CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Publishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Writing and Publishingscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Best practices in scholarly publishing for promotion or tenure: Avoiding predatory journals

Hulsey, Tara, Carpenter, Roger, Carter-Templeton, Heather, Oermann, Marilyn H., Keener, Tina Antill, Maramba, Patricia·2023·Journal of Professional Nursing
DOI 10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.01.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Predatory publishing has adverse impacts on scientific literature including nursing literature. These publishers have been described as having questionable publication standards. Many faculty have expressed challenges associated with assessing publisher and journal quality.Purpose The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of faculty retention, promotion, and tenure guidelines offering explicit instructions and guidance for faculty on assessing the quality of publishers and journals.Method An appointed committee representing research, teaching, and practice scholarship performed a literature review on the topics of journal quality, scholarship for promotion and tenure, and best practices for evaluating scholarship in academic institutions.Results The committee developed additional guidance to support and assist faculty assessing journal quality. Based on these guidelines, the faculty retention, promotion, and tenure guidelines for each of the research, teaching, and practice tracks were edited to reflect these practices.Conclusions The guidelines provided clarity for our promotion and tenure review committee and faculty.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.01.002

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rele, 2017, LMU librarian publications & presentations, Journal Evaluation Tool, 40

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Hulsey, T., Carpenter, R., Carter-Templeton, H., Oermann, M. H., Keener, T. A., & Maramba, P.
Affiliations
  • West Virginia University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Carpenter, Roger
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Professional Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
45
Pages
60-63
ISSN
  • 1532-8481 (ISSN-L)
  • 8755-7223
DOI
10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.01.002
OpenAlex
W4320855398
Cited by
11
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3
FWCI
9.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Professional Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
predatory journals, scholarly publishing, tenure and promotion, journal evaluation, nursing faculty, institutional guidelines, research evaluation
MeSH terms
Scholarly Communication, Faculty, Fellowships and Scholarships, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Schools

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review