避免学科健忘症：引用经典和当前参考文献

避免学科健忘症：引用经典和当前参考文献萌军机娘 作者：NursingResearch护理研究前 分享智慧 共同成长

作者：NursingResearch护理研究前

分享智慧

共同成长

Full text

As editors of the Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN) and frequent manu and grant reviewers, we often are perplexed when a manu or grant focuses on a topic with a rich foundation of supportive science and yet classic references in that science are not cited. Guidance to journal authors may send an unclear message that leads to this practice. Recent work by Owens et al. (2020) indicates many journal editors and faculty stipulate references not be more than 5 years old. Consequently, the message being conveyed, inadvertently we believe, is that work older than five years is no longer relevant. But that is not necessarily the case as readers, editors, and reviewers expect authors to demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the science of which they write. Thus, in this editorial, we discuss the omission of (1) crucial foundational work and (2) critical current work.

Why is including classical work important? Omitting crucial foundational references may result in the unnecessary expenditure of human and other resources in an attempt to address a problem previously addressed and disseminated. Gottlieb (2003) argues that omitting such occurrences reflects “a sort of ageism of knowledge—discarding the old to create the illusion of the new” (p. 3). Moreover, although it is important to have current information in clinical practice [we would add educational practice as well], she argues that the nursing discipline extends beyond interventions to understanding the human condition. Thus, scholars need not redo knowledge gained from earlier work; rather, scholars need to apply and extend this knowledge. Law and Lybeck (2015), both sociologists, suggest that placing year limits on literature searches contributes to disciplinary amnesia, and highlight that focusing on “winners”—or in the case of this editorial recent literature—can diminish disciplinary knowledge and understanding. Gottlieb (2003) captures continuing concerns about placing limitations on currency of references well. She says:

“If we fail to stop and think about what we are doing and why we are doing it, we risk taking nursing science backward instead of forward. We risk re-inventing the wheel, or at best spinning our wheels. We run the risk of unwittingly promoting ageism of knowledge, and in so doing planning trees with very shallow roots” (p.3)

What about including current work? Including current work is critical, given how quickly information can change, particularly in relation to clinical issues. Readers, editors and reviewers expect scholars to be up to date on the most recent efforts being undertaken to address a clinical issue, in part, as scholar work is evaluated in terms of the contribution he or she is making. Omitting an important recent reference may lead readers, reviewers and editors to question the veracity and contribution the scholar is making in a specific area. Thus, the need to include recent work is well-founded. Consequently, including classical references may not be as relevant or helpful in understanding current thinking on a specific topic.

What factors could contribute to these omissions? In addition to editor and faculty stipulations regarding currency of references (Owens et al., 2020), author guidelines may limit the number of references included in a manu, requiring the author to make difficult decisions about what to include: crucial foundational work or more recent information. Such is the case with this journal. The maximum number of references is 25; should authors exceed that number, they are asked to provide rationale for the additional references. Such restrictions are in place to avoid excessive references and more importantly, to avoid citation manipulation which has dire consequences for journals.

Increasingly, outcomes of nursing doctoral programs include required submission of manus to peer-reviewed journals. Omission of either classical or recent literature may reflect undue haste in searching the literature or ignorance of key moments in the field, a possibility when scholars are trying to meet course or program deadlines. Thus, these novice authors need guidance by faculty in balancing classic and current references. Such guidance requires considerable time, critical judgment, the ability to decide what are the most important papers in the field, and professional investment on faculty's part and can be challenging to realize.

What can scholars do to avoid disciplinary amnesia? It is not atypical for scholars to struggle with how best to reference their thoughts and to demonstrate their command of the topic they are addressing, particularly in terms of the number and recency of references. The challenge all scholars face is how best to convey their expertise on a topic, being cognizant that “It is best practice to base scholarly work on recent literature” (Owens et al., 2020, p. 1). However, determining which references to cite can be problematic “when there is little recent published information or a great deal of important historical and influential work on a topic” (Owens et al., 2020, p. 1).

Understanding what is known about a topic requires both depth and breadth in searching the literature. Although important to appreciate what nurse scholars [discipline] say on topic, it is equally important to know what other disciplines [synthesizing] are doing. Gardner (2006) emphasizes these two issues in his book Five Minds for the Future. Importantly, he differentiates between subject matter and discipline, emphasizing a disciplined mind is a “distinctive way of thinking about the world” (p. 27). Depth in searching the literature helps scholars understand the disciplinary perspective on a topic. Breadth in searching contributes to developing a synthesizing mind, that is, a mind that reflects accessing, reviewing and integrating literature from outside nursing into a scholar's work.

