Jeremy Y Ng, Henry Liu, Mehvish Masood, Rubaina Farin, Mireille Messih, Amaya Perez, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Juan Alperin, Gregory L Bryson, Qiuxia Chen, Alan Ehrlich, Alfonso Iorio, Wim J N Meester, John Willinsky, Agnes Grudniewicz, Erik Cobo, Imogen Cranston, Phaedra Eve Cress, Julia Gunn, R Brian Haynes, Bibi Sumera Keenoo, Ana Marušić, Eleanor-Rose Papas, Alan Purvis, João de Deus Barreto Segundo, Pathiyil Ravi Shankar, Pavel Stoev, Josephine Weisflog, Margaret Winker, Kelly D Cobey, David Moher
{"title":"Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study.","authors":"Jeremy Y Ng, Henry Liu, Mehvish Masood, Rubaina Farin, Mireille Messih, Amaya Perez, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Juan Alperin, Gregory L Bryson, Qiuxia Chen, Alan Ehrlich, Alfonso Iorio, Wim J N Meester, John Willinsky, Agnes Grudniewicz, Erik Cobo, Imogen Cranston, Phaedra Eve Cress, Julia Gunn, R Brian Haynes, Bibi Sumera Keenoo, Ana Marušić, Eleanor-Rose Papas, Alan Purvis, João de Deus Barreto Segundo, Pathiyil Ravi Shankar, Pavel Stoev, Josephine Weisflog, Margaret Winker, Kelly D Cobey, David Moher","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.154408.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.'</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12260,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":"13 ","pages":"915"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11880752/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154408.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
F1000ResearchPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (all)
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1646
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊介绍:
F1000Research publishes articles and other research outputs reporting basic scientific, scholarly, translational and clinical research across the physical and life sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences and humanities. F1000Research is a scholarly publication platform set up for the scientific, scholarly and medical research community; each article has at least one author who is a qualified researcher, scholar or clinician actively working in their speciality and who has made a key contribution to the article. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research is suitable irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; we welcome confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies. F1000Research publishes different type of research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others. Reviews and Opinion articles providing a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field, or presenting a personal perspective on recent developments, are also welcome. See the full list of article types we accept for more information.