Cited by 110Qualitative Research Methods and Applicationsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Writing and Publishing

Is Qualitative Research Second Class Science? A Quantitative Longitudinal Examination of Qualitative Research in Medical Journals

Open access
Shuval, Kerem, Harker, Karen, Roudsari, Bahman, Groce, Nora E., Mills, Britain, Siddiqi, Zoveen, Shachak, Aviv·2011·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research appears to be gaining acceptability in medical journals. Yet, little is actually known about the proportion of qualitative research and factors affecting its publication. This study describes the proportion of qualitative research over a 10 year period and correlates associated with its publication. DESIGN: A quantitative longitudinal examination of the proportion of original qualitative research in 67 journals of general medicine during a 10 year period (1998-2007). The proportion of qualitative research was determined by dividing original qualitative studies published (numerator) by all original research articles published (denominator). We used a generalized estimating equations approach to assess the longitudinal association between the proportion of qualitative studies and independent variables (i.e. journals' country of publication and impact factor; editorial/methodological papers discussing qualitative research; and specific journal guidelines pertaining to qualitative research). FINDINGS: A 2.9% absolute increase and 3.4-fold relative increase in qualitative research publications occurred over a 10 year period (1.2% in 1998 vs. 4.1% in 2007). The proportion of original qualitative research was independently and significantly associated with the publication of editorial/methodological papers in the journal (b = 3.688, P = 0.012); and with qualitative research specifically mentioned in guidelines for authors (b = 6.847, P<0.001). Additionally, a higher proportion of qualitative research was associated only with journals published in the UK in comparison to other countries, yet with borderline statistical significance (b = 1.776, P = 0.075). The journals' impact factor was not associated with the publication of qualitative research. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in the proportion of qualitative research in medical journals over a 10 year period, the proportion remains low. Journals' policies pertaining to qualitative research, as expressed by the appearance of specific guidelines and editorials/methodological papers on the subject, are independently associated with the publication of original qualitative research; irrespective of the journals' impact factor.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0016937

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The majority of studies in this review (18 out of 22) evaluated the effectiveness of their interventions using quantitative data.

    “The majority of studies in this review (18 out of 22) evaluated the effectiveness of their interventions using quantitative data-indeed, many view it as a more robust approach to evaluation than using qualitative approaches (Shuval et al., 2011).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 110

Authors
Shuval, K., Harker, K., Roudsari, B., Groce, N. E., Mills, B., Siddiqi, Z., & Shachak, A.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
  • Leonard Cheshire (GB)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Shuval, Kerem
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-02-24
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
e16937
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2122612712
Cited by
110
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
29.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
qualitative research, medical journals, publication trends, journal editorial policy, author guidelines, impact factor
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Publications, Publishing, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Science, United States, Journalism, Medical, Qualitative Research, Journal Impact Factor

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