Research articles, labels, and prestige

“Of course my manuscript is full length!”

The editorial team recently adjusted the labels for research articles in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA). It started because of some confusion about a manuscript label, “full length,” as in “full-length” papers. Well, every author believes he or she sent in a full-length manuscript. “Why would I send only half an article?,” one author said. Indeed.

So, most of the research submissions came in as “full-length papers.” And when we reassigned some “full-length” article submissions to the “research report” category, we got some push back. The label, “full length,” apparently suggested prestige, somehow giving to an article importance not shared by other articles. Researchers thought a “research report” had less prestige or importance than a “full-length paper.” We reject that concept, so we eliminated the “full-length” label.

We love our researchers, and we know we need them to survive. But, honestly, the prestige of their research comes from the research itself and how well it is written. The impact of the article depends also on how many people read the paper. Neither prestige nor impact depends on a label put on by a journal.

While we were at it, we revised the set of submission labels that we use. We did this for two reasons.

TYPES OF RESEARCH

The first reason was to clarify how a paper fits in the scheme of research. This could lead to better presentations and more interest by readers.

Types of research really are different. There is no universally accepted typology of research publication. For us, a research paper describes full-bore, in-depth research that uses a traditional textbook methodology, is broadly generalizable, is persuasive in its conclusions, and is not compromised by limi-tations. The research is definitive or conclusive. It answers a question. For example, a randomized double-blind controlled (RDBC) study usually would fit this category. In some situations, RDBCs are not possible, and partial substitutes are acceptable. In library science, RDBCs often are not feasible, so we do not produce many definitive studies.

But we do produce good research. A research project that had to make some compromises to get accomplished can still be very informative, even if the conclusions are not really conclusive. The results can be important and can be useful, though it is a different research article category and needs to be presented carefully. It takes less space to describe and discuss, and the research submission category might be a “report” or a “brief communication.” Importantly, it can have just as much impact as a longer research paper. Maybe more so.

LABELS AND CITATION COUNT

To illustrate that labels do not make a difference, we looked at citation count—the number of citations an article receives—for (full-length) papers, brief communications, and case studies. Generally speaking, the higher the number of citations, the greater the perception of value or impact for that article. We used Scopus. The sample was all articles in the JMLA in 2010 and 2011.

In the 2010 JMLA, 9 papers and 6 brief communications or case studies had more than 5 citation counts per article. High citation counts went to 1 (full-length) paper with 22 citations [1] and 1 case study with 19 citations [2].

In the 2011 JMLA, 8 papers and 8 brief communications or case study articles had over 5 citations per article. The highly cited articles in this year were 2 papers, 1 with 33 cited counts [3] and 1 with 23 cited counts [4]. Two brief communications had 17 and 12 cited counts [5, 6].

So what does this mean? Article impact depends on content and not on a submission label. We think it also depends on exposure, which depends on the number of readers. To get readers to stop and read a JMLA article, we have to make papers more readable, crisper. Shorter papers, with good subtitles and very little jargon, are more likely to be read, regardless of the JMLA's labeling.

We think our new research classifications (labels) will produce crisper, easier-to-read articles. It will also help readers understand the implications of the research better.

HOW WILL IT HELP READERS?

It will remind them about the applicability of diff-erent kinds of research. Our group of research articles is:

• ▪Papers: if the topic applies to you, you can use the results to help make decisions
• ▪Reports: the results might be useful, use with caution
• ▪Brief communications: isn't this interesting?; we need to follow this and look for other pieces of information; no decisions based on briefs results

THE SECOND AND MAIN REASON

The second reason for the new research article labels is actually the main reason. We believe there are many librarians who do research, but in their research situations, it is not feasible to do the RDBC thing. It is intimidating to try. So they do not write up their research. The new categories emphasize that, even if the ideal research model is not achieved, research findings can be useful. The new categories are meant to encourage these librarians to come on board. Write up your research. There may be a category that fits. We want your participation.