This October 2019 issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) includes one editorial, six articles, and one media review. In the editorial (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2019), we introduce a checklist of methodology elements for inclusion in methodological article submissions at JMMR, both empirical methodological mixed methods research articles and methodological/theoretical articles. We provide a review of the article types, the rationale for a checklist, a vision for the benefits of the checklist, a review of the checklist elements, and a recommendation to include the checklist with submissions to the journal. The checklist was developed to help guide the submissions of authors new to writing mixed methods methodological articles. In the lead article of this issue, Fàbregues, Paré, and Meneses (2019), with affiliations in psychology, education, and qualitative methods, compare how researchers in multiple disciplines operationalize and conceptualize the quality of mixed methods research. They interviewed mixed methods researchers from fields of education, nursing, psychology, and sociology. Their findings underscore the criteria participants consider to be most suitable for appraising mixed methods research; two perspectives from which the quality of mixed methods research is perceived (one contingent and flexible and the other universal and fixed); a link between the contingent and universal perspectives and the participants’ disciplines; and an equal prevalence of the most-mentioned criteria across the four disciplines. As for the implications of this work, they identify the need to review existing quality frameworks in light of criticisms evoked by the participants, the need to foster inclusive and respectful dialogue on the quality of mixed methods research across disciplines, and the feasibility of reaching a consensus on core quality criteria. In the second article, Hong and Pluye (2019), both with affiliations in family medicine, provide a framework for critical appraisal in systematic mixed studies reviews. A systematic mixed studies review is a systematic literature review that includes qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods studies and uses qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis methods. The authors

中文翻译：

---

本期内容：混合方法研究的质量，系统的混合研究评论，混合方法单案例研究，基于社区的参与性研究以及数据集成与合并

2019年10月，《混合方法研究杂志》（JMMR）包括一篇社论，六篇文章和一篇媒体评论。在社论中（Fetters和Molina-Azorin，2019年），我们介绍了JMMR的方法论文章中包括的方法论要素清单，包括经验方法论方法论混合方法研究文章和方法论/理论文章。我们提供对文章类型的检查，检查清单的依据，检查清单好处的远景，检查清单要素的检查，以及将检查清单与提交给期刊的内容一起推荐的建议。该清单旨在帮助指导撰写混合方法方法论文章的新手提交的论文。在本期的第一篇文章中，Fàbregues，Paré和Meneses（2019）与心理学有联系，教育和定性方法，比较多个学科的研究人员如何对混合方法研究的质量进行操作和概念化。他们采访了来自教育，护理，心理学和社会学领域的混合方法研究人员。他们的发现强调了参与者认为最适合评估混合方法研究的标准；从两种角度看待混合方法研究的质量（一个视情况而定，灵活而另一个则普遍而固定）；偶然性和普遍性观点与参与者的学科之间的联系；并且在四门学科中，最普遍提及的标准也同样普遍。至于这项工作的意义，他们认为有必要根据参与者提出的批评来审查现有的质量框架，有必要就跨学科混合方法研究的质量促进包容性和尊重的对话，以及就核心质量标准达成共识的可行性。在第二篇文章中，Hong和Pluye（2019）都与家庭医学有联系，为系统的混合研究评论提供了关键评估的框架。系统的混合研究综述是系统的文献综述，包括定性，定量和/或混合方法研究，并使用定性和/或定量合成方法。作者 为系统的混合研究评价提供关键评估的框架。系统的混合研究综述是系统的文献综述，包括定性，定量和/或混合方法研究，并使用定性和/或定量合成方法。作者 为系统的混合研究评价提供关键评估的框架。系统的混合研究综述是系统的文献综述，包括定性，定量和/或混合方法研究，并使用定性和/或定量合成方法。作者