review process is approximately one to six months (Happell, 2012). Once the manuscript is accepted, it could take up to a year before the paper is published (Happell, 2012). When the journal is preparing to publish the article, the author will get a final version or proofs to review one last time for any changes (Likis & Swett, 2019). When the proofs are sent to the author, it is important to complete the changes and return the manuscript promptly.
It is rare that a manuscript would be accepted for pub- lication without further revisions (Wood, 2018). When revising the manuscript, carefully read and respond to each reviewer’s comments. One approach is to put all the reviewer comments in a table, with the comments on the left and the author’s detailed responses on the right (Likis & Swett, 2019). Another approach is to write a letter in which each reviewer’s comments are addressed (Fisher et al., 2017). Regardless of the process chosen, authors need to follow any instructions that are given regarding how revisions to the manuscript are to be handled, clearly iden- tify where the changes have been made, and return revi- sions according to the timeline given by the journal editor. If an author does not agree with a suggested revision or cannot make a revision due to limited data, this should be explained in the response to reviewers (Likis & Swett, 2019). It is important to maintain a respectful tone in responding to reviewers; these are colleagues who are vol- unteering their time to give you valuable feedback.
If the journal editor decides to reject the manuscript for publication, feedback may be provided. It is important not to get discouraged but to consider it a learning experience, and to review the feedback for any helpful tips to use when revising the manuscript for a future submission. Some common reasons that manuscripts may be rejected include lack of clarity and organization in the writing, methodolog- ical errors in reporting of data, failure to discuss the impor- tance of the work to the profession, ethical flaws, and hav- ing previously been published in another journal (Fisher et al., 2017). Perseverance and careful revision of the manu- script are essential to being successful.
Authorship, Credit, and Collaboration Why does authorship matter? Authorship denotes
credit and accountability for the information contained in an article. Significant personal satisfaction and feelings of accomplishment often accompany the acknowledgment of an author’s name with a publication. Authorship is impor- tant in academia, scholarship, funding opportunities, and for career advancement. Authorship may appear to be a simple and straightforward concept when writing an article for publication, but basic guidelines for authorship exist to eliminate confusion and promote fairness. The Inter - national Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (2019) recommends four criteria as guidelines for author- ship: substantially contributing to the article or research, drafting or revising the manuscript, approving the final version of the manuscript, and agreeing to be accountable for its contents.
Who is an author? To be considered an author, each author should meet the four criteria as recommended by the ICMJE (2019). Authorship includes not only those who have done the writing for the manuscript, but also those who have substantially contributed to the scientific processes of its contents (e.g., study design, organizing or conducting a statistical analysis, or interpreting study results) (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). Those who do not meet the four criteria but deserve credit for some aspect of the work should be acknowledged in the manuscript in the Acknow ledgments section (e.g., specific dialysis center that allowed the research to be completed in their facility). Specific journals may have their own guide- lines for authorship (Wiley, 2019).
Order of authorship. The order of authors is best established as a preliminary step to the writing because multiple authors are frequently responsible for a single manuscript (Fisher et al., 2017; ICMJE, 2019; Tarkang et al., 2017). The position of authorship after the article title typically denotes the contribution of each author to the writing and research contained in the article. The first author listed, the principal or lead author, is usually consid- ered the largest contributor to the work (APA, 2017). It is not unusual for disagreements over the order of authorship to arise if this is not agreed upon at the onset of writing. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2019) pro- vides many resources that may be used to help resolve authorship dilemmas. Journal editors should not be consid- ered arbitrators in these issues.
Faculty-student collaborations. In faculty-student collaborations at the doctoral level, the student is listed as the principal author in most instances (APA, 2017). At other academic education levels, the authorship should be determined by the relative contributions of the student and faculty member, in which case faculty mentors must demonstrate due diligence in determining whether to grant authorship to students’ contributions (DHHS Office of Research Integrity, n.d.).
