Jul 9, 2026
A qualitative study exploring how nurses adapt to electronic health records is submitted to a journal. The reviewers agree the topic is timely and the interviews are rich, but the article is returned with a request for major revisions. Why? The research questions are vague, the sampling strategy is unclear, and the analytic process is summarized in a single sentence. The rejection note concludes: “Important work, but insufficiently rigorous.” Qualitative research offers the field of continuing education in the health professions an opportunity to gain a rich understanding of the culture, context, and perspectives of study participants. This methodology allows for an in-depth investigation of study participants, highlighting “their points of view and experiences … illustrated with their own words … to deepen our understanding of individual variation.” However, qualitative research articles are challenged when aspects of the methodology and analysis are not robust, resulting in resubmissions for authors. Common issues in writing qualitative research include the lack of an explicit argument, insufficient interpretation of findings, lack of theoretical foundations, and a clear explication of the data collection and analysis. This editorial outlines common weaknesses in qualitative articles submitted to JCEHP that elicit reviewer criticism and provide strategies for addressing them. This editorial is organized around the major sections of a research article—introduction, methodology, results, discussion, limitations, and conclusion to provide explicit guidance for authors intending to submit to JCEHP. When submitting a qualitative article for consideration in JCEHP, authors should align the components of the article with EQUATOR guidelines and address the following issues outlined in this editorial guide.