Objective To explore the problems existing in the Doctoral students' academic papers of nursing under the background of subject evaluation, so as to provide scientific basis for the discipline construction of nursing. Methods From January 2019, 20 English papers and 10 Chinese papers were collected from 23 domestic primary discipline authorized units of nursing from December 2015 to December 2018. This paper analyzes the classification, influencing factors, citation times and the first author and corresponding author units. Results Totally 688 papers were collected. Among them, nursing professional papers accounted for 46.2% (318 / 688), nursing related papers accounted for 35.6% (245 / 688), and other academic papers accounted for 18.2% (125 / 688). The highest influential factors of nursing professional papers and nursing related papers were 6.02, of which 4.5% (31 / 688) were papers with more than 3 influencing factors, and 14.09 (41 / 688) were other academic papers with more than 3 influencing factors. Calculated by institutions, the total number of citations of submitted papers is 522 at most and 19 at least. 2.3% (16 / 688) of the papers were from the first author's unit and the submitting unit. Among the papers submitted by some universities, even 10.0% (3 / 30) of the first authors and corresponding authors are not authors of their own units. Conclusions There are more academic papers of non nursing major submitted by 23 colleges and universities, which indicates that some colleges and universities are not accurate enough in the development goal orientation of nursing discipline. The influencing factors and cited times of nursing academic papers are low. In the future, we should make clear the development direction of nursing discipline, strengthen the vertical research of nursing discipline, and improve the quality of nursing professional academic papers.
Zhao Licheng
,
Jiang Zhaoquan
,
Li Hongyu
. Analysis and reflection on the evaluation of academic papers of nursing doctoral students[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Education, 2020
, 40(3)
: 221
-224
.
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-677X.2020.03.015
[1]孙鸽,王鹏. 我国高校学科评估存在的问题分析及对策探讨[J]. 中国管理信息化, 2015(17): 240-241,242. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-0194.2015.17.124.
[2]沈勇. 论文指标与一级学科评估结果之比较[J]. 高教发展与评估, 2016, 32(2): 49-57. DOI: 10.3963/j.issn.1672-8742.2016.02.007.
[3]梅红,宋晓平. “双一流”建设中的学科评估创新探索[J]. 学位与研究生教育, 2017(5): 22-28. DOI: 10.16750/j.adge.2017.05.005.
[4]仰曙芬,赵秋利,程姗姗,等. 德尔菲法构建护理学博士学位论文评价指标体系[J]. 中国高等医学教育, 2016(8): 8-9. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1701.2016.08.004.
[5]张银玲,曹宝花,雷鹤,等. 中国发展护理博士教育之思考[J]. 医学研究生学报, 2011, 24(5): 530-532. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-8199.2011.05.020.
[6]马伟光,刘华平. 我国护理学博士研究生教育现状分析[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2009, 44(6): 541-543.
[7]刘秀娜,王仙园,周娟,等. 我国护理学博士研究生教育培养目标定位的探索性研究[J]. 护理研究, 2012, 26(25): 2321-2325. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6493.2012.25.008.
[8]章雅青. 护理学科的发展与思考[J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2011, 31(6): 693-695. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2011.06.001.