Terminology in authorship. A variety of terms for authors may potentially confuse new writers. The correspon-
Nurses Need to Publish Scholarly Articles: Overcoming Reticence to Sharing Valuable Experience
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2160
ding (primary) author is typically the principal or lead author of the manuscript who takes responsibility for communica- tion between the journal and coauthors after article sub- mission. These tasks may involve the submission process, peer review process, revisions (if applicable), and the pub- lication procedures (if accepted). Terms associated with unethical authorship practices include ghost author, guest author, and gift author. A ghost author is a writer who is omit- ted from the authorship list despite adequate contribution to the manuscript. A guest or gift author is a person listed as an author who does not qualify for authorship (COPE, 2019). A guest author, without significant involvement in the research or writing, might be included to add strength to the list of authors. A gift author typically involves mutual CV enhancement, as is the case in the inclusion of col- leagues on a manuscript in exchange for being listed on theirs (COPE, 2019).
Ethical Issues in Writing
Plagiarism Simply stated, plagiarism is the use of another’s ideas or
words without the appropriate credit awarded to them. Plagiarism is considered scientific misconduct, and conse- quences include the loss of author reputation, with poten- tially devastating effects on an education or career (Cooper, 2016). Plagiarism can be intentional, wherein authors consciously use another’s words or work with the intent of claiming the words as their own, or unintentional, wherein authors do not remember they have heard the idea elsewhere or did not know they needed to give credit to another. Self-plagiarism is another form of plagiarism that may be unfamiliar to new writers. Self-plagiarism occurs when writers reuse their own previously published writing when authoring a new work (APA, 2020). Self-plagiarism can infringe upon a publisher’s copyright as well, so it is an important issue to be aware of (iThenticate, 2011).
Plagiarism can be effectively avoided by use of citations that give credit to others when content includes material that is not the author’s original ideas or words. The APA (2020) style guide recommends that authors use quotation marks when using the exact words of another author. In general, however, quotations should be used sparingly in manuscripts because the writer may appear lazy and the work lacking in originality (Cooper, 2016). When para- phrasing another’s words in the manuscript, the source must be credited (APA, 2020). An incorrect citation is not considered plagiarism if the error is minor (Cooper, 2016). Plagiarism detection software is also available to writers (e.g., iThenticate) to compare a manuscript with millions of others found online and in scholarly reference databases (Cooper, 2016). After submission of a manuscript to this software, a report is generated that displays similarity scores. Based on results in the report, further editing can be completed by the writer, prior to journal submission, to improve the score and avoid plagiarism.
Conflict of Interest Nursing scholars, professionals, and researchers may
have potential conflicting interests in the manuscript sub- ject matter, which can influence writing content, affect an author’s objectivity, and lead to ethically challenging dilemmas. The Nephrology Nursing Journal endorses and sub- scribes to the definition of Conflict of Interest as set forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (2019): a conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) their actions. Journals typically have a formal policy that requires potential authors to complete a conflict of interest statement/form when submitting their manuscript. The potential for conflict of interest exists, however, regardless of whether writers think a relationship alters their judgment or not (ICMJE, 2019). Financial relation- ships are the easiest to identify (e.g., employment, consul- tancies, stock ownership or options) and have the potential to threaten journal or author credibility. Other examples of conflict of interest may include personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs (ICMJE, 2019).
The Conflict of Interest form declares authors’ relation- ships and activities, sources of support for the work, and specific role in the ideas, research process (if any), and writ- ing of the manuscript. Definitions of relationships that may be interpreted as potentially influential are included on the form itself (ICMJE, 2019). Authors must also declare their involvement in research-related activities (ongoing or past) and their ongoing access to study data for conflict of inter- est purposes.
