Primary Research Journals Research Articles

RELATIONSHIP OF ADOLESCENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE BEHAVIOR OF PERSONAL HYGIENE DURING MENSTRUATION : A LITERATURE REVIEW

Background: Reproductive health is a vital issue in health development that impacts people's mortality, morbidity and life expectancy. The importance of maintaining reproductive health because it can cause diseases, namely reproductive tract infections, especially in young women. WHO data 2007 the highest incidence of reproductive tract infections occurs in adolescents, namely 35%-42%. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the level of knowledge of young women to the behavior of maintaining personal hygiene of the genital organs during menstruation. Method : the method used is literature review. For data using 5 primary research journals on google scholar with the keywords menstrual hygiene, knowledge, personal hygiene obtained free of charge. Results: The level of knowledge and age influence a person's behavior in maintaining personal hygiene during menstruation. Conclusion: Based on all the literature that has been reviewed, it can be concluded that there is a relationship between the level of knowledge and personal hygiene behavior during menstruation. Keywords : Menstrual Hygiene, Knowledge personal Hygiene,

Characteristics and Research Techniques Associated with the Journal Impact Factor and Other Key Metrics in Pharmacology Journals

In the present age, there is intense pressure on researchers to publish their research in ‘high-impact factor’ journals. It would be interesting to understand the trend of research publications in the field of pharmacology by exploring the characteristics of research articles, including research techniques, in relation to the journal’s key bibliometrics, particularly journal impact factor (JIF), the seemingly most mentioned metric. This study aimed to determine the characteristics and research techniques in relation to research articles in pharmacology journals with higher or lower JIF values. A cross-sectional study was conducted on primary research journals under the ‘Pharmacology and Pharmacy’ category. Analysis of 768 original research articles across 32 journals (with an average JIF of 2.565 ± 0.887) demonstrated that research studies involving molecular techniques, in vivo experiments on animals, and bioinformatics and computational modeling were significantly associated with a higher JIF value of the journal in which such contributions were published. Our analysis suggests that research studies involving such techniques/approaches are more likely to be published in higher-ranked pharmacology journals.

A “No Prescriptives, Please” Proposal Postscript: When Desperate Times Require Desperate Measures

We appreciate the thoughtful reactions of our colleagues to the “no prescriptives, please” proposal of Robinson et al. (2013), as well as the opportunity to respond to them. For the most part, our colleagues seem to agree that a problem exists in terms of unwarranted recommendations for practice appearing too often in educational research journals. At the same time, we realize that because our proposed policy is rather Draconian—in that it seeks to eliminate all recommendations for practice in all primary research journals—every responder mentioned that it was too extreme. This was intentional on our part. If, as Harris (2013) suggested, increased awareness and scrutiny become topics for further discussion among APA editors, then our modest mission will have been accomplished. In this rejoinder, we attempt to restate and clarify our proposal, along with its entailments, followed by brief comments on each responder's response.

Why Practice Recommendations Are Important in Use-Inspired Basic Research and Why Too Much Caution Is Dysfunctional

Robinson et al. (Educ Psychol Rev 25:291–302, 2013) have suggested refraining from practice and policy recommendations in primary educational research articles, in particular because primary research journals are not the appropriate outlet for such recommendations, the evidence provided by one research article is usually not sufficient, and making bold statements about practice in primary research trivializes the challenges of practice implementations. This commentary on Robinson et al. is a plea to continue providing such recommendations in primary research journals because much of educational research is not only theoretically but also practically grounded (i.e., use-inspired basic research). Contributions to the discourse on practice and theory are an intrinsic and productive part of educational research, even if some recommendations may turn out to be oversimplified or even wrong in further research. Nevertheless, there is agreement with Robinson et al. that we should usually not formulate general, sweeping recommendations. More modest and, therefore, legitimate types of practice recommendations are proposed, and conditions are discussed when such recommendations in primary research journals seem to be justified. Finally, some thoughts on how to communicate practice recommendations to practitioners were outlined.

Using Principles of Evidence-Based Practice to Improve Prescriptive Recommendations

We draw on the evidence-based practice (EBP) literature to consider the relationship between empirical results reported in primary research journals and prescriptive recommendations for practice based on those results. We argue that the relationship between individual empirical findings and practice should be mediated by two additional steps in which empirical findings are aggregated and evaluated, and policy decisions are made by multiple stakeholders with possibly competing value systems to determine how synthesized empirical evidence may best guide practice. We discuss three best practices in the EBP literature that promote generalizability, including aggregation of individual empirical findings, translating aggregated findings into a plan for EBPs, and developing field-based implementation guidelines. We outline a logical sequence in which empirical findings are peer reviewed, aggregated and compared across moderating variables, used to develop EBPs, and deployed by a team of instructional experts after a careful policy review and cost analysis using generalization criteria spelled out in the literature. We argue this process is the best strategy for making prescriptive recommendations regardless of the professional outlet they appear in because it is most likely to be based on replicable data and matched to the field-base context by instructional experts.

Disallowing Recommendations for Practice and Policy: a Proposal that Is Both Too Much and Too Little

Robinson et al. (Educ Psychol Rev 25(2):291-302, 2013) offer a thoughtful and powerful argument for a policy change for primary educational research journals. This policy change would “disallow recommendations for practice” (p. 10) in primary educational research journals. They provided compelling examples of works in which authors have either offered implications that go beyond their research design (i.e., stating causal relationships based on correlational data) or speculations and implications that go (way) beyond the results of their study. In my response, I first identify the many points made by Robinson et al. with which I agree and make it clear that I believe this discussion is a healthy one for the field. I do not, however, concur with the recommendation for an editorial policy change for primary research journals and offer reasons why the policy recommended is both too much and too little to deal with the issues they have identified as well as additional issues I find concerning in the submission and publication of studies in primary research journals.

