The CROWN Initiative: journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in women's health.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khan K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5898804 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The CROWN Initiative: journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in women's health.
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 20140812 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:A team of stakeholders in biomedical publishing recently proposed a set of core competencies for journal editors, as a resource that can inform training programs for editors and ultimately improve the quality of the biomedical research literature. This initiative, still in its early stages, would benefit from additional sources of expert information. Based on our experiences as authors' editors, we offer two suggestions on how to strengthen these competencies so that they better respond to the needs of readers and authors - the main users of and contributors to research journals. First, journal editors should be able to ensure that authors are given useful feedback on the language and writing in submitted manuscripts, beyond a (possibly incorrect) blanket judgement of whether the English is "acceptable" or not. Second, journal editors should be able to deal effectively with inappropriate text re-use and plagiarism. These additional competencies would, we believe, be valued by other stakeholders in biomedical research publication as markers of editorial quality.
| S-EPMC5811667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesResearch on the adaptation of population health interventions for implementation in new contexts is rapidly expanding. This has been accompanied by a recent increase in the number of frameworks and guidance to support adaptation processes. Nevertheless, there remains limited exploration of the real-world experiences of undertaking intervention adaptation, notably the challenges encountered by different groups of stakeholders, and how these are managed. Understanding experiences is imperative in ensuring that guidance to support adaptation has practical utility. This qualitative study examines researcher and stakeholder experiences of funding, conducting and reporting adaptation research.SettingAdaptation studies.ParticipantsParticipants/cases were purposefully sampled to represent a range of adapted interventions, types of evaluations, expertise and countries. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers (n=23), representatives from research funding panels (n=6), journal editors (n=5) and practitioners (n=3).MeasuresA case study research design was used. Data were analysed using the framework approach. Overarching themes were discussed within the study team, with further iterative refinement of subthemes.ResultsThe results generated four central themes. The first three relate to the experience of intervention adaptation (1) involving stakeholders throughout the adaptation process and how to integrate the evidence base with experience; (2) selecting the intervention and negotiating the mismatch between the original and the new context; and (3) the complexity and uncertainty when deciding the re-evaluation process. The final theme (4) reflects on participants' experiences of using adaptation frameworks in practice, considering recommendations for future guidance development and refinement.ConclusionThis study highlights the range of complexities and challenges experienced in funding, conducting and reporting research on intervention adaptation. Moving forward, guidance can be helpful in systematising processes, provided that it remains responsive to local contexts and encourage innovative practice.
| S-EPMC9615984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe adaptation of interventions for new contexts is a rapidly developing research area. To date there is no consensus-based guidance to support decision-making and recommend adaptation processes. The ADAPT study is developing such guidance. This aim of the qualitative component of the study was to explore stakeholders' understandings of adaptation, as to date there has limited consideration of how different concepts and meanings shape decision-making and practice.MethodsA case study research design was used. Participants/cases were purposefully sampled based on study outcome, study design, expertise, context and country. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers (n = 23); representatives from research funding panels (n = 6); journal editors (n = 5) and practitioners (n = 3). Data were analysed using the Framework approach. Overarching themes were discussed with the ADAPT study team, with further iterative refinement of subthemes.ResultsThe results generated four central themes. Four themes related to stakeholders' understanding: 1) definitions of adaptation and related concepts; 2) rationales for undertaking adaptation; 3) the appropriate timing for adaptation; and 4) ensuring fidelity when implementing adapted interventions.ConclusionThe findings highlight the lack of clarity around key concepts and uncertainty about central decision-making processes, notably why interventions should be adapted, when and to what extent. This has informed the ADAPT study's guidance, shaping the scope and nature of recommendations to be included and surfacing key uncertainties that require future consideration.
| S-EPMC8270163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The work of journal editors is essential to producing high-quality literature, and editing can be a very rewarding career; however, the profession may not be immune to gender pay gaps found in many professions and industries, including academia and clinical medicine. Our study aimed to quantify remuneration for journal editors from core clinical journals, determine if a gender pay gap exists, and assess if there are remuneration differences across publishing models and journal characteristics. Methods: We completed an online survey of journal editors with substantial editing roles including section editors and editors-in-chief, identified from the Abridged Index Medicus "Core Clinical" journals in MEDLINE. We analyzed information on demographics, editing income, and journal characteristics using a multivariable partial proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Results: There were 166 survey respondents (response rate of 9%), which represented editors from 69 of 111 journals (62%). A total of 140 fully completed surveys were analyzed (95 males and 45 females); 50 (36%) editors did not receive remuneration for editorial work. No gender pay gap and no difference in remuneration between editors who worked in subscription-based publishing vs. open access journals were detected. Editors who were not primarily health care providers were more likely to have higher editing incomes (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-7.46). Editors who worked more than 10 hours per week editing earned more than those who worked 10 hours or less per week (adjusted OR 16.7, 95%CI 7.02-39.76). Conclusions: We were unable to detect a gender pay gap and a difference in remuneration between editors who worked in subscription-based publishing and those in open access journals. More than one third of editors surveyed from core clinical journals did not get remunerated for their editing work.
