Jacqueline K. Owens, PhD, RN, CNE and colleagues
Writer’s Camp Counselors
Abstract
The inaugural Trail Pack at Writer’s Camp features a unique learning experience combining a research report, a podcast and video, and an article discussing reference currency and quantity in scholarly writing. It emphasizes the importance of recent literature while acknowledging the relevance of historical sources, offering guidelines and decision-making algorithms for effective literature selection.
Welcome to our inaugural Trail Pack! I am excited to introduce this new feature at Writer’s Camp. A Trail Pack is a multi-faceted learning experience: we bring together an original research report, a podcast, and a concise article written exclusively for Writer’s Camp that summarizes the study and highlights its key insights. Begin with the short article, and when your curiosity is sparked, follow the trail to the full research report. The accompanying podcast or video offers a personal touch and shares the story behind how the study developed. If you would like to receive 2 contact hours for reading and listening, you can! Scroll all the way to the bottom of the page for details. I hope you find this format both engaging and valuable. I would love to hear your feedback; please share in the comments below. — Leslie H. Nicoll, Camp Director
Click here to read the original article by Jackie and colleagues on the Canadian Journal of Nursing Research website. The article is available to Writer’s Camp campers–no fee to read. The full article includes details of the research that was conducted and more information about currency and number of references.
Listen to this podcast or watch the video with Jackie Owens, interviewed by Melissa Anne Dubois and Jamie Bourgeois. Jackie describes the research she conducted with her colleagues to develop their recommendations for currency and number of references, as well as the importance of accurate documentation overall in scholarly writing. If you prefer to watch the video, click the button below.
▶ Click here to watch the video (same content as the podcast)
Have you struggled with decisions about what references to include in your writing for publication? The typical university standard for currency is 5 years or less, but you may have older sources that seem very important. Maybe your topic area has a strong evidence base, and you are unsure about the number of references to include. Currency, sometimes called timeliness, and number of references in written work is often controversial. The best practice is to base scholarly work on recent literature. Determining the number and appropriate currency of sources can be more complex if there is little recently published information or a great deal of important historical and foundational work on a topic. Our recent study1 developed a framework to offer guidance for authors that includes three decision making algorithms for searching the literature and selecting your references by currency and number.
Considerations and Guidance
Several factors can influence decisions about currency and number of references: purpose of the article, theoretical context, relevancy of the reference for the topic, and journal requirements. In clinically focused articles, editors often prefer references that are 5 years old or newer, as healthcare decisions should ideally be based on the most current evidence. Textbooks generally allow references from the past 5 to 10 years, with broader ranges permitted for theoretical content. Articles uncited for years can become relevant again, sometimes experiencing a resurgence in popularity—often referred to as “sleeping beauties”1,2(p.43). These papers may have been ahead of their time at publication but later align with current practice. Thus, the year of publication is dated, but the content may be very relevant at the time of your writing.
Web references—not journal articles posted online—can also have implications for currency. In general, sources retrieved from the web do not substitute for peer reviewed, published literature. These sources often have no date of publication, and it may not be evident if content has been updated. If these sources are absolutely necessary, the validity and currency of the material should be clearly stated on the site and easy for readers of your article to find (i.e., posting date easy to locate and content not behind a paywall).
Finally, authors should consider guidance from publication manuals, such as the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA).3 The APA manual is the most common citation style in nursing and recommends using the most current research on a given topic but does not provide specific guidance related to currency. The manual recommends the use of primary sources, which may be dated, thus indirectly suggesting that older references are sometimes more appropriate.
Our Research
We reviewed author guidelines for journals in the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) Directory of Nursing Journals (n = 247) for existing statements about currency of references and the number of years that made a reference “current”1. We found that 11% of the nursing journals we reviewed had a detailed statement and 10% offered some information. We queried the editors of the journals with detailed information (n = 27) found that the most common recommendation for currency was 5 years with permitted exceptions for classic sources. Our study also included a survey for nurse educators (n = 44) to ask about currency and number of references in assignments for written work for students. Most faculty provided guidance related to currency of references and about half specified a number. Narrative responses from both editors and educators suggested that the purpose of the journal informs currency and the number of references. For example, practice journals would require more current information than a journal that publishes theoretical or historical content.
