The reported training and experience of editors in chief of specialist clinical medical journals

Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships

Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries by researchers from institutions in high-income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low- or middle-income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high-income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research.

Perspective on Systematic Medical Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PURPOSE

This study sought to identify factors contributing to the inadequacies of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) published in the ophthalmology literature.

DESIGN

Perspective.

METHODS

Review and synthesis of selective literature, with interpretation and perspective.

RESULTS

Although recommendations for the design, conduct, assessment of quality, and risk of bias of systematic reviews have been widely available, some recent publications illustrate a serious potential failing in this domain: inclusion of refuted science, lack of citation of post-publication correspondence and failure to use ≥1 alternative search strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Examples of inadequacies of peer review in medical literature and perpetuation of erroneous science by unfiltered inclusion in subsequent systematic reviews have been identified, and the problem can be traced to authors, peer reviewers, and editors of journals. This perspective identifies and analyzes several possible causes of the problem and recommends some specific corrective actions to improve the quality and accuracy of such reviews.

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

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.

2017 in-training initiative of the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics: the JARG Young Investigator Forum

The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics introduces the JARG Young Investigator Forum, an in-training initiative aimed to expand opportunities for young investigators. The JARG Young Investigator Forum has three primary goals: first, to increase opportunities for trainees and young investigators to contribute as researchers and writers. Trainees will be invited to publish mini-reviews based on their area of research interest/expertise and will have the opportunity to indicate "in-training" when submitting manuscripts as first author Educational research pertaining to reproductive medicine training will be added to the purview of the journal. Second, the Young Investigator Forum will increase opportunities for trainees to serve as journal reviewers and will provide mentorship throughout the peer review process. Third, trainees will have the unique opportunity to gain editorial experience by serving as a "guest editor" of the Young Investigator Forum, overseeing all editorial aspects of their assigned particular issue. Through authorship, peer review, and editorial experience, we seek to nurture the academic skills that are critical to a well-rounded career. The JARG Young Investigator Forum aims to foster career development for a generation of trainees who represent the future of reproductive medicine, and here, we outline the primary goals and objectives of the initiative.

Bridging the Otolaryngology Peer Review Knowledge Gap: A Call for a Residency Development Program

Current otolaryngology literature and future scientific direction rely heavily on a rigorous peer review process. Just as manuscripts warrant thoughtful review with constructive feedback to the authors, the same can be said for critiques written by novice peer reviewers. Formal scientific peer review training programs are lacking. Recognizing this knowledge gap, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery is excited to offer its new Resident Reviewer Development Program. All otolaryngology residents who are postgraduate year 2 and above and in excellent academic standing are eligible to participate in this mentored program, during which they will conduct 6 manuscript reviews under the direction of a seasoned reviewer in his or her subspecialty area of interest. By completing reviews alongside a mentor, participants gain the required skills to master the peer review process-a first step that often leads to journal editorial board and associate editor invitations.

What affects authors' and editors' use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews

OBJECTIVES

To identify and understand, through data from multiple sources, some of the factors that affect authors' and editors' decisions to use reporting guidelines in the publication of health research.

DESIGN

Mixed methods study comprising an online survey and semi-structured interviews with a sample of authors (online survey: n = 56; response rate = 32%; semi-structured interviews: n = 5) and journal editors (online survey: n = 43; response rate = 27%; semi-structured interviews: n = 6) involved in publishing health and medical research. Participants were recruited from an earlier study examining the effectiveness of the TREND reporting guideline.

RESULTS

Four types of factors interacted to affect authors' and editors' likelihood of reporting guideline use; individual (e.g., having multiple reasons for use of reporting guidelines); the professional culture in which people work; environmental (e.g., policies of journals); and, practical (e.g., having time to use reporting guidelines). Having multiple reasons for using reporting guidelines was a particularly salient factor in facilitating reporting guidelines use for both groups of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving the completeness and consistency of reporting of research studies is critical to the integrity and synthesis of health research. The use of reporting guidelines offers one potentially efficient and effective means for achieving this, but decisions to use (or not use) reporting guidelines take many factors into account. These findings could be used to inform future studies that might, for example, test the factors that we have identified within a wider theoretical framework for understanding changes in professional practices. The use of reporting guidelines by senior professionals appears to shape the expectations of what constitutes best practice and can be assimilated into the culture of a field or discipline. Without evidence of effectiveness of reporting guidelines, and sustained, multifaceted efforts to improve reporting, little progress seems likely to be made.

