Abstract
Two years have passed since I, as the new editor in chief, wrote my first editorial 1 for the Nordic Journal of Nursing Research (NJNR). One year has also passed since I gained a new colleague in the editorial office. 2 At the time of us writing this editorial, nurses and other healthcare workers globally are still working under abnormal pressure due to the stubbornness of COVID-19, which presents itself in what seem to be never ending forms and waves. The pandemic will certainly have a long-lasting impact on us and on the world. COVID-19 has also presented us with challenges. Both doctoral students and seasoned researchers have had to struggle to overcome, and working out new ways to collect empirical data which at times has led to a re-design of the original plan. Despite these challenges, the number of manuscripts submitted to NJNR over the last two years is increasing slowly but steadily.
A brief analysis of the 58 papers published in the last two years reveals that the majority of the research papers are either conducted with a qualitative descriptive design (n = 30) or a cross-sectional design (n = 11). Hence, and despite two calls, very few submissions have been conducted as systematic literature reviews (n = 3). Additionally, the published papers mainly explore different phenomena or topics from the perspective of nurses. It is worth noting that only six of the papers with a qualitative design were conducted with a classic qualitative design. 3 Reflecting upon this we would very much like to reignite the relevant discussion about waste of (health service) research, especially in relation to research into nursing clearly articulated for more than a decade ago.4–6 Waste of research is clearly associated with the important notion of sustainable research. We would like to put forward that systematic literature reviews can be categorized under sustainable research as they hopefully imply that someone's research endeavors have begun by systematically gathering what already is known − the present evidence base. Hence, we encourage our authors to continue to submit sound and systematic literature reviews, and are eagerly anticipating the submission of qualitative evidence syntheses (meta-syntheses) and of reviews of reviews (umbrella reviews).
Sustainable research into nursing needs to aspire to answer questions, using research designs and producing findings leading to relevant changes. Knowledge coming from research into nursing should strive to have an impact on, for example, patient care, nurses’ and midwives’ practice and scope, health services as well as on how we educate nursing students. Consequently, we are therefore very proud to be able, in this issue and the upcoming issue of NJNR, to publish a Danish mixed method study, 7 a Swedish feasibility study 8 and an Icelandic quasi-experimental study. 9 In this issue we are also publishing our first Nordic collaborative paper. Gunnarsdottir et al. 10 are raising the need to develop and implement different types of strategies for teaching clinical skills among the new generations of bachelor nursing students who have grown up in a digital world. These students will have other needs for learning compared to previous generations. Their discussion will be picked up by yet another Nordic collaboration in the next issue of NJNR. 11 The latter corroborates the need to change traditional pedagogical methods and present a pedagogical model of peer learning during clinical practice focusing on a student-centered approach as one strategy to meet the needs of the new generations of students. The model combines collaboration, reflection and assessment aligned with learning outcomes.
One of the journal’s major challenges is to identify reviewers who have the time and the willingness to review submissions. The editorial office strives for a speedy review process. However, we, like most other journals, sometimes have difficulties getting reviewers to agree to review. Tite and Schroter 12 investigated reviewers declining to review, and their opinions on reviewer incentives. Their findings implied that the most common reasons to accept to review a paper were: i) the contribution of the paper to the subject area, ii) the relevance of the topic to their own work or interest, and iii) the opportunity to learn something new. For us to be able to secure these important aspects of what it takes to accept to review, as well as to find appropriate reviewers, we will engage in updating the system during 2022 with the hope to get more accurate keywords for each reviewer, to eliminate old accounts and to only hold on to updated accounts. Reviewers could support us by logging into the system and making sure that their areas of expertise are updated and that their contact details are accurate. The reviewer's work is vital, and almost always their comments will result in a better paper. As a reviewer to NJNR you also have the possibility to get the reviews tracked by Publons, which will support to make your work visible and to get a measurable research output. During 2022, the homepage, as well as authors’ instructions, will be updated, and we hope that these clearer instructions will be helpful for both authors and reviewers. To facilitate both the reviewing as well as the publication process, we kindly ask all authors to have a careful look and follow these when submitting your paper. We end by expressing our sincere gratitude to all our reviewers, authors and readers who support NJNR to move forward, both in regard to quantity and quality − it would not have worked without you.
