Cited by 1,188Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsAcademic Writing and PublishingEducational Research and Methods

Presenting and evaluating qualitative research

Open access
Anderson, Claire·2010·American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to help authors to think about ways to present qualitative research papers in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. It also discusses methods for reviewers to assess the rigour, quality, and usefulness of qualitative research. Examples of different ways to present data from interviews, observations, and focus groups are included. The paper concludes with guidance for publishing qualitative research and a checklist for authors and reviewers.

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 · 10.5688/aj7408141

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • In recent years, multiple publications have synthesized quality criteria and recommendations for use by researchers and peer reviewers, often in the form of checklists.

    “In recent years, multiple publications have synthesized quality criteria and recommendations for use by researchers and peer reviewers alike, often in the form of checklists.[2][3][4][5][6]”
  • Data collection and analysis biases may be observed based on the role of the researchers.

    “Data collection and analysis biases may be observed based on the role of the researchers [54].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [2]2. Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative Research in Healthcare. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2006.
  2. [7]7. Greenhill N. An Exploration of Pharmacist-Patient Communication in Clinic-Style Consultations [doctoral thesis]. University of Nottingham, England; October 2010.
  3. [9]9. Qualitative research. British Medical Journal Web site. http:// resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/checklists-forms/qualitative- research. Accessed August 31, 2010.
  4. [10]10. Qualitative research review guidelines -RATS. BioMed Central. http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/ifora/rats Accessed August 31, 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, C.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Claire
Venue
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-10
Volume
74
Issue
8
Pages
141
ISSN
0002-9459 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079567258
Cited by
1,188
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 110 · 2023: 111 · 2022: 114 · 2021: 118 · 2020: 110 · 2019: 111 · 2018: 104 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 8
FWCI
54.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
qualitative research, research reporting, peer review, research rigor, data presentation, focus groups, observation, author guidelines, pharmacy education
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Education, Pharmacy, United Kingdom, Interviews as Topic, Publishing, Reproducibility of Results, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, Checklist

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