A long delay between research data collection and publication time can impede clinicians from having the most up-to-date information to inform their practice. This is concerning since an often-cited statistic states that it takes an average of 17 years for 14% of research evidence to be widely implemented into clinical practice (Westfall et al., 2007). Efforts to close the gap between evidence generation and practice change are, therefore, important. Given the rapid pace of change in health care, one wonders if older data are an appropriate foundation upon which to base innovation in patient care. When is data too old to have scientific and clinical relevance?

Internationally, journals with a high impact factor scrutinize the timeliness or currency of data in manuscripts submitted for publication (Welsh et al., 2018). For example, the Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN) specifies in its authorship guideline that the period of data collection should ideally be no more than 3 years before submission of the manuscript. However, should all data be judged with the same age lens? Should all nursing journals use the same 3-year cut-off? As journal editors, we recognize that this time restriction may be perceived as arbitrary. In this editorial, we aim to describe the rationale behind this development and offer considerations for those wishing to publish older data.

Practice change cannot occur if clinicians are unaware of the research that has been performed. For research results to reach the widest possible audience, they should be published in an indexed journal, which increases the credibility and visibility of the work. JAN is committed to the advancement of evidence-based nursing, midwifery and healthcare by disseminating high-quality research and scholarship of contemporary relevance and with the potential to advance knowledge for practice. Understandably, the review process in which manuscripts are sent to academic referees who read them and produce a critical analysis is a formidable task. The academic reviews need to be collated and sent back to the authors for response and manuscript revision. This review process contributes to the quality and transparency of the research. However, it also adds time between research data collection and publication. Hence, selecting papers with a 3-year data cut-off may enhance the contemporary relevance of the findings for practice.

The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the importance of data currency in international journals. The emergence of new diseases or healthcare delivery challenges can render prior research inadequate and, in many respects, outdated for informing clinical interventions. There is an urgent need for rapid accounts of practice at the point-of-care so that health stakeholders are appraised of the issues confronting patients, nurses and health systems. Research investment has responded to this, and other health challenges in recent years. For example, there has been a significant move towards greater collaboration between researchers, nurses, patients and family caregivers to address the needs identified as important by the community. Chalmers and Glasziou (2009) estimate that, despite growing human and financial investment, 85% of funding for health research is wasted in multiple ways including non-publication. Research that is not published in a timely manner may contribute to a ‘Groundhog Day’ effect, whereby questions already addressed may be unnecessarily reproduced (Hong et al., 2022). Therefore, delays in publishing data may increase the expense and overall burden of research including unnecessary use of limited grant funding, study participants' time and collaborator resources.

Understandably, applying a 3-year cut-off may be experienced as a controversial or unwelcome development by some. Prioritizing newer data has been described as a sort of ‘ageism of knowledge’; valorizing the new may appear to communicate that older data have no relevance or usefulness (Gottlieb, 2003). This may disregard methodological strengths, unique data collection methods and innovative use of theory. Furthermore, this may leave investigators with a great deal of potentially useful but unpublished data. Restrictions to a 3-year data window may also ignore the common problem of inadequate time to complete data collection, analyse and publish the main findings before authors must write and obtain more funding, that is, a vicious cycle. Those in clinician–scientist or tenure track appointments may find themselves in this vexing circumstance.

We encourage all researchers to pursue publication of their work, regardless of the age of their data. We contend that newer research data holds particular relevance for substantiating emerging issues and advancing clinical practice. However, older research may remain scientifically indispensable for defining where we have come from and envisioning where we need to go. Proactive methods to avoid research languishing in unpublished format may include drafting a manuscript template during data collection and analysis, distributing writing work among research team members, and targeting shorter manuscript formats (e.g. letters, reports, visual abstracts, etc.). As submission to an indexed journal can be a time-intensive process, considerations should first be given to the author guidelines to ensure the manuscript aligns with data currency requirements. Where it does not but the data is still useful, this should be addressed in a covering letter or a letter of enquiry to the journal. Attention should also be given to alternative routes for disseminating older data through institutional and open access repositories, where users can make research outputs available in a discoverable, citable and sharable manner.

Timely movement of research data into publication is advantageous for a constantly evolving clinical practice context. JAN is committed to the identification and prompt dissemination of promising practices and critical thinking, which can have substantial positive impacts on nurses' abilities to meet the needs and expectations of patients, populations and health systems. Delays in publication are seen as a waste of scarce resources and add to the burden of research. It may not always be possible to publish within a 3-year window; however, authors should attempt to meet this expectation wherever possible. Where there has been an unavoidable delay, this can be addressed in the covering letter to the editors. Other routes to publication, particularly for manuscripts involving older data, exist and should be considered to maximize the scientific and clinical benefits of research.

EDITORIAL NOTE

Editorials are opinion pieces. This piece has not been subject to peer review and the opinions expressed are those of the authors. Dale Craig and M. Logsdon are editors of JAN. None of the authors have relevant political or other affiliations to declare.

