This Article Full Text (PDF) Services Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire

Promoting Qualitative Research

The mission statement of The Gerontologist confirms that a wide array of substantive and methodological approaches are considered appropriate for publication; phrases like "multidisciplinary perspective" and "broad community of disciplines and professions" provide evidence that, first and foremost, The Gerontologist publishes applied aging research findings of the highest standard. Authors are encouraged to submit their most innovative and significant, grammatically sound, theoretically defensible, and methodologically rigorous research that has the potential to enhance the lives of older people and those who care for and about them. Liberated from the dictates of methodological preference, authors, reviewers, and, eventually, readers will engage in scholarship that challenges, illuminates, and advances the field of gerontology.

Despite this mission statement, there is evidence that certain methodological approaches, including qualitative designs, do not get published to the same degree as others (Noelker, 2006; Schoenberg, Shenk, & Cart, 2007). A number of reasons have been suggested to explain the more frequent rejection rate of qualitative articles, including bias or ignorance about qualitative epistemology and conduct that leads reviewers to apply inappropriate standards and expectations to qualitative manuscripts; qualitative manuscripts that present inadequate specification of research protocols, particularly in the areas of sampling and analysis; and a general mismatch between the preponderance of scientific publication traditions and the approaches, formats, and even logistics like page length of qualitative articles (Quandt, 2006).

We would like to provide guidance for qualitative authors and the reviewers evaluating such contributions in the hopes of increasing the eventual publication of qualitative manuscripts in The Gerontologist. Table 1 serves as a guide that specifies some, but by no means all, common problems for both qualitative authors and their reviewers. Although many of these shortcomings also pertain to quantitative research, they tend to arise more frequently with qualitative research. We are committed to publishing excellent research articles, irrespective of approach, and hope that the guide will encourage authors to submit their highest quality articles and assist reviewers to apply reasonable and appropriate standards to their evaluations.

References

• Noelker, L. S., (2006). A Publishable manuscript: One editor's experience and recommendations. In L. Curry, R. Shield, & T. Wetle (Eds.), Improving aging and public health research: Qualitative and mixed methods (pp. 175–181). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
• Quandt, S. A., (2006). Qualitative research in gerontology: Preparing a credible and publishable manuscript. In L. Curry, R. Shield, & T. Wetle (Eds.), Improving aging and public health research: Qualitative and mixed methods (pp. 165–174). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
• Schoenberg, N. E., Shenk, D., & Kart, C. S., (2007). Food for thought: Nourishing the publication of qualitative research. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 26, 4-16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. P. Cutchin The Many Faces of Applied Gerontology Journal of Applied Gerontology, February 1, 2008; 27(1): 3 - 3. [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Services Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire