• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >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
【2h】

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

机译：一项国际调查和经过修改的Delphi流程揭示了编辑者的看法，培训需求以及与能力相关的陈述的等级，以发展生物医学期刊的科学编辑者的核心能力

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

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.
机译：背景：科学编辑（即对期刊的内容和政策做出决定的编辑）在生物医学期刊的编辑过程中发挥着核心作用。但是，对于这些编辑人员的培训需求或有效发挥这一职位所需的能力知之甚少。方法：我们对来自世界各地主要编辑组织的科学编辑人员的看法和培训需求进行了调查，随后进行了调查。经过改进的Delphi流程，我们邀请了同样的科学编辑来对从以前的范围界定审查中获得的与能力相关的陈述进行评估。结果：共有148名参与者完成了对观念和培训需求的调查。提交给他们的38项与技能和专业知识相关的陈述中，有至少80％的参与者同意其中的6项陈述对他们作为科学编辑的作用很重要或非常重要。至少有80％的人同意38项陈述中的3项是他们认为自己具有（非常或非常）的必要技能。参加者最需要培训的清单上的前五项是统计学培训，研究方法，出版道德，招聘和与同行审阅者打交道以及对期刊进行索引。这三轮Delphi分别由83名，83名和73名参与者完成，最终产生了23项与能力相关的“高度评价”陈述和86项“包含”的清单。结论：调查和修改后在将来围绕核心能力设计课程时，Delphi流程对于理解科学编辑人员的知识和培训差距至关重要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号