In Praise of (Reasoned and Reasonable) Speculation: A Response to Robinson et al.’s Moratorium on Recommendations for Practice

In response to the call by Robinson et al. (25(2): 24–28, 2013) for a moratorium on recommendations for practice and policy in articles published in primary research journals, Alexander forwards four counterarguments that allow for what are termed reasoned and reasonable speculations. Among those counterarguments are the claim that (a) seeking influence in educational practice is a raison d'etre for educational psychology researchers; (b) problems evident in authors’ conclusions and implications are indicative of a deeper and broader issue; (c) speculations are unavailable and essential aspects of educational research; and (d) potential recommendations should be situated within the primary research document and with the data that justify their articulation.

On Going (Way) Beyond One’s Data: A Proposal to Restrict Recommendations for Practice in Primary Educational Research Journals

To counteract what we see as a growing research-reporting concern, we propose the following editorial-policy change regarding the content of primary research articles in educational research journals: Contributors should restrict their discussion and conclusions to their data and not offer recommendations for educational practice nor speculate about the educational policy implications of their research. We believe that this change will be beneficial for maintaining a separation between evidence and opinion concerning the legitimate warrants of empirical research. We suggest viable accompaniments and alternatives to authors offering practical recommendations and policy speculations in primary-research journal articles. Among these is to rely on all sources of evidence, including systematic research syntheses based on the aggregated contribution of multiple research studies from different sources, with recommendations for practice tailored to specific situations so that both their validity and utility will be increased. It is hoped that our proposed policy change will initiate a conversation among researchers, editors, reviewers, and educational-policy experts with respect to the scope and purpose of primary research journal articles.

Examining the Effects of Introducing Online Access to ACS Journals at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions

In collaboration with the Publications Division of the American Chemical Society (ACS), students and faculty at 24 primarily undergraduate institutions were provided online access to ACS primary research journals for a period of 18 months, and a group of eight schools were granted access to use the archives of ACS journals for a year. Resources were used in the context of ongoing curricular offerings. Electronic usage data were reviewed for patterns of access and utility, and faculty and librarians were surveyed concerning the effect of online journal access on their education programs.

Arbor Clinical Nutrition Updates: evidence-based clinical nutrition education using the Internet

The Arbor Clinical Nutrition Updates (ACNU) is a weekly electronic nutrition journal for health professionals. Each issue summarises several recent clinical research papers appearing in the general medical and nutrition literature and which deal with a common nutrition topic. A commentary is added on how this research fits in with previous work, and what it all means for the practising clinician. ACNU is the world's most widely read electronic nutrition publication, with over 100,000 largely health-professional readers in 186 countries. It is published in nine languages and distributed by email without charge in both plain text and Acrobat formats. ACNU utilises a number of the Internet's unique characteristics to facilitate broad reach, currency and active reader feedback. This, together with its brevity and summarising format, helps to maintain its relevance to the nutrition education needs of health professionals, particularly those in clinical practice, and to overcome the factors most commonly reported by health professionals as obstacles to their greater adoption of evidence-based medicine. ACNU is intended to be a collaboration with the primary research journals to extend the reach of new nutrition research findings to a wider community of researchers, academics and clinicians than each journal might otherwise reach individually. As such, ACNU utilises the Internet to promote the goals of open-access publishing and evidence-based medicine.

Exploring the Possibilities in the Print and Electronic Worlds

Summary In this session, the speakers explores the feasibility of significantly expanding the number of space advertisements that appear in primary research journals. The program topic responds to an oft-held belief among librarians that publishers should more aggressively sell space ads in scientific journals, thereby shifting a sizeable portion of income from subscriptions to advertising and lowering subscription prices to libraries. As the shift from print to electronic is a prevailing trend among readers of scientific journals, the paper also explores the considerations involved in selling advertising in electronic journals, drawing parallels to the print world and pondering the possibilities of the new medium.

Further Reflections on Hypothesis Testing and Editorial Policy for Primary Research Journals

Questions have recently been raised about the value of statistical hypothesis testing, as well as the associated policy implications for publishing empirically based research in professional journals. In this Reflections note, we extend our (Robinson and Levin, 1997) earlier thoughts on what could, should, and should not be done to existing editorial practices.

Multiple use of primary full text information — a publisher's perspective

Mounting primary full text information into an online database requires journal text be segmented into the proper fields and indexed. The American Chemical Society keyboards its primary research journals for publication directly into a publishing database with all of the fields identified. Using this database, photocomposition software inserts the appropriate typesetting codes based on data type to produce the printed journals. Database building routines use this same resource to create an online full text file that allows for search and display of text based on data type. This dual purpose of the initial keyboarding step affords substantial savings in using the journal information for multiple purposes in electronic publishing. Many publishers of scholarly journal information, however, keyboard their journals with the primary intent of composition for publication in hard copy form. In order to mount these journals into a full text database, their computer composition files must be preprocessed to identify the field elements (authors, text, tables, figures, references, and so on), sentences, paragraphs, and special characters not included in the standard ASCII character set. This paper contains a description of the use of a generalized markup format for primary information that facilitates its conversion into an online full text database or other media for electronic publishing.