As editors of the Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN) and frequent manuscript and grant reviewers, we often are perplexed when a manuscript or grant focuses on a topic with a rich foundation of supportive science and yet classic references in that science are not cited. Guidance to journal authors may send an unclear message that leads to this practice. Recent work by Owens et al. (2020) indicates many journal editors and faculty stipulate references not be more than 5 years old. Consequently, the message being conveyed, inadvertently we believe, is that work older than five years is no longer relevant. But that is not necessarily the case as readers, editors, and reviewers expect authors to demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the science of which they write. Thus, in this editorial, we discuss the omission of (1) crucial foundational work and (2) critical current work.

Why is including classical work important? Omitting crucial foundational references may result in the unnecessary expenditure of human and other resources in an attempt to address a problem previously addressed and disseminated. Gottlieb (2003) argues that omitting such occurrences reflects “a sort of ageism of knowledge—discarding the old to create the illusion of the new” (p. 3). Moreover, although it is important to have current information in clinical practice [we would add educational practice as well], she argues that the nursing discipline extends beyond interventions to understanding the human condition. Thus, scholars need not redo knowledge gained from earlier work; rather, scholars need to apply and extend this knowledge. Law and Lybeck (2015), both sociologists, suggest that placing year limits on literature searches contributes to disciplinary amnesia, and highlight that focusing on “winners”—or in the case of this editorial recent literature—can diminish disciplinary knowledge and understanding. Gottlieb (2003) captures continuing concerns about placing limitations on currency of references well. She says:

“If we fail to stop and think about what we are doing and why we are doing it, we risk taking nursing science backward instead of forward. We risk re-inventing the wheel, or at best spinning our wheels. We run the risk of unwittingly promoting ageism of knowledge, and in so doing planning trees with very shallow roots” (p.3)

What about including current work? Including current work is critical, given how quickly information can change, particularly in relation to clinical issues. Readers, editors and reviewers expect scholars to be up to date on the most recent efforts being undertaken to address a clinical issue, in part, as scholar work is evaluated in terms of the contribution he or she is making. Omitting an important recent reference may lead readers, reviewers and editors to question the veracity and contribution the scholar is making in a specific area. Thus, the need to include recent work is well-founded. Consequently, including classical references may not be as relevant or helpful in understanding current thinking on a specific topic.

What factors could contribute to these omissions? In addition to editor and faculty stipulations regarding currency of references (Owens et al., 2020), author guidelines may limit the number of references included in a manuscript, requiring the author to make difficult decisions about what to include: crucial foundational work or more recent information. Such is the case with this journal. The maximum number of references is 25; should authors exceed that number, they are asked to provide rationale for the additional references. Such restrictions are in place to avoid excessive references and more importantly, to avoid citation manipulation which has dire consequences for journals.

Increasingly, outcomes of nursing doctoral programs include required submission of manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals. Omission of either classical or recent literature may reflect undue haste in searching the literature or ignorance of key moments in the field, a possibility when scholars are trying to meet course or program deadlines. Thus, these novice authors need guidance by faculty in balancing classic and current references. Such guidance requires considerable time, critical judgment, the ability to decide what are the most important papers in the field, and professional investment on faculty's part and can be challenging to realize.

What can scholars do to avoid disciplinary amnesia? It is not atypical for scholars to struggle with how best to reference their thoughts and to demonstrate their command of the topic they are addressing, particularly in terms of the number and recency of references. The challenge all scholars face is how best to convey their expertise on a topic, being cognizant that “It is best practice to base scholarly work on recent literature” (Owens et al., 2020, p. 1). However, determining which references to cite can be problematic “when there is little recent published information or a great deal of important historical and influential work on a topic” (Owens et al., 2020, p. 1).

Understanding what is known about a topic requires both depth and breadth in searching the literature. Although important to appreciate what nurse scholars [discipline] say on topic, it is equally important to know what other disciplines [synthesizing] are doing. Gardner (2006) emphasizes these two issues in his book Five Minds for the Future. Importantly, he differentiates between subject matter and discipline, emphasizing a disciplined mind is a “distinctive way of thinking about the world” (p. 27). Depth in searching the literature helps scholars understand the disciplinary perspective on a topic. Breadth in searching contributes to developing a synthesizing mind, that is, a mind that reflects accessing, reviewing and integrating literature from outside nursing into a scholar's work.

A first step is to strive for a balanced perspective (Owens et al., 2020) and to use available resources. Scholars should consult a librarian as a critical first step as they begin exploring a problem by reviewing the literature. Although this statement may seem self-evident, scholars do not always undertake this first step, limiting the comprehensiveness of a literature search. A good practice is to not limit searches to the most recent 5 years as some authorities consider time frames to between 5 and 10 years appropriate (Owens et al.,2020). Doing so becomes even more important as it is possible that important historical work will be older than this timeline. Consequently, extending the year range seems a reasonable approach in an effort to ensure critical literature is not missed. Certainly, as a scholar there is nothing worse than having someone indicate a scholar has omitted inclusion of critical work in his or her work. Moreover, conducting a comprehensive search of the literature may result in the discovery of important work long after the paper was published but that is not referenced in more recent work on the topic; Song et al. (2018) call such papers a sleeping paper. In other words, sleeping papers are those that are rediscovered years after having been published, reflecting they experienced a hibernation period from time of publication to time of rediscovery that can span several decades. The important contribution being made by sleeping papers does not occur until their rediscovery.

Another strategy is to reflect on why scholars support their work with references. Given “modern science is based on trust” (Milojevic, 2012, p. e49176), references provide a visible record of how thinking on a subject evolves over time. In other words, references “are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science” (Camacho-Miñano & Núñez-Nickel, 2009, p. 754). Placing ones work within the larger context of what is known can help identify critical older works that warrant referencing.

Decision making algorithms can be helpful. Owens et al. (2020) provide three decision-making algorithms to assist scholars in determining appropriateness and number of references to use: one outlines the process; one provides strategies by which to evaluate currency of references; and one offers guidelines for determining an appropriate number of references. In addition, scholars need to consider how quickly information is developing in their particular area of expertise, as recency of references can be crucial to disciplinary understanding on a topic. This point is particularly relevant when considering submitting to a journal which is clinically focused.

All scholars want to provide support for their ideas. Making certain they demonstrate breadth and depth of understanding requires willingness to go “back in time” so they avoid disciplinary amnesia. Continuing to foster curiosity about what is known is critical and requires a balanced approach that includes accessing a range of literature within and outside the discipline. Not doing so could limit the contribution their work could make. No scholar wishes for this.

In conclusion, readers, reviewers and editors expect that authors will demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the science of which they write. Please do not forget the classics! Those scientists and authors are leaders that paved the way for the rich nursing science that continues to benefit international public health and advances the nursing workforce.