Using bibliometrics to support revalidation requirements
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence & Practice Previous     Next

Using bibliometrics to support revalidation requirements

David Charles Benton Chief executive officer, National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Chicago, Illinois, United States

Bibliometrics is a method of statistically analysing written works, including books and journal articles. It can be used to measure an academic article’s value, the importance of individual authors or academic research, and the productivity of authors, institutions or departments.

Aim To explore how bibliometrics can assist nurse academics in providing documented evidence to meet the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s (NMC’s) revalidation requirements.

Method The author’s publication history was used to demonstrate how nurse academics can use bibliometrics to provide evidence of their continuing professional development (CPD). A standard search using bibliographic software provided data on the author’s h-index, a summary of his year-by-year citations and details of the journals where his work was published. Data were subjected to a co-word and multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis.

Results Data were identified on the number of articles, the journals in which they were published, and the thematic focus of the author’s academic work. Four themes were identified from the co-word analysis: nursing and health policy; global influence and change; regulatory research; and leadership and social network analysis. Comparing these results with the revalidation requirements set by the NMC demonstrated the potential for using bibliometrics as a source of CPD evidence.

Conclusion Bibliometrics is compatible with the NMC’s revalidation requirements and provides a valid means of assisting nurse academics to complete their revalidation portfolios.

Nursing Standard. 32, 1, 44-51. doi: 10.7748/ns.2017.e10589

Correspondence

dbenton@ncsbn.org

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Received: 16 June 2016

Accepted: 10 November 2016

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in

OR

Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Subscribe
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Or