A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether training in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review effectively improves educational outcomes related to the quality of health research reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for comparative studies of formalized, a priori-developed training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review. Comparators included the following: (1) before and after administration of a training program, (2) between two or more training programs, or (3) between a training program and any other (or no) intervention(s). Outcomes included any measure of effectiveness of training.

RESULTS

Eighteen reports of 17 studies were included. Twelve studies focused on writing for publication, five on peer review, and none fit our criteria for journal editing.

CONCLUSION

Included studies were generally small and inconclusive regarding the effects of training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors on educational outcomes related to improving the quality of health research. Studies were also of questionable validity and susceptible to misinterpretation because of their risk of bias. This review highlights the gaps in our knowledge of how to enhance and ensure the scientific quality of research output for authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol)

BACKGROUND

An estimated $100 billion is lost to 'waste' in biomedical research globally, annually, much of which comes from the poor quality of published research. One area of waste involves bias in reporting research, which compromises the usability of published reports. In response, there has been an upsurge in interest and research in the scientific process of writing, editing, peer reviewing, and publishing (that is, journalology) of biomedical research. One reason for bias in reporting and the problem of unusable reports could be due to authors lacking knowledge or engaging in questionable practices while designing, conducting, or reporting their research. Another might be that the peer review process for journal publication has serious flaws, including possibly being ineffective, and having poorly trained and poorly motivated reviewers. Similarly, many journal editors have limited knowledge related to publication ethics. This can ultimately have a negative impact on the healthcare system. There have been repeated calls for better, more numerous training opportunities in writing for publication, peer review, and publishing. However, little research has taken stock of journalology training opportunities or evaluations of their effectiveness.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review to synthesize studies that evaluate the effectiveness of training programs in journalology. A comprehensive three-phase search approach will be employed to identify evaluations of training opportunities, involving: 1) forward-searching using the Scopus citation database, 2) a search of the MEDLINE In-Process and Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO databases, as well as the databases of the Cochrane Library, and 3) a grey literature search.

DISCUSSION

This project aims to provide evidence to help guide the journalological training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors. While there is ample evidence that many members of these groups are not getting the necessary training needed to excel at their respective journalology-related tasks, little is known about the characteristics of existing training opportunities, including their effectiveness. The proposed systematic review will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of training, therefore giving potential trainees, course designers, and decision-makers evidence to help inform their choices and policies regarding the merits of specific training opportunities or types of training.

The introduction, methods, results and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a Survey of its use in different authoring partnerships in a students' journal

Background

Globally, the role of universities as providers of research education in addition to leading in main - stream research is gaining more importance with demand for evidence based practices. This paper describes the effect of various students and faculty authoring partnerships on the use of the IMRAD style of writing for a university student journal.

Findings

This was an audit of the Makerere University Students' Journal publications over an 18-year period. Details of the authors' affiliation, year of publication, composition of the authoring teams and use of IMRAD formatting were noted. Data analysis gave results summarised as frequencies and, effect sizes from correlations and the non parametric test. There were 209 articles found with the earliest from 1990 to latest in 2007 of which 48.3% were authored by faculty only teams, 41.1% were authored by student only teams, 6.2% were authored by students and faculty teams, and 4.3% had no contribution from the above mentioned teams. There were significant correlations between the different teams and the years of the publication (r_s = -0.338 p < 0.01 one tailed). Use of the IMRAD formatting was significantly affected by the composition of the teams (Χ² (2df) = 25.621, p < 0.01) especially when comparing the student only teams to the faculty only teams. (U = 3165 r = - 0.289). There was a significant trend towards student only teams over the years sampled. (z = -4.764, r = -0.34).

Conclusions

In the surveyed publications, there was evidence of reduced faculty student authoring teams as evidenced by the trends towards students only authoring teams and reduced use of IMRAD formatting in articles published in the students' journal. Since the university is expected to lead in teaching of research, there is need for increased support for undergraduate research, as a starting point for research education.

[Formal training in medical journalism: why, who, when, how?]

Despite the proliferation of journals and the demanding responsibilities of an editorship, there are very few clearly delineated standards for editorial education. The editor of a medical journal has a challenging role. He or she must deal with scientific decisions and appraisals that require skill in both writing and critical review. But the editor also has to cope with other concerns, including ethical issues, opposition within the editorial board, and conflict with disgruntled authors. The editor has also to design the journal's future, and make decisions considering the strategic interest of the journal and the needs of the journal's readers. In this paper, we examine the medical editor's role, review the topic of education for those interested in medical editorial work and discuss the tenets and structure of existing medical editorial training programs.

