BackgroundScientific editors are responsible for deciding which articles to publish in their journals. However, we have not found documentation of their required knowledge, skills, and characteristics, or the existence of any formal core competencies for this role.MethodsWe describe the development of a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.ResultsThe 14 key core competencies are divided into three major areas, and each competency has a list of associated elements or descriptions of more specific knowledge, skills, and characteristics that contribute to its fulfillment.ConclusionsWe believe that these core competencies are a baseline of the knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to perform competently the duties of a scientific editor at a biomedical journal.

BackgroundBiomedical 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.DiscussionTo 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.ConclusionThis 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The development and usage of two companion NIH-funded genetic testing information databases, GeneTests (www.genetests.org) and GeneClinics (www.geneclinics.org), now merged into one web site, reflect the steadily increasing use of genetic testing and the expanding audience for genetic testing information. Established in 1993 as Helix, a genetics laboratory directory of approximately 110 listings, GeneTests has grown into a database of over 900 tests for inherited diseases, a directory of over 500 international laboratories, a directory of over 1,000 U.S. and international genetics clinics, and a resource for educational/teaching materials and reports of summary genetic test data. GeneClinics, founded in 1997 as an expert-authored, peer-reviewed, disease-specific knowledge base relating genetic testing to patient care, has grown steadily, now containing over 130 expert-authored, peer-reviewed full-text entries relating genetic testing information to diagnosis, management, and genetic counseling of specific inherited diseases. In spring 2001 the two databases were merged and in October 2001 the two web sites were merged for the purpose of seamless navigation into the GeneTests-GeneClinics site (www.genetests.org or www.geneclinics.org); the GeneClinics knowledge base was renamed "GeneReviews" to avoid confusion with the U.S. and international clinic directories. As genetic testing has moved steadily out of research venues and into routine medical practice, the user audience for these databases has become international and expansive and includes healthcare providers, patients, educators, policy makers, and the media. The use of these combined resources has grown to approximately 3,200 visits/day.

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.

Has not substantially declined, suggesting that standards need tightening up

No abstract

There is growing awareness of the importance of the scholarship of teaching and learning. Research into how we educate has become more robust, systematic, and rigorous. More faculty are engaged in research that develops the primary evidence to strengthen not just what we teach but also how we teach it. At many academic institutions, educational scholarship has been formalized and is used to make promotion and tenure determinations. Governing bodies use this evidence to set standards and guide decisions on certification, credentialing, and outcome-driven curriculum development. There is growing awareness of the need for rigorous evaluation of educational interventions across all stages of training and practice including for premedical, medical, and graduate students, as well as postdoctoral trainees, residents, fellows, and professionals.

No abstract