A first step is to strive for a balanced perspective (Owens et al., 2020) and to use available resources. Scholars should consult a librarian as a critical first step as they begin exploring a problem by reviewing the literature. Although this statement may seem self-evident, scholars do not always undertake this first step, limiting the comprehensiveness of a literature search. A good practice is to not limit searches to the most recent 5 years as some authorities consider time frames to between 5 and 10 years appropriate (Owens et al.,2020). Doing so becomes even more important as it is possible that important historical work will be older than this timeline. Consequently, extending the year range seems a reasonable approach in an effort to ensure critical literature is not missed. Certainly, as a scholar there is nothing worse than having someone indicate a scholar has omitted inclusion of critical work in his or her work. Moreover, conducting a comprehensive search of the literature may result in the discovery of important work long after the paper was published but that is not referenced in more recent work on the topic; Song et al. (2018) call such papers a sleeping paper. In other words, sleeping papers are those that are rediscovered years after having been published, reflecting they experienced a hibernation period from time of publication to time of rediscovery that can span several decades. The important contribution being made by sleeping papers does not occur until their rediscovery.

Another strategy is to reflect on why scholars support their work with references. Given “modern science is based on trust” (Milojevic, 2012, p. e49176), references provide a visible record of how thinking on a subject evolves over time. In other words, references “are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science” (Camacho-Miñano & Núñez-Nickel, 2009, p. 754). Placing ones work within the larger context of what is known can help identify critical older works that warrant referencing.

Decision making algorithms can be helpful. Owens et al. (2020) provide three decision-making algorithms to assist scholars in determining appropriateness and number of references to use: one outlines the process; one provides strategies by which to evaluate currency of references; and one offers guidelines for determining an appropriate number of references. In addition, scholars need to consider how quickly information is developing in their particular area of expertise, as recency of references can be crucial to disciplinary understanding on a topic. This point is particularly relevant when considering submitting to a journal which is clinically focused.

All scholars want to provide support for their ideas. Making certain they demonstrate breadth and depth of understanding requires willingness to go “back in time” so they avoid disciplinary amnesia. Continuing to foster curiosity about what is known is critical and requires a balanced approach that includes accessing a range of literature within and outside the discipline. Not doing so could limit the contribution their work could make. No scholar wishes for this.

In conclusion, readers, reviewers and editors expect that authors will demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the science of which they write. Please do not forget the classics! Those scientists and authors are leaders that paved the way for the rich nursing science that continues to benefit international public health and advances the nursing workforce.

全文翻译（仅供参考）

作为Journal of Advanced Nursing ( JAN ) 的编辑和频繁的手稿和拨款评审员，当手稿或拨款专注于具有丰富支持科学基础的主题，但没有引用该科学的经典参考文献时，我们经常感到困惑。对期刊作者的指导可能会发出导致这种做法的不清楚的信息。欧文斯等人最近的工作。( 2020) 表示许多期刊编辑和教员规定参考文献不得超过 5 年。因此，我们不经意间相信，所传达的信息是五年以上的工作不再相关。但情况并非一定如此，因为读者、编辑和审稿人希望作者能够展示他们所撰写的科学的全面知识。因此，在这篇社论中，我们讨论了 (1) 关键基础工作和 (2) 当前关键工作的遗漏。

为什么包括古典作品很重要？省略重要的基础参考资料可能会导致不必要的人力和其他资源支出，以试图解决以前解决和传播的问题。Gottlieb ( 2003 ) 认为，省略此类事件反映了“一种知识的年龄歧视——丢弃旧的以创造新的幻觉”（第 3 页）。此外，虽然在临床实践中获得最新信息很重要 [我们也会添加教育实践]，但她认为护理学科超出了干预范围，可以理解人类状况。因此，学者们不需要重做从早期工作中获得的知识；相反，学者需要应用和扩展这些知识。劳和莱贝克（2015 年）)，两位社会学家都认为，对文献搜索设置年份限制会导致学科健忘症，并强调关注“赢家”——或者在这篇社论近期文献的情况下——会减少学科知识和理解。Gottlieb ( 2003 ) 很好地捕捉到了关于对参考文献的流通加以限制的持续关注。她说：

“如果我们不能停下来思考我们在做什么以及为什么要这样做，我们就有可能使护理科学倒退而不是前进。我们冒着重新发明轮子的风险，或者充其量是旋转我们的轮子。我们冒着在不知不觉中促进知识年龄歧视的风险，并在这样做时规划根非常浅的树”（第 3 页）

包括当前的工作怎么样？考虑到信息变化的速度有多快，尤其是与临床问题相关的信息，包括当前的工作至关重要。读者、编辑和审稿人希望学者能够及时了解为解决临床问题而进行的最新努力，部分原因是因为学者的工作是根据他或她所做的贡献来评估的。省略近期重要的参考文献可能会导致读者、审稿人和编辑质疑学者在特定领域所做的真实性和贡献。因此，包括最近工作的需要是有充分根据的。因此，包括经典参考文献对于理解当前对特定主题的思考可能没有那么相关或帮助。

