Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Scientific editors are responsible for deciding which articles to publish in their journals. However, we have not found documentation of their required knowledge, skills, and characteristics, or the existence of any formal core competencies for this role. METHODS: We describe the development of a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. RESULTS: The 14 key core competencies are divided into three major areas, and each competency has a list of associated elements or descriptions of more specific knowledge, skills, and characteristics that contribute to its fulfillment. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that these core competencies are a baseline of the knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to perform competently the duties of a scientific editor at a biomedical journal.

A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical journals are the main route for disseminating the results of health-related research. Despite this, their editors operate largely without formal training or certification. To our knowledge, no body of literature systematically identifying core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals exists. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a scoping review to determine what is known on the competency requirements for scientific editors of biomedical journals. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases (from inception to November 2014) and conducted a grey literature search for research and non-research articles with competency-related statements (i.e. competencies, knowledge, skills, behaviors, and tasks) pertaining to the role of scientific editors of peer-reviewed health-related journals. We also conducted an environmental scan, searched the results of a previous environmental scan, and searched the websites of existing networks, major biomedical journal publishers, and organizations that offer resources for editors. RESULTS: A total of 225 full-text publications were included, 25 of which were research articles. We extracted a total of 1,566 statements possibly related to core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals from these publications. We then collated overlapping or duplicate statements which produced a list of 203 unique statements. Finally, we grouped these statements into seven emergent themes: (1) dealing with authors, (2) dealing with peer reviewers, (3) journal publishing, (4) journal promotion, (5) editing, (6) ethics and integrity, and (7) qualities and characteristics of editors. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this scoping review is the first attempt to systematically identify possible competencies of editors. Limitations are that (1) we may not have captured all aspects of a biomedical editor's work in our searches, (2) removing redundant and overlapping items may have led to the elimination of some nuances between items, (3) restricting to certain databases, and only French and English publications, may have excluded relevant publications, and (4) some statements may not necessarily be competencies. CONCLUSION: This scoping review is the first step of a program to develop a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals which will be followed by a training needs assessment, a Delphi exercise, and a consensus meeting.

Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications.

This statement revises our earlier "WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications" (January 20, 2023). The revision reflects the proliferation of chatbots and their expanding use in scholarly publishing over the last few months, as well as emerging concerns regarding lack of authenticity of content when using chatbots. These recommendations are intended to inform editors and help them develop policies for the use of chatbots in papers published in their journals. They aim to help authors and reviewers understand how best to attribute the use of chatbots in their work and to address the need for all journal editors to have access to manuscript screening tools. In this rapidly evolving field, we will continue to modify these recommendations as the software and its applications develop.

Esta declaración revisa las anteriores "Recomendaciones de WAME sobre ChatGPT y Chatbots en Relation to Scholarly Publications" (20 de enero de 2023). La revisión refleja la proliferación de chatbots y su creciente uso en las publicaciones académicas en los últimos meses, así como la preocupación por la falta de autenticidad de los contenidos cuando se utilizan chatbots. Estas recomendaciones pretenden informar a los editores y ayudarles a desarrollar políticas para el uso de chatbots en los artículos sometidos en sus revistas. Su objetivo es ayudar a autores y revisores a entender cuál es la mejor manera de atribuir el uso de chatbots en su trabajo y a la necesidad de que todos los editores de revistas tengan acceso a herramientas de selección de manuscritos. En este campo en rápida evolución, seguiremos modificando estas recomendaciones a medida que se desarrollen el software y sus aplicaciones.

Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications

This statement revises our earlier "WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications" (January 20, 2023). The revision reflects the proliferation of chatbots and their expanding use in scholarly publishing over the last few months, as well as emerging concerns regarding lack of authenticity of content when using chatbots. These recommendations are intended to inform editors and help them develop policies for the use of chatbots in papers published in their journals. They aim to help authors and reviewers understand how best to attribute the use of chatbots in their work and to address the need for all journal editors to have access to manuscript screening tools. In this rapidly evolving field, we will continue to modify these recommendations as the software and its applications develop.

Esta declaración revisa las anteriores "Recomendaciones de WAME sobre ChatGPT y Chatbots en Relation to Scholarly Publications" (20 de enero de 2023). La revisión refleja la proliferación de chatbots y su creciente uso en las publicaciones académicas en los últimos meses, así como la preocupación por la falta de autenticidad de los contenidos cuando se utilizan chatbots. Estas recomendaciones pretenden informar a los editores y ayudarles a desarrollar políticas para el uso de chatbots en los artículos sometidos en sus revistas. Su objetivo es ayudar a autores y revisores a entender cuál es la mejor manera de atribuir el uso de chatbots en su trabajo y a la necesidad de que todos los editores de revistas tengan acceso a herramientas de selección de manuscritos. En este campo en rápida evolución, seguiremos modificando estas recomendaciones a medida que se desarrollen el software y sus aplicaciones.

Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals.

Predatory journals, or journals that charge an article processing charge (APC) to authors, yet do not have the hallmarks of legitimate scholarly journals such as peer review and editing, Editorial Boards, editorial offices, and other editorial standards, pose a number of new ethical issues in journal publishing. This paper discusses ethical issues around predatory journals and publishing in them. These issues include misrepresentation; lack of editorial and publishing standards and practices; academic deception; research and funding wasted; lack of archived content; and undermining confidence in research literature. It is important that the scholarly community, including authors, institutions, editors, and publishers, support the legitimate scholarly research enterprise, and avoid supporting predatory journals by not publishing in them, serving as their editors or on the Editorial Boards, or permitting faculty to knowingly publish in them without consequences.

Erratum: Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.030.].

An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors' perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.

Background: Scientific editors (i.e., those who make decisions on the content and policies of a journal) have a central role in the editorial process at biomedical journals. However, very little is known about the training needs of these editors or what competencies are required to perform effectively in this role. Methods: We conducted a survey of perceptions and training needs among scientific editors from major editorial organizations around the world, followed by a modified Delphi process in which we invited the same scientific editors to rate the importance of competency-related statements obtained from a previous scoping review. Results: A total of 148 participants completed the survey of perceptions and training needs. At least 80% of participants agreed on six of the 38 skill and expertise-related statements presented to them as being important or very important to their role as scientific editors. At least 80% agreed on three of the 38 statements as necessary skills they perceived themselves as possessing (well or very well).  The top five items on participants' list of top training needs were training in statistics, research methods, publication ethics, recruiting and dealing with peer reviewers, and indexing of journals. The three rounds of the Delphi were completed by 83, 83, and 73 participants, respectively, which ultimately produced a list of 23 "highly rated" competency-related statements and another 86 "included" items. Conclusion: Both the survey and the modified Delphi process will be critical for understanding knowledge and training gaps among scientific editors when designing curriculum around core competencies in the future.

Race and ethnicity in medical research: requirements meet reality.

Race and ethnicity are commonly reported variables in biomedical research, but how they were determined is often not described and the rationale for analyzing them is often not provided. JAMA improved the reporting of these factors by implementing a policy and procedure. However, still lacking are careful consideration of what is actually being measured when race/ethnicity is described, consistent terminology, hypothesis-driven justification for analyzing race/ethnicity, and a consistent and generalizable measurement of socioeconomic status. Furthermore, some studies continue to use race/ethnicity as a proxy for genetics. Research into appropriate measures of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic factors, as well as education of researchers regarding issues of race/ethnicity, is necessary to clarify the meaning of race/ethnicity in the biomedical literature.