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

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.

Improving the biomedical research literature: insights from authors’ editors can help journal editors define and refine their core competencies

“…This omission from the CC is surprising, especially since plagiarism featured in two of the 23 highly ranked statements in the Delphi process 2 . While working with authors on manuscripts, authors’ editors sometimes encounter re-used text and inadequate citation, and use these opportunities to explain why these practices may be inappropriate and how to avoid them 25 .…”

“…Meanwhile, biomedical journals publish an ever-increasing proportion of articles that were judged by reviewers to have “acceptable English” but which contain awkwardly worded statements that defy comprehension and undermine reproducibility 2(pp5–9) . To avoid these problems, journal editors should be able to either provide authors with useful feedback on the language (e.g.…”

“…Relying solely on blanket “acceptable/unacceptable” assessments of the writing contributes, in our experience, to cynicism among authors regarding the fairness and quality of peer review, and to the proliferation of poorly written articles. Although we realize that skills in “dealing with language issues” and knowledge about the “fundamentals of editing” were considered but then excluded from the CC 2 , we believe that inclusion of a competency in this area would be welcomed and perceived as a marker of editorial quality.…”

Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing

“…An article closely related to the one we commented on had been published (Galipeau et al 2017) earlier on F1000Research, an innovative open-access, open-peer review publishing platform where peer review begins after publication; when two reviewers have approved the manuscript, it is indexed in bibliographic databases. The platform's Editorial Director was among the authors of both the earlier related article and the more recent BMC Medicine article we discussed, so we hoped that F1000Research would give our manuscript a respectful reading (M.E.…”

Prepared for the future

“…Readers have the right to expect that they do their utmost best to implement all reasonable standards to ensure the quality of the articles that are published in the journal. Interestingly, not much evidence is available what competencies editors should have to meet these standards . Through a scoping review competencies for editors were identified and these were then developed further through a modified Delphi procedure for which editors through major editorial organizations such as the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) were invited.…”