TRENDS, THEMES, AND RESEARCH IMPACT OF FACULTY PUBLICATIONS IN A COLLEGE OF NURSING: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS (1996–2026)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.8106Keywords:
Bibliometric Analysis, Nursing Faculty, Research Productivity, Scholarly Impact, Nursing Education, Evidence-based Practice, Research Trends, Faculty Development, Nursing Scholarship, Citation AnalysisAbstract
Background: Faculty scholarship is a fundamental indicator of academic excellence, research capacity, and knowledge generation within colleges of nursing. Understanding how faculty publications evolve over time—what themes emerge and how scholarship influences research and practice—is essential for informing institutional research strategies, faculty development initiatives, and evidence-based decision-making. Despite the growing importance of nursing research productivity, few studies have comprehensively examined the intellectual structure and thematic evolution of faculty scholarship using bibliometric approaches. Aim: To analyze the trends, thematic development, and research impact of faculty publications in a College of Nursing from 1996 to 2026 using bibliometric analysis. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted using Scopus-indexed publications retrieved on May 21, 2026. Publication output and citation performance were assessed to evaluate research productivity and scholarly influence. Co-citation analysis was used to identify the intellectual foundations of faculty scholarship, while co-word analysis was applied to map conceptual structures and emerging research themes. Bibliometric networks were generated and visualized using VOSviewer. Results: The analysis showed sustained increases in publication output and citation impact across the study period, indicating progressive development of faculty scholarship and institutional research capacity. Co-citation analysis identified major intellectual foundations centered on nursing education, evidence-based practice, professional competency development, faculty scholarship, and healthcare leadership. Co-word analysis revealed four dominant thematic domains: (1) nursing education and curriculum innovation; (2) evidence-based practice and clinical research; (3) faculty development, academic leadership, and research productivity; and (4) workforce development and healthcare systems research. Overall, the findings demonstrate increasing diversification of nursing scholarship and growing engagement with educational, clinical, organizational, and policy-related issues. Themes related to research mentorship, knowledge translation, and research capacity building appeared comparatively less developed, suggesting opportunities for future scholarly investment. Conclusions: Faculty publications in the College of Nursing evolved into a diverse and increasingly influential body of scholarship that contributes to nursing education, clinical practice, healthcare leadership, and workforce development. The results highlight the importance of sustained institutional support for research productivity, mentorship, interdisciplinary collaboration, and scholarly capacity building. Bibliometric mapping provides actionable evidence to guide strategic research planning and strengthen the long-term impact of nursing scholarship.
References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2004). AACN position statement on the practice doctorate in nursing. AACN.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2006). The essentials of doctoral education for advanced nursing practice. AACN.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2011). The essentials of master's education in nursing. AACN.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2016). Advancing healthcare transformation: A new era for academic nursing. AACN.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. AACN.
American Medical Association. (2020). AMA manual of style: A guide for authors and editors (11th ed.). Oxford University Press.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Aromataris, E., & Munn, Z. (Eds.). (2020). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Addison-Wesley.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1927)
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Institute of Medicine. (2000). To err is human: Building a safer health system. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9728
Institute of Medicine. (2011). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12956
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5, Article 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
I (we) submit this article which is original and unpublished, of my (our) own authorship, to the evaluation of the Veredas do Direito Journal, and agree that the related copyrights will become exclusive property of the Journal, being prohibited any partial or total copy in any other part or other printed or online communication vehicle dissociated from the Veredas do Direito Journal, without the necessary and prior authorization that should be requested in writing to Editor in Chief. I (we) also declare that there is no conflict of interest between the articles theme, the author (s) and enterprises, institutions or individuals.
I (we) recognize that the Veredas do Direito Journal is licensed under a CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.
Licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