Conclusion Writing a manuscript for publication can be a daunting
undertaking. This article has provided a plethora of informa- tion to consider to hopefully make it an easier process, including consideration of subject matter, the type of articles that can be written and which are best suited for the subject, and finding the most appropriate journal for submission of the work. It is important to understand that nurses have a wide variety of valuable experiences that need to be shared with others through publication, and that this is an important part of the nurse’s role (Wood, 2018). The journey can be long and frustrating, but ultimately, rewarding in the end. References Aji, L., & Beck, D. (2017). Effect of fluid status on access blood
flow measurements as observed in a hospital-based hemodialysis unit servicing inpatients and outpatients. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 44(5), 462-464.
Alpi, K.M., & Evans, J.J. (2019). Distinguishing case study as a research method from case reports as a publication type. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 107(1), 1-5.
American Psychological Association (APA). (2017). Ethical princi- ples of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www. apa.org/ethics/code/
Exploring the Evidence: Focusing on the Fundamentals
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2 161
American Psychological Association (APA). (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
Bensink, M.E., Eaton, L.H., Morrison, M.L., Cook, W.A., Curtis, R.R., Kundu, A., Gordon, D.B., & Doorenbos, A.Z. (2013). Cost effectiveness analysis for nursing research. Nursing Research, 62(4), 279-285. c
Broome, M.E., Riner, M.E., & Allam, E.S. (2013). Scholarly pub- lication practices of doctor of nursing practice-prepared nurses. Journal of Nursing Education, 52(8), 429-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20130718-02
CARE CAse REport Guidelines. (n.d.). What are the CARE Guidelines? http://www.care-statement.org
Cooper, H. (2016, May 12). Principles of good writing: Avoiding pla- giarism. https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2016/05/avoid ing-plagiarism.html
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). Authorship and contributorship. https://publicationethics.org/authorship
Day, J. (2017). Inpatient dialysis unit project development: Redesigning acute hemodialysis care. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 44(3), 251-255.
Dixon, N. (2001). Writing for publication – A guide for new authors. International Journal for Quality in Healthcare, 13(5), 417-421.
Dutka, P., & Brickel, H. (2010). A practical review of the Kidney Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines for hemodialysis catheters and their potential impact on patient care. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 37(5), 531.
Fisher, P.G., Goodman, D.M., & Long, S.S. (2017). Getting pub- lished: A primer on manuscript writing and the editorial process. Journal of Pediatrics, 185, 241-244. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.02.067
Geer, J.J. (2016). Increasing vaccination rates in a pediatric chron- ic hemodialysis unit. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 43(1), 31-33, 37.
Hain, D., Surafam, U., & Bejar, C. (2019). Issues in palliative care: Pain management for adults with end stage renal disease. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 46(4), 437-446.
Happell, B. (2012). A practical guide to writing clinical articles for publication. Nursing Older People, 24(3), 30-34. https://doi.org/10.7748/nop2012.04.24.3.30.c9018
Haras, M.S., Astroth, K.S., Woith, W.L., & Kossman, S.P. (2015). Exploring advance care planning from the nephrology nurse perspective: A literature review. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 42(1), 23-36.
Harford, R., Clark, M.J., Norris, K.C., & Yan, G. (2016). Relationship between age and pre-end stage renal disease care in elderly patients treated with maintenance hemodial- ysis. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 43(2), 101-107.
Harwood, L., Wilson, B., Pye, D., & Stroud, N. (2019). Evidence- based reviews: Trends in nephrology nursing. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 46(2), 249-250.
Harzing, A.W. (2020). Publish or perish. https://harzing. com/resources/publish-or-perish
Hoffart N. (2009). A look back... Nephrology nursing 1915-1970: A historical study of the integration of technology and care [Reprinted from ANNA Journal, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 169-178]. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 36(2), 181-191.
Hudson, D., Dunbar-Reid, K., & Sinclair, P.M. (2012). The incor- poration of high-fidelity simulation training into hemodialy- sis nursing education: Part 2 – A pictorial guide to modifying a high-fidelity simulator for use in simulating hemodialysis. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 39(2), 119-123.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2019). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. www.icmje.org
iThenticate (2011). The ethics of self-plagiarism [White Paper]. https://www.ithenticate.com/resources/papers/ethics-of- self-plagiarism
Kao, Y.S. (2015). Nephrology advanced practice registered nurse health policy: Where are we? What is our future? Nephrology Nursing Journal, 42(3), 289-293.
