出版商对期刊透明度工具的偏好:经过修改的三轮德尔菲研究

Jeremy Y. Ng, Henry Liu, Mehvish Masood, Rubaina Farin, Mireille Messih, Amaya Perez, I. J. Aalbersberg, J. Alperin, Gregory L. Bryson, Qiuxia Chen, Alan Ehrlich, Alfonso Iorio, Wim J. N. Meester, John M. Willinsky, Agnes Grudniewicz, Erik Cobo, Imogen Cranston, Phaedra E Cress, Julia Gunn, R. Haynes, B. S. Keenoo, Ana Marušić, Eleanor-Rose Papas, Alan Purvis, João de Deus Barreto Segundo, P. R. Shankar, P. Stoev, Josephine Weisflog, Margaret Winker, K. Cobey, D. Moher
{"title":"出版商对期刊透明度工具的偏好:经过修改的三轮德尔菲研究","authors":"Jeremy Y. Ng, Henry Liu, Mehvish Masood, Rubaina Farin, Mireille Messih, Amaya Perez, I. J. Aalbersberg, J. Alperin, Gregory L. Bryson, Qiuxia Chen, Alan Ehrlich, Alfonso Iorio, Wim J. N. Meester, John M. Willinsky, Agnes Grudniewicz, Erik Cobo, Imogen Cranston, Phaedra E Cress, Julia Gunn, R. Haynes, B. S. Keenoo, Ana Marušić, Eleanor-Rose Papas, Alan Purvis, João de Deus Barreto Segundo, P. R. Shankar, P. Stoev, Josephine Weisflog, Margaret Winker, K. Cobey, D. Moher","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.154408.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":504605,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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, I. J. Aalbersberg, J. Alperin, Gregory L. Bryson, Qiuxia Chen, Alan Ehrlich, Alfonso Iorio, Wim J. N. Meester, John M. Willinsky, Agnes Grudniewicz, Erik Cobo, Imogen Cranston, Phaedra E Cress, Julia Gunn, R. Haynes, B. S. Keenoo, Ana Marušić, Eleanor-Rose Papas, Alan Purvis, João de Deus Barreto Segundo, P. R. Shankar, P. Stoev, Josephine Weisflog, Margaret Winker, K. Cobey, D. Moher\",\"doi\":\"10.12688/f1000research.154408.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504605,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"F1000Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"F1000Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154408.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154408.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 我们建议创建一个期刊透明度工具(JTT),使用户能够获取有关特定学术期刊的运营和政策的信息。我们正在向不同的利益相关者了解他们的偏好,以便为该工具的开发提供信息。本研究旨在确定出版界对 JTT 的偏好。方法 我们进行了一次经过修改的三轮德尔菲调查。通过有目的和滚雪球式的抽样,我们招募了来自出版社和期刊出版商的代表。前两轮德尔菲调查是在线调查,调查项目包括 JTT 指标和用户功能。在第三轮中,与会者在虚拟共识会议上对第二轮后未达成共识的 JTT 指标项目进行了讨论和投票。我们将共识定义为 80% 的人同意将某个项目纳入或排除在 JTT 中。结果 86 名参与者完成了第一轮调查,43 名参与者(占第一轮的 50%)完成了第二轮调查。在这两轮调查中,受访者就 JTT 用户功能和 JTT 指标项目偏好进行了投票,并回答了有关 JTT 的开放式调查问题。在第三轮调查中,共有 21 位参与者在在线共识小组会议上对第二轮调查后未达成共识的 JTT 指标项目进行了讨论和投票。在 30 个 JTT 指标项目中,有 15 个项目以及 4 个 JTT 用户特征项目在各轮投票后都没有达到 80% 的共识阈值。对第三轮在线共识小组记录的分析产生了两个主题:"影响对 JTT 指标支持的因素 "和 "关于用户清晰度的建议"。结论 与会者认为,出版界对 JTT 的首要关注是确保该工具的相关性、用户友好性、可访问性和公平性。这项研究的成果将有助于根据出版界的偏好开发和完善该工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信