Medical journal editors lacked familiarity with scientific publication issues despite training and regular exposure

Victoria Wong, Michael L. Callaham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To characterize medical editors by determining their demographics, training, potential sources of conflict of interest (COI), and familiarity with ethical standards. Study Design and Setting: We selected editors of clinical medical journals with the highest annual citation rates. One hundred eighty-three editors were electronically surveyed (response rate, 52%) on demographics and experiences with editorial training, publication ethics, industry, and scientific publication organizations. Results: Editors reported formal (76%) and informal (89%) training in medical editing topics. Most editors saw publication ethics issues (e.g., authorship, COIs) at least once a year. When presented with four questions about editorial issues discussed in commonly cited authoritative policy sources, performance was poor on topics of authorship (30% answered correctly), COI (15%), peer review (16%), and plagiarism (17%). Despite this, confidence level in editorial skills on a Likert scale from the beginning to the end of the survey dropped only slightly from 4.2 to 3.9 (P <0.0001). Conclusion: Our study presents a current look at editors of major clinical medical journals. Most editors reported training in medical editing topics, saw ethical issues regularly, and were aware of scientific publication organizations, but their knowledge of four common and well-disseminated publication ethics topics appears poor.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)247-252
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume65
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Publications
Ethics
Authorship
Conflict of Interest
Plagiarism
Demography
Organizations
Peer Review
Industry
Recognition (Psychology)

Keywords

  • Authorship
  • Conflict of interest
  • Editorial policies
  • Journalism
  • Medical
  • Peer review
  • Plagiarism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Medical journal editors lacked familiarity with scientific publication issues despite training and regular exposure. / Wong, Victoria; Callaham, Michael L.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 65, No. 3, 03.2012, p. 247-252.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fb755bd85aef485fb2c3f7b9fd77981b,
title = "Medical journal editors lacked familiarity with scientific publication issues despite training and regular exposure",
abstract = "Objective: To characterize medical editors by determining their demographics, training, potential sources of conflict of interest (COI), and familiarity with ethical standards. Study Design and Setting: We selected editors of clinical medical journals with the highest annual citation rates. One hundred eighty-three editors were electronically surveyed (response rate, 52{\%}) on demographics and experiences with editorial training, publication ethics, industry, and scientific publication organizations. Results: Editors reported formal (76{\%}) and informal (89{\%}) training in medical editing topics. Most editors saw publication ethics issues (e.g., authorship, COIs) at least once a year. When presented with four questions about editorial issues discussed in commonly cited authoritative policy sources, performance was poor on topics of authorship (30{\%} answered correctly), COI (15{\%}), peer review (16{\%}), and plagiarism (17{\%}). Despite this, confidence level in editorial skills on a Likert scale from the beginning to the end of the survey dropped only slightly from 4.2 to 3.9 (P <0.0001). Conclusion: Our study presents a current look at editors of major clinical medical journals. Most editors reported training in medical editing topics, saw ethical issues regularly, and were aware of scientific publication organizations, but their knowledge of four common and well-disseminated publication ethics topics appears poor.",
keywords = "Authorship, Conflict of interest, Editorial policies, Journalism, Medical, Peer review, Plagiarism",
author = "Victoria Wong and Callaham, {Michael L.}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "65",
pages = "247--252",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Medical journal editors lacked familiarity with scientific publication issues despite training and regular exposure

AU - Wong, Victoria

AU - Callaham, Michael L.

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - Objective: To characterize medical editors by determining their demographics, training, potential sources of conflict of interest (COI), and familiarity with ethical standards. Study Design and Setting: We selected editors of clinical medical journals with the highest annual citation rates. One hundred eighty-three editors were electronically surveyed (response rate, 52%) on demographics and experiences with editorial training, publication ethics, industry, and scientific publication organizations. Results: Editors reported formal (76%) and informal (89%) training in medical editing topics. Most editors saw publication ethics issues (e.g., authorship, COIs) at least once a year. When presented with four questions about editorial issues discussed in commonly cited authoritative policy sources, performance was poor on topics of authorship (30% answered correctly), COI (15%), peer review (16%), and plagiarism (17%). Despite this, confidence level in editorial skills on a Likert scale from the beginning to the end of the survey dropped only slightly from 4.2 to 3.9 (P <0.0001). Conclusion: Our study presents a current look at editors of major clinical medical journals. Most editors reported training in medical editing topics, saw ethical issues regularly, and were aware of scientific publication organizations, but their knowledge of four common and well-disseminated publication ethics topics appears poor.

AB - Objective: To characterize medical editors by determining their demographics, training, potential sources of conflict of interest (COI), and familiarity with ethical standards. Study Design and Setting: We selected editors of clinical medical journals with the highest annual citation rates. One hundred eighty-three editors were electronically surveyed (response rate, 52%) on demographics and experiences with editorial training, publication ethics, industry, and scientific publication organizations. Results: Editors reported formal (76%) and informal (89%) training in medical editing topics. Most editors saw publication ethics issues (e.g., authorship, COIs) at least once a year. When presented with four questions about editorial issues discussed in commonly cited authoritative policy sources, performance was poor on topics of authorship (30% answered correctly), COI (15%), peer review (16%), and plagiarism (17%). Despite this, confidence level in editorial skills on a Likert scale from the beginning to the end of the survey dropped only slightly from 4.2 to 3.9 (P <0.0001). Conclusion: Our study presents a current look at editors of major clinical medical journals. Most editors reported training in medical editing topics, saw ethical issues regularly, and were aware of scientific publication organizations, but their knowledge of four common and well-disseminated publication ethics topics appears poor.

KW - Authorship

KW - Conflict of interest

KW - Editorial policies

KW - Journalism

KW - Medical

KW - Peer review

KW - Plagiarism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855990021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855990021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.003

M3 - Article

VL - 65

SP - 247

EP - 252

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 3

ER -