The Journal has recently up-dated its guidelines for Reviews in order to provide authors with guidance on the types of reviews the Journal accepts and how these need to be structured. We want to publish reviews that are relevant to mental health nursing practice and/or consumers of mental health services but these reviews need to be rigorously designed and reported in a way that enables each step to be replicated. Less rigorously designed reviews such as narrative and critical reviews may still be of value, particularly if they are re-structured as an essay/debate. The up-date of the Guidelines was prompted by the quality of some of the reviews the Journal was receiving and so we thought it might be useful to identify the common problems (failure to report the review according to guidelines, lack of structure in the Introduction, absence of quality appraisal or inadequate detail, insufficient detail of the search strategy, data extraction not related to review question, lack of synthesis, poorly structured discussion and limited discussion of implications for practice); and how these might be addressed. Reporting the review: Many reviews submitted to the Journal lack detail on components of the review process and for this reason need to be reported according to guidelines. The Journal requires that reviews be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (h t t p ://prisma-statement. org) which were designed to ensure reviews were reported in a transparent way to enable replication. While these reporting guidelines are developed for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and there may be other types of reviews submitted, authors need to use the headings from the checklists in as far as they are relevant e.g., a meta-analyses may not be reported and risk of bias may not have been used to evaluate the studies, but the review needs to include the processes for analyses and quality appraisal. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#23,300,432
of 34,365,356 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing
#1,102
of 1,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,404
of 348,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing
#15
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,365,356 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