Likis, F.E., & Swett, B. (2019). Demystifying the journal submis- sion, peer review, and publication process. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 64(2), 145-148. https://doi. org/10.1111/jmwh.12978
McCall, L. (2018). Letter to the editor. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(2), 223.
Newhouse, R.P., Pettit, J.C., Poe, S., & Rocco, L. (2006). The slip- pery slope: Differentiating between quality improvement and research. The Journal of Nursing Administration. 36(4), 211- 219.
Nicholas, D.B., Kaufman, M., Pinsk, M., Samuel, S., Hamiwka, L., & Molzahn, A.E. (2018). Examining the transition from child to adult care in chronic kidney disease: An open exploratory approach. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(6), 553- 559.
Ogrinc G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986-992.
Oermann, M.H., Christenbery, T., & Turner, K.M. (2018). Writing publishable review, research, quality improvement, and evidence-based practice manuscripts. Nursing Economic$, 36(6), 268-275.
Oermann, M.H., & Hays, J.C. (2016). Writing for publication in nursing (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing Company, LLC.
Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2008). Nursing research: Creating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. (8th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Rosoff, P.M. (2019). Can the case report withstand ethical scruti- ny? Hastings Center Report, 49(6), 17-21.
Silver, S.A., Harel, Z., McQuillan, R., Weizman, A.V., Thomas, A., Chertow, G.M., Nesrallah, G., Bell, C.M., & Chan, C.T. (2016). How to begin a quality improvement project. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 11(5), 893-900. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.11491015
Süer, E., & Yaman, Ö. (2013). How to write an editorial letter. Turkish Journal of Urology, 39(Suppl. 1), 41-43. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.053
Tarkang, E.E., Kweku, M., & Zotor, F.B. (2017). Publication prac- tices and responsible authorship: A review article. Journal of Public Health in Africa, 8(1), 36-42. https://doi.org/ 10.4081/jphia.2017.723
Thompson-Martin, Y., McCullough, P.A., & Agrawal, V. (2015). Impact of an educational program for advanced practice nurses on knowledge of Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative Guidelines. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 42(5), 455- 461.
Titler, M.G. (2008). The evidence for evidence-based practice implementation. In R.G. Hughes (Ed.), Patient safety and quality: An evidence-based handbook for nurses. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2659/
continued on page 162
Nurses Need to Publish Scholarly Articles: Overcoming Reticence to Sharing Valuable Experience
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2162
Exploring the Evidence continued from page 161
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health (DHHS)
Resources and Services Administration. (2011). Quality Improvement. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/qualit- y/toolbox/508pdfs/qualityimprovement.pdf
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Office of Research Integrity. (n.d.). Authorship in Faculty-Student Collaborations. https://ori.hhs.gov/authorship-faculty-stu- dent-collaborations
Wiley, T.L. (2019). Principles and ethics of authorship. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62, 206-209.
Wood, C. (2018). Writing for publication: Sharing your clinical knowledge and skills. BJC British Journal of Community Nursing, 23(1), 20-23. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn. 2018.23.1.20
Nephrology Nursing Journal March-April 2020 Vol. 47, No. 2 163
Nurses
Nurses Need to Publish Scholarly Articles: Overcoming Reticence to Sharing Valuable Experience
https://doi.org/10.37526/1526-744X.2020.47.2.153
Name: ___________________________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________________________
City: _____________________________________________________________________
Telephone: _________________ Email: ________________________________________
ANNA Member: Yes No Member #___________________________
Payment: Check Enclosed American Express Visa MasterCard
Total Amount Submitted: ___________
Credit Card Number: ____________________________________ Exp. Date: ___________
Name as it Appears on the Card: ______________________________________________
Complete the Following (please print)
1. I verify I have completed this education activity. n Yes n No
__________________________________________________ SIGNATURE Strongly Strongly
Disagree (Circle one) Agree 2. The learning outcome could be achieved using the content provided. 1 2 3 4 5 3. The authors stimulated my desire to learn, and demonstrated knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
and expertise in the content areas. 4. I am more confident in my abilities since completing this 1 2 3 4 5
education activity. 5. The content was relevant to my practice. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Commitment to change practice (select one): a. I will make a change to my current practice as the result of this education activity. b. I am considering a change to my current practice. c. This education activity confirms my current practice. d. I am not yet convinced that any change in practice is warranted. e. I perceive there may be barriers to changing my current practice.