| S-EPMC7836083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open peer review. Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics. A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies. Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing.
| S-EPMC7717900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate whether there is an association between women's representation as peer reviewers and editors of medical journals.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, the gender of editors and peer reviewers of journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group (BMJ-PG) in 2020 was determined based on given names. Trends over time were analysed for the BMJ between 2009 and 2017.ResultsOverall, this study included 47 of the 74 journals in the BMJ-PG. Women accounted for 30.2% of the 42 539 peer reviewers, with marked variation from 8% to 50%. Women represented 33.4% of the 555 editors, including 19.2% of the 52 editors-in-chief. There was a moderate positive correlation between the percentage of women as editors and as reviewers (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.590; p<0.0001). The percentage of women as editors, excluding editors-in-chief, was higher when the editor-in-chief was a woman than a man (53.3% vs 29.2%, respectively; p<0.0001). Likewise, the percentage of women as peer reviewers was higher in journals that had a woman as editor-in-chief in comparison with a man (32.0% vs 26.4%, respectively; p<0.0001). There was a slight increase in the percentage of women as peer reviewers from 27.3% in 2009 to 29.7% in 2017 in the BMJ.ConclusionsWomen account for less than one in three peer reviewers of medical journals. Women's representation as peer reviewers is higher in journals with higher percentage of women as editors or with a woman as editor-in-chief. It is, thus, imperative to address the persisting gender gap at all levels of the publishing system.
| S-EPMC9109081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSome prior evidence suggests that adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) may be associated with heart failure (HF). Identifying unique factors associated with the risk of HF and studying HF subtypes are important next steps.ObjectiveTo investigate the association of APOs with incident HF overall and stratified by HF subtype (preserved vs reduced ejection fraction) among postmenopausal women in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI).Design, setting, and participantsIn 2017, an APO history survey was administered in the WHI study, a large multiethnic cohort of postmenopausal women. The associations of 5 APOs (gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy [HDP], low birth weight, high birth weight, and preterm delivery) with incident adjudicated HF were analyzed. In this cohort study, the association of each APO with HF was assessed using logistic regression models and with HF subtypes using multinomial regression, adjusting for age, sociodemographic characteristics, smoking, randomization status, reproductive history, and other APOs. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to September 2021.ExposuresAPOs (gestational diabetes, HDP, low birth weight, high birth weight, and preterm delivery).Main outcomes and measuresAll confirmed cases of women hospitalized with HF and HF subtype were adjudicated by trained physicians using standardized methods.ResultsOf 10 292 women (median [IQR] age, 60 [55-64] years), 3185 (31.0%) reported 1 or more APO and 336 (3.3%) had a diagnosis of HF. Women with a history of any APO had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease, or smoking. Of the APOs studied, only HDP was significantly associated with HF with a fully adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.22-2.50), and with HF with preserved ejection fraction in fully adjusted models (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.29-3.27). In mediation analyses, hypertension explained 24% (95% CI, 12%-73%), coronary heart disease 23% (95% CI, 11%-68%), and body mass index 20% (95% CI, 10%-64%) of the association between HDP and HF.Conclusions and relevanceIn this large cohort of postmenopausal women, HDP was independently associated with incident HF, particularly HF with preserved ejection fraction, and this association was mediated by subsequent hypertension, coronary heart disease, and obesity. These findings suggest that monitoring and modifying these factors early in women presenting with HDP may be associated with reduced long-term risk of HF.
| S-EPMC8662370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors' workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. We show that Cartesian Genetic Programming, a nature-inspired evolutionary algorithm, can dramatically improve editorial strategies. The artificially evolved strategy reduced the duration of the peer review process by 30%, without increasing the pool of reviewers (in comparison to a typical human-developed strategy). Evolutionary computation has typically been used in technological processes or biological ecosystems. Our results demonstrate that genetic programs can improve real-world social systems that are usually much harder to understand and control than physical systems.
| S-EPMC5607159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo generate an understanding of the communication practices that might influence the peer-review process in biomedical journals.MethodRecruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. We conducted semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis method.Participants56 journal editors from general medicine (n=13) and specialty (n=43) biomedical journals. Most were editor-in-chiefs (n=39), men (n=40) and worked part time (n=50).ResultsOur analysis generated four themes (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers-two subthemes described the way journal editors rationalised their behaviour: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect; (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers-two opposing strategies that journal editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid conflict; (3) concerns about impact of review model on communication-maintenance of anonymity as a means of facilitating critical and unburdened communication and minimising biases and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers-some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers' comments, others remained at a distance, leaving it to the authors to work through peer reviewers' comments.ConclusionsThese journal editors' descriptions reveal several communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process. Editorial strategies to manage miscommunication are discussed. Further research on these proposed strategies and on communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers is warranted.
| S-EPMC7430556 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC516198 | biostudies-literature