The case for the NIHR Journal Library full reports (draft: August 2011)
What differentiates an NIHR Journals Library report from a conventional journal article?
- Extent – 50,000 words versus 3000, allowing
- Level of detail – full description of methods and how these may have been modified in the course of the project, plus full description of results
- Standalone – each issue of the journals represents a single research project or programme
- Appendices – in addition to the 50,000 word report there is scope to include additional detail, such as interview schedules, search strategies for systematic reviews, and technical reports.
Unique benefits of these features
- Full archive of what was done
- Reproducible
- Scope to include systematic review background to research
- Comprehensive – where a project or programme has included several different study designs or studies and approaches, each of which may have spawned separate article(s) in research journals, bringing them altogether in one overarching report may have a greater benefit than the sum of the individual parts
- Full results – allows others to do more meaningful meta-analysis or further analysis
- Clear accountability for public funding
Additional benefits for report authors
- Input of the NIHR journals editorial process to produce a high quality publication in terms of content (the review process) and presentation (the outsourced publishing process)
- Publication in a highly regarded journal with an impressive impact factor (HTA)/with the potential to develop a respectable impact factor within four years (EME, HS&DR, PHR, PGfAR)
- The opportunity to record work fully
To view this document as a PDF please click here |
printer friendly version
Share