哪些因素会导致这些遗漏？除了编辑和教职员工关于参考文献流通的规定（Owens 等人， 2020 年）之外，作者指南可能会限制手稿中包含的参考文献数量，要求作者对包含哪些内容做出艰难的决定：重要的基础工作或更多最近的信息。这个期刊就是这种情况。最大引用数为 25；如果作者超过该数量，则要求他们提供额外参考文献的理由。这些限制是为了避免过多的引用，更重要的是，避免对期刊造成可怕后果的引用操纵。

越来越多的护理博士课程的结果包括要求向同行评审期刊提交手稿。遗漏经典或最近的文献可能反映了对文献搜索的过度仓促或对该领域关键时刻的无知，这是学者们试图赶上课程或计划的最后期限时的一种可能性。因此，这些新手作者需要教师的指导来平衡经典和当前参考文献。这种指导需要大量时间、批判性判断、决定该领域最重要论文的能力以及教师的专业投资，并且可能难以实现。

学者可以做些什么来避免纪律性遗忘？学者们在如何最好地引用他们的想法和展示他们对他们所讨论的主题的掌控上挣扎，特别是在参考文献的数量和新近度方面，这种情况并不少见。所有学者面临的挑战是如何最好地传达他们在某个主题上的专业知识，认识到“将学术工作建立在近期文献的基础上是最佳实践”（Owens 等人，2020 年，第 1 页）。但是，“当最近发表的信息很少或关于某个主题的大量重要的历史和有影响力的工作”（Owens 等人，2020 年，第 1 页）时，确定引用哪些参考文献可能会出现问题。

了解关于某个主题的已知内容需要在搜索文献时具有深度和广度。尽管了解护士学者 [学科] 关于主题的看法很重要，但了解其他学科 [综合] 正在做什么同样重要。Gardner ( 2006 ) 在他的《Five Minds for the Future》一书中强调了这两个问题。. 重要的是，他区分了主题和纪律，强调纪律严明的头脑是“看待世界的独特方式”（第 27 页）。文献检索的深度有助于学者了解某个主题的学科观点。广泛的搜索有助于发展综合思维，即反映访问、审查和将外部护理文献整合到学者工作中的思维。

第一步是争取平衡的观点（Owens 等人，2020 年）并使用可用资源。学者在通过查阅文献开始探索问题时，应首先咨询图书馆员，这是关键的第一步。尽管这种说法似乎不言自明，但学者们并不总是采取第一步，这限制了文献检索的全面性。一个好的做法是不要将搜索限制在最近 5 年，因为一些当局认为时间范围在 5 到 10 年之间是合适的（Owens 等人，2020）。这样做变得更加重要，因为重要的历史工作可能比这个时间线更早。因此，延长年份范围似乎是一种合理的方法，以确保不会错过重要文献。当然，作为一名学者，没有什么比有人指出一位学者在他或她的工作中忽略了批判性工作更糟糕的了。此外，对文献进行全面搜索可能会在论文发表很久之后发现重要的工作，但在该主题的最近工作中没有引用；宋等人。( 2018) 称这些文件为睡纸。换句话说，睡眠论文是那些在发表多年后被重新发现的论文，反映出它们经历了从发表到重新发现的休眠期，可以跨越几十年。睡纸所做的重要贡献直到它们被重新发现才发生。

另一个策略是反思为什么学者用参考文献支持他们的工作。鉴于“现代科学基于信任”（Milojevic，2012 年，第 e49176 页），参考文献提供了关于某个主题的思考如何随时间演变的可见记录。换句话说，参考文献“是一种追踪科学进化的机制”（Camacho-Miñano & Núñez-Nickel，2009 年，第 754 页）。将作品放在已知的更大背景下可以帮助识别值得参考的重要旧作品。

决策算法可能会有所帮助。欧文斯等人。( 2020 ) 提供三种决策算法，以帮助学者确定使用的适当性和参考文献数量：一种概述过程；一个提供了评估参考文献的策略；一个提供了确定适当数量的参考文献的指南。此外，学者需要考虑信息在其特定专业领域的发展速度，因为参考文献的新近性对于学科理解某个主题至关重要。在考虑向以临床为重点的期刊投稿时，这一点尤其重要。

所有学者都希望为他们的想法提供支持。确保他们表现出理解的广度和深度需要愿意“回到过去”，这样他们才能避免纪律性健忘症。继续培养对已知事物的好奇心至关重要，需要一种平衡的方法，包括访问学科内外的一系列文献。不这样做可能会限制他们的工作可以做出的贡献。没有学者希望如此。

总之，读者、审稿人和编辑希望作者能够展示他们所撰写的科学的全面知识。请不要忘记经典！这些科学家和作者是为丰富的护理科学铺平道路的领导者，这些科学继续有益于国际公共卫生并推动护理人员队伍的发展。

原文链接：https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15126

THE

END

本文转载自其他网站，不代表健康界观点和立场。如有内容和图片的著作权异议，请及时联系我们（邮箱：guikequan@hmkx.cn）

one day world http://www.xinzhiliao.com/bj/jianfei/5345.html