Ghost-authors, improvement article communication, and medical publications

INTRODUCTION

Relationship between ghost-authors and medical writers has been debated, even arriving to citizens. Accusation that through ghost-authors, market messages are introduced in medical journals has been suggested.

DEVELOPMENT

This paper carried out an analysis of ghost-authors and their application to medical writers and discusses the intellectual authorship of the scientific articles, as well as the relationship with research groups and pharmaceutical industry, as well as the position of journal.

CONCLUSIONS

The role of medical workers is advisable because improves communication of articles. Using authorship criteria, medical writers cannot be considered as ghost-authors. Misconducts for medical writers should be pursued but also those from editors and authors. Responsibility of articles belongs to authors who are responsible of false conclusions obtained from data research and to the editor in the case of the paper was published.

An international survey of nurse editors' roles and practices

PURPOSE

To describe the editorial practices of nurse editors, including proprietary arrangements, manuscript processing systems, and editorial review, and to ascertain editors' opinions on effective editorial practices.

DESIGN

A descriptive study in which an author-designed 108-question survey was distributed and collected by e-mail. Of 177 international nursing editors identified, 164 e-mail addresses could be located, and 137 nurse editors expressed willingness to participate. Ninety journals were represented in the final purposive convenience sample, including 71 published in the US and 19 outside the US. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t test, chi square, and content analysis.

FINDINGS

Of the 90 journals, 78 were characterized by their editors as scholarly journals. Fifty-two were official journals of associations. The nurse editors' average age was 53, with over 20 years of experience in nursing and 8 years as editor. Although practices and compensation at U.S. and international journals did not differ significantly, scholarly journals and "other" publications such as magazines and newsletters were managed differently. Blinded peer review was in place at 98% of journals. Editors generally used manuscript reviewers as advisors rather than as voters; only 30% of editors thought their ultimate decision must agree with the majority of reviewers. Nurse editors often needed 3-5 years to feel comfortable in the role. Editors of association journals often reported struggling with the issue of editorial independence versus association control. Editors believed their role was influential in maintaining scholarly excellence and evidence-based practice, but many noted the constant pressure of deadlines and dealing with poor writing from authors as challenges of the work.

CONCLUSIONS

The role of nurse editor is not part of the formal preparation of nurse scholars or clinicians; standards for nurse editors are not readily apparent, and nurse editors often work in isolation, lacking professional support. This survey included data by which nurse authors and readers of nursing journals can understand how nurse editors work and make decisions about manuscripts, ultimately influencing knowledge dissemination in nursing journals. Nurse editors can use this information to compare their practices with that of others, and advocate for adequate preparation, compensation, and assistance with production.

Retracted: Composition of the editorial/advisory boards of major English-language anesthesia/critical care journals

BACKGROUND

Publications represent a central part of the research process. An analysis of who is responsible for acceptance of publications in major English-language anesthesia/critical care medicine journals was carried out.

METHODS

All English-language journals listed in the SCI Journal Citation Reports 1997 under the subheadings Anesthesiology (n=18) and Emergency Medicine & Critical Care (n=16) were analysed with regard to the editorship and the membership of advisory boards listed in the 1998 issues of the journals. The two groups were analysed separately with regard to their country of origin.

RESULTS

In the Anesthesiology section, 140 persons were listed as editors and 423 persons were identified as members of the advisory boards. Editors came from 14 different countries, with editors from the USA representing the majority (n=83; 59% of all editors, followed by the UK: n=24; 15% of all editors). Editors from other countries represent only a minority (n=33; 24% of all editors). The advisory boards came from 30 countries and were also dominated by the USA (n=220; 52% of all persons from the advisory boards). In the Emergency Medicine & Critical Care section 159 persons were listed as editors, of whom 119 originated from the USA (75% of all editors). Of the 835 persons listed in the advisory boards, 72% came from the USA, with 37 other countries sharing the remainder (second, UK: 8%; third, Canada: 2.5%).

CONCLUSION

Most editors/editorial board members of important Anesthesiology, Emergency and Critical Care journals came from the USA. Other countries play a significantly less influential role even in journals which are characterised as 'International Journals'.