7. What do you plan to do differently in your practice as a result of completing this educational activity? (Required)______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
8. What information from this education activity do you plan to share with a professional colleague? (Required) _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________
9. This education activity was free of bias, product promotion, and commercial interest influence. (Required) n Yes n No
10. If no, please explain: _________________________________________________________________
* Commercial interest – any entity either producing, marketing, reselling, or distributing healthcare goods or services consumed by or used on patients or an entity that is owned or controlled by an entity that produces, markets, resells, or distributes healthcare goods or services consumed by or used on patients. Exceptions are non-profits, government and non-healthcare related companies.
Nephrology Nursing Journal Editorial Board Statements of Disclosure
In accordance with ANCC governing rules Nephrology Nursing Journal Editorial Board state- ments of disclosure are published with each CNE offering. The statements of disclosure for this offer- ing are published below.
Paula Dutka, MSN, RN, CNN, disclosed that she is a coordinator of Clinical Trials for the following sponsors: Amgen, Rockwell Medical, Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Akebia Therapeutics, and Dynavax Technologies.
All other members of the Editorial Board had no actu- al or potential conflict of interest in relation to this continuing nursing education activity.
This article was reviewed and formatted for contact hour credit by Beth Ulrich, EdD, RN, FACHE, FAONL, FAAN, Nephrology Nursing Journal Editor-in-Chief, and Sally Russell, MN, CMSRN, CNE, ANNA Education Director.
American Nephrology Nurses Association – Provider is accredited with distinction as a provider of nursing continuing professional development by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Commission on Accreditation.
ANNA is a provider approved by the California Board of Registered Nursing, provider number CEP 00910.
This CNE article meets the Nephrology Nursing Certification Commission’s (NNCC’s) continuing nursing education requirements for certification and recertification.
SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
Online Submission Articles are free to ANNA members
Regular Article Price: $15 CNE Evaluation Price: $15
Online submissions of this CNE evaluation form are available at annanurse.org/library. CNE certificates will be available im mediately upon successful completion of the evaluation.
Mail/Fax Submission ANNA Member Price: $15
Regular Price: $25 • Send this page to the ANNA National Office; East
Holly Avenue/Box 56; Pitman, NJ 08071-0056, or fax this form to (856) 589-7463.
• Enclose a check or money order payable to ANNA. Fees listed in payment section.
• A certificate for the contact hours will be awarded by ANNA.
• Please allow 2-3 weeks for processing. • You may submit multiple answer forms in one mail-
ing; however, because of various processing proce- dures for each answer form, you may not receive all of your certificates returned in one mailing.Note: If you wish to keep the journal intact, you may photocopy the answer sheet or
access this activity at www.annanurse.org/journal
Evaluation Form (All questions must be answered to complete the learning activity. Longer answers to open-ended questions may be typed on a separate page.)
ANNJ2011
Learning Outcome After completing this learning activity, the learner will be able to discuss basic principles related to writing for publication, information regarding dif- ferent types of professional articles that may be used for the dissemination of nursing knowledge, as well as steps to follow and issues to consider in the planning and preparation of a manuscript.
N e p h r o l o g y N u r s i N g J o u r N a l
EVALUATION FORM – 1.3 Contact Hours – Expires: April 30, 2022
Copyright of Nephrology Nursing Journal is the property of American Nephrology Nurses' Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.