scholarly journals A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1682 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Blanco ◽  
Darko Hren ◽  
Jamie J. Kirkham ◽  
Erik Cobo ◽  
Sara Schroter
Keyword(s):  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Administrative Staff ◽  
Biomedical Journal ◽  
Adherence To Guidelines ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Medical Institutions ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process.   Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Biomedical journal editors generally believed that engaging trained professionals would be the most effective, yet resource intensive, editorial intervention. Also, they thought that peer reviewers should not be asked to check RGs. Future evaluations of interventions can take into account the barriers, facilitators, and incentives described in this survey.

scholarly journals A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1682
Author(s):  
David Blanco ◽  
Darko Hren ◽  
Jamie J. Kirkham ◽  
Erik Cobo ◽  
Sara Schroter
Keyword(s):  
Current Practice ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Administrative Staff ◽  
Biomedical Journal ◽  
Adherence To Guidelines ◽  
Medical Institutions ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process.   Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation and the potential effectiveness of different interventions, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and could decrease the overall quality of reviews. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to adopt strategies to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Further evaluation of interventions are required. These evaluations could take into account the points raised in this survey.

scholarly journals A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1682
Author(s):  
David Blanco ◽  
Darko Hren ◽  
Jamie J. Kirkham ◽  
Erik Cobo ◽  
Sara Schroter
Keyword(s):  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Administrative Staff ◽  
Adherence To Guidelines ◽  
Medical Institutions ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Published Research ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process.   Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Implementing and evaluating editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines is essential to improve the transparency of published research. This survey aims to cast light on the barriers and facilitators that can be expected when implementing diverse interventions, as well as on the potential impact of these interventions.

scholarly journals Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e021753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Price ◽  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Helen McAneney
Keyword(s):  
Study Data ◽  
Biomedical Journal ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Publishing Group ◽  
Supplementary Material ◽  
Data Tables

ObjectiveMany journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers.Design and settingWe conducted online surveys (November–December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.ParticipantsParticipants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.ResultsWe received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%–77%); 20%–36% and 3%–4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal’s website (80%–83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%–23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal’s website, while 24%–33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.ConclusionsAuthors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste.Trial registration numberNCT02961036.

Service and quality of medical services

10.12737/8242 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 3-12
Author(s):  
Елена Данилина ◽  
Elena Danilina ◽  
Екатерина Яковлева ◽  
Ekaterina Yakovleva ◽  
Татьяна Бутова ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
Health Care Organizations ◽  
Perceived Quality ◽  
Medical Services ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Medical Institutions

The article defines the scientific and terminological problems of researching services in the field of services, the basic problems of the evaluation of services in health care organizations. On the basis of a systematic approach to the category of quality of medical services the article investigates patient satisfaction with the perceived quality of service, shows the role of consumer expectations in the evaluation of the perceived quality of services and finds that the requirements for the service in medical institutions are underestimated. On the basis of studies the authors identify behaviors of consumers of budgetary medical services organizations, develop a model of consumer activities, which differs from the existing ones that along with the economic component the model is complemented with communication components. The approbation of the authors´ model for health care services shows a characteristic pattern of consumer activity of budgetary organizations. The article highlights the factors of subjective judgment of health care consumers in assessing perceived quality. Based on the study of patient satisfaction the authors develop a hierarchical model of the perceived quality of health services, as well as the place of services defined in the model.

scholarly journals PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR STUDIES MAPPING ONTO PREFERENCE-BASED OUTCOME MEASURES: THE MAPS STATEMENT

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 230-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stavros Petrou ◽  
Oliver Rivero-Arias ◽  
Helen Dakin ◽  
Louise Longworth ◽  
Mark Oppe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Working Group ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Biomedical Journal ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Journal Editorial ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Background:“Mapping” onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for thereportingof mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies.Methods:In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, ade novolist of reporting items was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. A two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies, and the biomedical journal editorial community was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list.Results:From the initialde novolist of twenty-nine candidate items, a set of twenty-three essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorized within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion, and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document.Conclusions:It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency. and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in five years’ time.

