Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40046244›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2024

Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study.

Jeremy Y Ng, Henry Liu, Mehvish Masood, Rubaina Farin, Mireille Messih, Amaya Perez, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Juan Alperin, Gregory L Bryson, Qiuxia Chen and 21 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

31 authors.

Jeremy Y NgCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4588-0115
Henry LiuCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Mehvish MasoodDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2549-3573
Rubaina FarinDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Mireille MessihDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Amaya PerezDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
IJsbrand Jan AalbersbergElsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Juan AlperinSchool of Publishing, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9344-7439
Gregory L BrysonCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Qiuxia ChenElsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alan EhrlichDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
Alfonso IorioDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Wim J N MeesterElsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
John WillinskyGraduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Agnes GrudniewiczCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Erik CoboDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research, Barcelona-Tech, UPC, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3534-5602
Imogen CranstonF1000, Taylor & Francis, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7134-499X
Phaedra Eve CressThe Aesthetic Society, Garden Grove, California, USA.
Julia GunnTaylor & Francis, London, UK.
R Brian HaynesDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Bibi Sumera KeenooFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Mauritius, Réduit, Moka, Mauritius.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3608-3106
Ana MarušićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, Center for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6272-0917
Eleanor-Rose PapasIndependent Researcher, Croydon, London, UK.
Alan PurvisHong Kong Academy of Medicine Press, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4439-9792
João de Deus Barreto SegundoEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saude Publica, Salvador, State of Bahia, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4802-6045
Pathiyil Ravi ShankarIMU Centre for Education, IMU University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6105-5636
Pavel StoevPensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Josephine WeisflogBMJ Publishing Group, London, UK.
Margaret WinkerProgram Director and Trustee, World Association of Medical Editors, Bellagio, Italy.
Kelly D CobeyUniversity of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2797-1686
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-4206

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT), which will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal's operations and policies. We are obtaining preferences from different stakeholders to inform the development of this tool. This study aimed to identify the publishing community's preferences for the JTT. Methods: We conducted a modified three-round Delphi survey. Representatives from publishing houses and journal publishers were recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. The first two Delphi rounds involved an online survey with items about JTT metrics and user features. During the third round, participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 within a virtual consensus meeting. We defined consensus as 80% agreement to include or exclude an item in the JTT. Results: Eighty-six participants completed the round 1 survey, and 43 participants (50% of round 1) completed the round 2 survey. In both rounds, respondents voted on JTT user feature and JTT metric item preferences and answered open-ended survey questions regarding the JTT. In round 3, a total of 21 participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 during an online consensus group meeting. Fifteen out of 30 JTT metric items and none of the four JTT user feature items reached the 80% consensus threshold after all rounds of voting. Analysis of the round 3 online consensus group transcript resulted in two themes: 'factors impacting support for JTT metrics' and 'suggestions for user clarity.' Conclusions: Participants suggested that the publishing community's primary concerns for a JTT are to ensure that the tool is relevant, user-friendly, accessible, and equitable. The outcomes of this research will contribute to developing and refining the tool in accordance with publishing preferences.

Indexed as

Periodicals as TopicPublishingConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansSurveys and Questionnairesethics in publishinghealth literacyjournal transparency toolperiodicals as topicpublicationsscholarly publishing

Identifiers

PMID40046244
PMCPMC11880752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.