Our findings affirmed that recent literature is essential for nursing scholarship. However, historical perspectives published over 5 or 10 years earlier remain valued, and are sometimes required to fully develop thoughts about a topic. Based on our findings, we offer the following recommendations:
- Learning the value of a comprehensive literature review, such as how to form judgments about the literature found and the rationale to select cited literature, are goals of nursing education. The level of learning is an important consideration. For example, an adequate literature review for a dissertation, an evidence-based project in a Master’s level research course, and an undergraduate term paper about a nursing intervention will likely require different levels of reference support by number, and upper level work may benefit from inclusion of older, classic sources.
- A sound rationale should be offered by editors or faculty to justify any provided guidelines, so authors understand the purpose behind expectations for currency and number of references.
- The nature of the topic informs the selection of literature. For example, a controversial topic should include literature that offers historical context. An article that discusses a current clinical practice may include a brief historical perspective, but editors will likely require reference support from the most current literature.
- Authors should provide a brief rationale for all references within the context of the narrative. Readers should have a clear understanding about how a source fits into the discussion, particularly in a topic area with a large amount of literature support.
- Primary sources are preferred, even if published years earlier because they allow authors to interpret the original work directly. Relying on more current secondary sources increases the risk of misinterpretation.
Decision Making and Recommendations
Knowing how to search the literature effectively and make appropriate decisions about currency and number of references is a valuable skill for nurse authors. We have developed three decision making algorithms to inform author decisions about currency and number of references, presented below in Figures 1, 2, and 3.1
Figure 1. Considerations for Currency and Number of References in a Literature Search
Figure 2. Decision Making Criteria to Review Currency of References
Figure 3. Decision Making Criteria to Review Number of References
Conclusion
Every nurse should understand the need to include current, peer reviewed, and verifiable sources to support scholarly work. It is important to develop strong skills for searching the literature and understanding what to include in this process. Archives of nursing literature for searching reaches as far back as 1888, offering a rich history of nursing scholarship to support current references that form the foundation of today’s important topics in nursing and healthcare. Our research has demonstrated that editors and faculty appreciate attention to both the currency and number of references, and inclusion of these with intent. However, rigid rules can be frustrating for everyone. The decision making algorithms provided in this article provide evidence-based, actionable recommendations to help you understand selection of references in the context of time frames and level of support required, and how these choices relate to the topic under consideration.
References
- Owens JK, Nicoll LH, Carter Templeton H, et al. Addressing nursing scholarship: A framework for currency and number of references. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research. 2020;54(1):40-50. doi:10.1177/0844562120977410
- Song Y, Situ F, Zhu H, Lei J. To be the prince to wake up sleeping beauty: The rediscovery of the delayed recognition studies. Scientometrics. 2018;117(1):9-24. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2830-7
- Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association: The Official Guide to APA Style. 7th ed. American Psychological Association; 2020.
Note: Figures 1, 2, and 3 are reprinted with permission from Sage. Originally published in Owens et al., 2020. Thanks to Sage Publishers and the Canadian Journal of Nursing Research for making our article available at no charge to Writer’s Camp readers.
Thank you to Melissa Anne Dubois and Jamie Bourgeois for their assistance with creating the podcast and interviewing Jackie.
Authors: Jacqueline K. Owens, Leslie H. Nicoll, Heather Carter Templeton, Peggy Chinn, Marilyn H. Oermann, Alison H. Edie, and Jennie C. De Gagne
Reviewed and Edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll and Jenny Chicca
Copyright: © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Jacqueline Owens. CC-BY-ND 4.0
Citation: Owens JK, Nicoll LH, Carter Templeton H, Chinn PL, Oermann MH, Edie AH, De Gagne JC. Trail Pack: Evidence-based recommendations to inform currency and number of references. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2026; 2(1):1. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17724399
Would you like to receive 2 contact hours for this session? You can! Read both articles, watch the video (or listen to the podcast) and then click below. You will need to complete the evaluation, agree to the attestation statement, and pay a $20 fee. Your CE certificate will be emailed to you. Contact hours are offered through Fairleigh Dickinson University and approved by the New Jersey State Nurses Association.
▶ Click here to claim CE Credit (Evaluation + Attestation + $20 fee)