↓ Skip to main content

A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
52 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Serbia 1 2%
Unknown 47 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Librarian 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 37%
Social Sciences 9 18%
Psychology 4 8%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 7 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 09 July 2019.
All research outputs
#437,731
of 14,374,747 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#355
of 2,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,533
of 339,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,374,747 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 339,518 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them