Suppr超能文献

一项国际调查和改良的德尔菲法揭示了编辑对于生物医学期刊科学编辑核心能力发展的看法、培训需求以及对与能力相关陈述的评级。

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.

作者信息

Galipeau James, Cobey Kelly D, Barbour Virginia, Baskin Patricia, Bell-Syer Sally, Deeks Jonathan, Garner Paul, Shamseer Larissa, Sharon Straus, Tugwell Peter, Winker Margaret, Moher David

机构信息

Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Department of Psychology , University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.

出版信息

F1000Res. 2017 Sep 4;6:1634. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12400.1. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

摘要

科学编辑(即那些对期刊的内容和政策做出决策的人)在生物医学期刊的编辑过程中发挥着核心作用。然而,对于这些编辑的培训需求或有效履行这一职责所需的能力却知之甚少。我们对来自世界各地主要编辑组织的科学编辑的看法和培训需求进行了一项调查,随后进行了一个改进的德尔菲过程,在此过程中,我们邀请相同的科学编辑对从之前的范围界定审查中获得的与能力相关的陈述的重要性进行评分。共有148名参与者完成了关于看法和培训需求的调查。在向他们提出的38项与技能和专业知识相关的陈述中,至少80%的参与者同意其中六项对他们作为科学编辑的角色很重要或非常重要。在38项陈述中,至少80%的参与者同意其中三项是他们认为自己(具备得很好或非常好)拥有的必要技能。参与者列出的前五项培训需求是统计学、研究方法、出版伦理、招募和处理同行评审员以及期刊索引方面的培训。德尔菲的三轮过程分别由83名、83名和73名参与者完成,最终产生了一份包含23项“高评分”能力相关陈述和另外86项“包含”项目的清单。在未来围绕核心能力设计课程时,调查和改进的德尔菲过程对于了解科学编辑之间的知识和培训差距都将至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ad1f/5605946/782bc3ec4587/f1000research-6-13429-g0000.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验