Accreditation and quality assurance in the Egyptian higher education system

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahel Schomaker
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Transformation Process ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Accreditation System ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Purpose – This study aims to analyze the quality of the Egyptian accreditation system. With a view on the high competition in the domestic labor market as well as with regards to the international competitiveness of Egyptian graduates and the potential role of Egyptian universities in the international market for higher education, a high quality of study programmes and the provision of skills which meet the employers’ needs is a pressing issue for policymakers in Egypt, in particular in the light of the recent and ongoing transformation process. Design/methodology/approach – Based on a triangulation of document analysis and semi-structured interviews, the authors analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the system of accreditation as well as current measures to improve quality in higher education and provide policy implications for further action undertaken by Egyptian policymakers to improve the accreditation system. Findings – First, the authors provide a sound overview of the newly established accreditation system in Egypt and analyze the role of the National Authority of Educational Quality Assurance and Accreditation within this process. Second, the paper addresses the structural shortcomings as well as implementation problems of the current accreditation system which limit the capacity of the national accreditation agency to provide accreditation for all institutions of higher education in Egypt and to ensure the overall quality of higher education. The role of peer reviewers is of pivotal importance in this context. A specific problem which has not been analyzed so far is the role of religious institutions, the so-called Al-Azhar institutions, in the accreditation process, and the consequences this will have for further developments in accreditation. Practical implications – The paper concludes with providing policy implications at the backdrop of the ongoing political transformation process in Egypt. Originality/value – The paper provides the first comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Egyptian accreditation system and contributes to the understanding of the pivotal role of peer reviewers in this process. Also, for the first time, the challenges regarding accreditation of Al-Azhar institutions are targeted.

scholarly journals The Critical Role of Journal Reviewers

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Mu
Keyword(s):  
Critical Role ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Voluntary Contribution ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Quality Of Research

Any journal relies on voluntary peer reviewers to ensure the quality of research articles. Since reviewers are usually as busy as any of us, their voluntary contribution is greatly appreciated by our IJAHP editorial team. Still, reviewing a paper requires a set of skills...

scholarly journals Marketing Development Strategies in the Medical Field

2021 ◽  
pp. 85-94
Author(s):  
Manana Maghradze ◽  
◽  
Ketevan Kutateladze ◽  
Ketevan Burduladze ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Medical Services ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
Medical Institutions ◽  
Medical Facilities ◽  
Marketing Activities ◽  
State Subsidies

The reduction of state subsidies, the control of expenditures by insurance companies, the introduction of ethical standards in medicine by health care institutions have increased the demand for additional investment. One of the important factors for increasing the competitiveness of private medical institutions and the sustainability of its activities is the formation of a marketing complex. In order to popularize the services of medical institutions, the main tools of the marketing communication system are used: advertising, public relations and so-called Synthetic means. Medical marketing cannot be considered as just developing good services and delivering it to customers. Medical facilities should also establish close links with existing and future clients. Marketing activities should ensure the creation of new medical services and the development of existing medical services. It is important to increase the role of the state in regulating the medical market in order to promote healthy competition among suppliers and the unwavering improvement of the quality of medical services.

scholarly journals Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. García ◽  
Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez ◽  
J. Fdez-Valdivia
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Hybrid Mode ◽  
Optimal Price ◽  
Benchmark Scenario ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Review Model

AbstractGiven how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay.

Health Education in U.S. Medical Care Settings: History and Future Prospects

1982 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Dolan Mullen
Keyword(s):  
Health Education ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Federal Policy ◽  
Organizational Structures ◽  
Secular Trends ◽  
Future Prospects ◽  
Medical Institutions ◽  
The Future

This article traces the extraordinary transfer of control over an increasingly broadly defined sphere of living known as “health” to medical institutions and personnel in the U.S.A.—and examines the role of federal policy and secular trends in shaping the future of medical care. Changes in the prevalence and quality of health education in these settings are described in relationship to these organizational structures, and the “leading edges” of health education in medical care are identified.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document