| Title |
A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James Galipeau, Virginia Barbour, Patricia Baskin, Sally Bell-Syer, Kelly Cobey, Miranda Cumpston, Jon Deeks, Paul Garner, Harriet MacLehose, Larissa Shamseer, Sharon Straus, Peter Tugwell, Elizabeth Wager, Margaret Winker, David Moher |
| Abstract |
Biomedical journals are the main route for disseminating the results of health-related research. Despite this, their editors operate largely without formal training or certification. To our knowledge, no body of literature systematically identifying core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals exists. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a scoping review to determine what is known on the competency requirements for scientific editors of biomedical journals. We searched the MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases (from inception to November 2014) and conducted a grey literature search for research and non-research articles with competency-related statements (i.e. competencies, knowledge, skills, behaviors, and tasks) pertaining to the role of scientific editors of peer-reviewed health-related journals. We also conducted an environmental scan, searched the results of a previous environmental scan, and searched the websites of existing networks, major biomedical journal publishers, and organizations that offer resources for editors. A total of 225 full-text publications were included, 25 of which were research articles. We extracted a total of 1,566 statements possibly related to core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals from these publications. We then collated overlapping or duplicate statements which produced a list of 203 unique statements. Finally, we grouped these statements into seven emergent themes: (1) dealing with authors, (2) dealing with peer reviewers, (3) journal publishing, (4) journal promotion, (5) editing, (6) ethics and integrity, and (7) qualities and characteristics of editors. To our knowledge, this scoping review is the first attempt to systematically identify possible competencies of editors. Limitations are that (1) we may not have captured all aspects of a biomedical editor's work in our searches, (2) removing redundant and overlapping items may have led to the elimination of some nuances between items, (3) restricting to certain databases, and only French and English publications, may have excluded relevant publications, and (4) some statements may not necessarily be competencies. This scoping review is the first step of a program to develop a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals which will be followed by a training needs assessment, a Delphi exercise, and a consensus meeting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 10 | 22% |
| United States | 5 | 11% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Cuba | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 44% |
| Scientists | 12 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 23% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 24% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,045,939
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#728
of 4,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,539
of 408,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#9
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 408,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.