出版商对期刊透明度工具的偏好:一项修改的三轮德尔菲研究。

Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
F1000Research Pub Date : 2025-01-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/f1000research.154408.2
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":"出版商对期刊透明度工具的偏好:一项修改的三轮德尔菲研究。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:我们建议创建一个期刊透明度工具(JTT),它将允许用户获得关于给定学术期刊的运作和政策的信息。我们正在从不同的利益相关者那里获得偏好,以告知该工具的开发。本研究旨在确定出版界对JTT的偏好。方法:采用改进的三轮德尔菲调查法。通过有目的的滚雪球抽样,从出版社和期刊出版商中招募代表。Delphi的前两轮涉及一个关于JTT指标和用户特性的在线调查。在第三轮中,参与者在虚拟共识会议中讨论并投票了在第二轮之后没有达成共识的JTT度量项目。我们将共识定义为80%同意在JTT中包括或排除一个项目。结果:86名参与者完成了第1轮调查,43名参与者(占第1轮的50%)完成了第2轮调查。在这两轮中,受访者对JTT用户特性和JTT度量项目偏好进行投票,并回答有关JTT的开放式调查问题。在第3轮中,共有21名参与者在一个在线共识小组会议上讨论并投票了在第2轮之后没有达成共识的JTT度量项目。经过多轮投票,30个JTT指标项中的15个和4个JTT用户特征项中没有一个达到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JTT指标支持的因素”和“对用户清晰度的建议”。结论:与会者建议出版界对JTT的主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。这项研究的结果将有助于根据出版偏好开发和完善工具。
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
F1000Research
F1000Research Pharmacology, 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.
×
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