Nursing faculty and scholarly publishing: Survey of perceptions and journal use

Online Journal of Issues in Nursing

Volumn 6, Issue 2 SPEC. ISS., 2001, Pages 144-167

  Schloman, Barbara F ^a  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer access; Computer experience; Electronic publishing; Journals; Publication record

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; AWARENESS; COMPUTER; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DECISION MAKING; ELECTRONICS; EXPERIENCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; LIBRARY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NURSING; PEER REVIEW; PERCEPTION; PRINTING; PUBLICATION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; READING; REVIEW; SCHOOL; SKILL; TEACHING; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 3242659023     PISSN: 10913734     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Armstrong, M. (1986). Computer competence for nurse educators. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 18, 155-160.
2. Binger, J. L. & Jensen, L. M. (1980). Lippincott's guide to nursing literature: A handbook for students, writers, and researchers. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
3. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1994). A classification of institutions of higher education (1994 ed.). Princeton, NJ: Author.
4. Copp, L. A. (1988). Characteristics of a quality journal. Journal of Professional Nursing, 4, 393-394.
5. Cronin, B. & Overfelt, K. (1995). E-journals and tenure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46, 700-703.
6. Fagin, C. M. (1982). The quality of nursing journals as rated by deans of nursing schools. Heart & Lung: Journal of Critical Care, 11, 65-68.
7. Harter, S. P. (1998). Scholarly communication and electronic journals: An impact study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 507-516.
8. Kling, R. & McKim, G. (1999). Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 890-906.
9. Langston, L. (1996). Scholarly communication and electronic publication: Implications for research, advancement, and promotion. Riverside, CA: University of California.
10. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 403 892) Retrieved May 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.library.ucsb.edu/untangle/langston.html
11. Miller, A. C. & Serzan, S. L. (1984). Criteria for identifying a refereed journal. Journal of Higher Education, 55, 673-699.
12. Murray, P. J. & Anthony, D. M. (1999). Current and future models for nursing e-journals: making the most of the web's potential. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 53, 151-161.
13. Speier, C., Palmer, J., Wren, D., & Hahn, S. (1999). Faculty perceptions of electronic journals as scholarly communication: A question of prestige and legitimacy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 537-543.
14. Updates and what's new in 1999 for the CINAHL database. (1999). CINAHL News, 18, 8-19. Retrieved May 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cinahl.com/library/cinahlnews/Cnews181-2.pdf
15. Woodward, H., Rowland, F., McKnight, C., Meadows, J., & Pritchett, C. (1997). Electronic journals: Myths and realities. Library Management, 18, 155-162.