A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals

BMC Medicine, Feb 2016

Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Discussion 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. Conclusion 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.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/s12916-016-0561-2.pdf

A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals

Galipeau et al. BMC Medicine A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals James Galipeau 0 Virginia Barbour 2 Patricia Baskin 1 Sally Bell-Syer 7 Kelly Cobey 0 Miranda Cumpston 6 Jon Deeks 5 Paul Garner 4 Harriet MacLehose 9 Larissa Shamseer 0 Sharon Straus 8 Peter Tugwell 0 3 Elizabeth Wager 10 Margaret Winker 11 David Moher 0 10 0 Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , Ottawa , Canada 1 American Academy of Neurology , St. Paul, MN , USA 2 School of Medicine, Griffith University , Queensland , Australia 3 School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa , Ottawa , Canada 4 Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine , Liverpool , UK 5 Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham , Birmingham , UK 6 School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University , Melbourne , Australia 7 Department of Health Sciences, University of York , York , UK 8 Department of Medicine, University of Toronto , Toronto , Canada 9 Cochrane Editorial Unit , London , UK 10 Sideview , Princes Risborough , UK 11 World Association of Medical Editors , Chicago , USA Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Discussion: 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. Conclusion: 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. Biomedical; Competencies; Journal; Scientific editor; Scoping review Background “…journals, some of which have reported research for many decades, are still not producing articles that are clear enough to really judge a study’s conduct, quality, and importance—let alone to allow other researchers to reproduce it or build on it” [ 1 ]. Biomedical journals are the main route for disseminating the results of health-related research [ 2 ]. However, when examined more closely, the articles that journals publish are problematic; critical details are often missing or poorly reported, consequently reducing their quality, transparency, reproducibility, and usefulness for decision makers [ 3 ] – this is wasteful, diminishes scientific and fiscal value, and is unethical [ 4 ]. Authors and scientific journals share the majority of the responsibility for these shortcomings, as the former are accountable for the integrity of a study’s conduct and the accuracy of reporting of the content within the manuscript, while the latter are accountable for decisions regarding its publication. On the side of journals, it is scientific editors (by which we mean editors, and ultimately the Editor-in-Chief, who are tasked with making decisions about (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/s12916-016-0561-2.pdf

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. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals, BMC Medicine, 2016, pp. 16, 14, DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2