中文翻译：

---

什么时候数据太旧而无法为护理科学和实践提供信息？

研究数据收集和发布时间之间的长时间延迟可能会阻碍临床医生获得最新信息来指导他们的实践。这是令人担忧的，因为一个经常被引用的统计数据表明，将 14% 的研究证据广泛应用于临床实践平均需要 17 年的时间（Westfall 等人，  2007 年）。因此，努力缩小证据生成与实践变革之间的差距非常重要。鉴于医疗保健领域的快速变化，人们想知道旧数据是否是患者护理创新的合适基础。什么时候数据太旧而不具有科学和临床意义？

在国际上，具有高影响因子的期刊会仔细审查提交发表的手稿中数据的及时性或时效性（Welsh 等人，  2018 年）。例如，Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN) 在其作者指南中规定，理想情况下，数据收集时间不应超过投稿前 3 年。然而，是否所有的数据都应该用同一个年龄的镜头来评判呢？所有护理期刊都应使用相同的 3 年截止日期吗？作为期刊编辑，我们认识到这种时间限制可能被认为是武断的。在这篇社论中，我们旨在描述这一发展背后的基本原理，并为那些希望发布旧数据的人提供考虑。

如果临床医生不知道已经进行的研究，就不会发生实践改变。为了让尽可能多的受众接触到研究成果，它们应该发表在索引期刊上，这样可以提高工作的可信度和知名度。JAN 致力于通过传播具有当代相关性的高质量研究和奖学金来推动循证护理、助产和医疗保健的发展，并有可能提高实践知识。可以理解的是，将手稿发送给阅读它们并进行批判性分析的学术审稿人的审阅过程是一项艰巨的任务。学术评论需要整理并发回给作者进行回复和稿件修改。该审查过程有助于提高研究的质量和透明度。然而，它还增加了研究数据收集和发布之间的时间。因此，选择具有 3 年数据截止期的论文可能会增强实践发现的当代相关性。

COVID-19 大流行强调了国际期刊中数据流通的重要性。新疾病或医疗保健服务挑战的出现可能导致先前的研究不足，并且在许多方面已经过时，无法为临床干预提供信息。迫切需要对护理点的实践进行快速说明，以便对卫生利益相关者评估患者、护士和卫生系统面临的问题。近年来，研究投资已对这一问题以及其他健康挑战作出回应。例如，研究人员、护士、患者和家庭护理人员之间的合作已取得重大进展，以解决社区认为重要的需求。Chalmers 和 Glasziou（2009 年) 估计，尽管人力和财政投资不断增加，但 85% 的卫生研究资金以多种方式浪费，包括未发表。未及时发表的研究可能会导致“土拨鼠日”效应，从而可能会不必要地重现已经解决的问题（Hong 等人，  2022 年）。因此，延迟发布数据可能会增加研究的费用和总体负担，包括不必要地使用有限的赠款、研究参与者的时间和合作者资源。

可以理解的是，应用 3 年的截止日期可能会被某些人视为有争议或不受欢迎的发展。优先考虑较新的数据被描述为一种“知识年龄歧视”；重视新数据似乎表明旧数据没有相关性或用处（Gottlieb，  2003). 这可能会忽视方法论优势、独特的数据收集方法和理论的创新使用。此外，这可能会给调查人员留下大量可能有用但未发表的数据。对 3 年数据窗口的限制也可能忽略了在作者必须撰写并获得更多资金之前完成数据收集、分析和发布主要发现的时间不足的常见问题，即恶性循环。那些担任临床医生-科学家或终身职位的人可能会发现自己处于这种令人烦恼的境地。

我们鼓励所有研究人员追求发表他们的工作，无论他们的数据存在多久。我们认为，较新的研究数据对于证实新出现的问题和推进临床实践具有特别的相关性。然而，对于确定我们从哪里来和设想我们需要去哪里，旧的研究在科学上可能仍然是不可或缺的。避免研究以未发表的形式停滞不前的积极方法可能包括在数据收集和分析期间起草手稿模板，在研究团队成员之间分配写作工作，以及针对较短的手稿格式（例如信件、报告、视觉摘要等）。由于提交给索引期刊可能是一个耗时的过程，应首先考虑作者指南，以确保手稿符合数据流通要求。如果没有，但数据仍然有用，则应在附信或给期刊的询问信中说明。还应注意通过机构和开放存取存储库传播旧数据的替代途径，用户可以在这些存储库中以可发现、可引用和可共享的方式提供研究成果。

及时将研究数据转化为出版物有利于不断发展的临床实践环境。JAN 致力于识别并迅速传播有前途的实践和批判性思维，这可以对护士满足患者、人群和卫生系统的需求和期望的能力产生实质性的积极影响。延迟发表被视为对稀缺资源的浪费，并增加了研究负担。在 3 年的窗口内发布可能并不总是可能的；但是，作者应尽可能满足这种期望。如果出现不可避免的延误，可以在给编辑的附信中说明。其他出版途径，特别是涉及旧数据的手稿，

编辑说明

社论是评论文章。这篇文章没有经过同行评审，所表达的观点是作者的观点。Dale Craig 和 M. Logsdon 是 JAN 的编辑。所有作者都没有要声明的相关政治或其他从属关系。