|Appears in Collections:||Psychology Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors' perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals|
Cobey, Kelly D
|Citation:||Galipeau J, Cobey KD, Barbour V, Baskin P, Bell-Syer S, Deeks J, Garner P, Shamseer L, Straus S, Tugwell P, Winker M & Moher D (2017) An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors' perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. F1000Research, 6, Art. No.: 1634. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12400.1|
|Abstract:||Background: Scientific editors (i.e., those who make decisions on the content and policies of a journal) have a central role in the editorial process at biomedical journals. However, very little is known about the training needs of these editors or what competencies are required to perform effectively in this role. Methods: We conducted a survey of perceptions and training needs among scientific editors from major editorial organizations around the world, followed by a modified Delphi process in which we invited the same scientific editors to rate the importance of competency-related statements obtained from a previous scoping review. Results: A total of 148 participants completed the survey of perceptions and training needs. At least 80% of participants agreed on six of the 38 skill and expertise-related statements presented to them as being important or very important to their role as scientific editors. At least 80% agreed on three of the 38 statements as necessary skills they perceived themselves as possessing (well or very well). The top five items on participants’ list of top training needs were training in statistics, research methods, publication ethics, recruiting and dealing with peer reviewers, and indexing of journals. The three rounds of the Delphi were completed by 83, 83, and 73 participants, respectively, which ultimately produced a list of 23 “highly rated” competency-related statements and another 86 “included” items. Conclusion: Both the survey and the modified Delphi process will be critical for understanding knowledge and training gaps among scientific editors when designing curriculum around core competencies in the future.|
|Rights:||© 2017 Galipeau J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.|
|3baeb1f0-39cf-4648-8158-6a1ae3124e35_12400_-_david_moher.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||1.02 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.