scholarly journals Journal editors: How do their editing incomes compare?

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1027
Author(s):  
Janice C. L. Lee ◽  
Jennifer Watt ◽  
Diane Kelsall ◽  
Sharon Straus
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
Gender Pay Gap ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Pay Gap ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Editorial Work

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.

scholarly journals Journal editors: How do their editing incomes compare?

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1027
Author(s):  
Janice C. L. Lee ◽  
Jennifer Watt ◽  
Diane Kelsall ◽  
Sharon Straus
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
Gender Pay Gap ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Pay Gap ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Editorial Work

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.

scholarly journals Journal editors: How do their editing incomes compare?

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1027
Author(s):  
Janice C. L. Lee ◽  
Jennifer Watt ◽  
Diane Kelsall ◽  
Sharon Straus
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
Gender Pay Gap ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Pay Gap ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Editorial Work

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.

scholarly journals Awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons – results from an online survey in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Maurer ◽  
Nike Walter ◽  
Tina Histing ◽  
Lydia Anastasopoulou ◽  
Thaqif El Khassawna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Trauma Surgeons

Abstract Background Along with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Methods In an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) email distributor. Results Three hundred fifty orthopaedic and trauma surgeons participated, of which 291 complete responses (231 males (79.4%), 54 females (18.6%) and 5 N/A (2.0%)) were obtained. 39.9% were aware of predatory journals. However, 21.0% knew about the “Directory of Open Access Journals” (DOAJ) as a register for non-predatory open access journals. The level of profession (e.g. clinic director, consultant) (p = 0.018) influenced the awareness of predatory journals. Interestingly, participants aware of predatory journals had more often been listed as corresponding authors (p < 0.001) and were well published as first or last author (p < 0.001). Awareness of OAJ was masked when journal selection options did not to provide any information on the editorial board, the peer review process or the publication costs. Conclusion The impending hazard of predatory journals is unknown to many orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Early stage clinical researchers must be trained to differentiate between predatory and scientifically accurate journals.

scholarly journals Reopening Oral Health Services during the COVID-19 Pandemic through a Knowledge Exchange Coalition

2021 ◽  
pp. 238008442110119
Author(s):  
M. McNally ◽  
L. Rock ◽  
M. Gillis ◽  
S. Bryan ◽  
C. Boyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Oral Health Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Oral Health Services

Background: The COVID-19 novel coronavirus closed oral health care in Nova Scotia (NS) Canada in March 2020. Preparing for a phased reopening, a knowledge exchange coalition (representing government, academia, hospitals, oral health professions, and regulators) developed return-to-work (RTW) guidelines detailing the augmentation of standard practices to ensure safety for patients, oral health care providers (OHPs), and the community. Using online surveys, this study explored the influence of the RTW guidelines and related education on registered NS OHPs during a phased return to work. Methods: Dissemination of R2W guidelines included website or email communiques and interdisciplinary education webinars that coincided with 2 RTW phases approved by the government. Aligned with each phase, all registered dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants were invited to complete an online survey to gauge the influence of the coalition-sponsored education and RTW guidelines, confidence, preparedness, and personal protective equipment use before and after the pandemic. Results: Three coalition-sponsored multidisciplinary webinars hosted 3541 attendees prior to RTW. The response to survey 1 was 41% (881/2156) and to survey 2 was 26% (571/2177) of registrants. Survey 1 (82%) and survey 2 (89%) respondents “agreed/strongly agreed” that R2W guidelines were a primary source for guiding return to practice, and most were confident with education received and had the skills needed to effectively treat patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Confidence and preparedness improved in survey 2. Gowns/lab coat use for aerosol-generating procedures increased from 26% to 93%, and the use of full face shields rose from 6% to 93% during the pandemic. Conclusions: A multistakeholder coalition was effective in establishing and communicating comprehensive guidelines and web-based education to ensure unified reintegration of oral health services in NS during a pandemic. This multiorganizational cooperation lay the foundation for responses to subsequent waves of COVID-19 and may serve as an example for collaboratively responding to future public health threats in other settings. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The return-to-work strategy that was developed, disseminated, and assessed through this COVID-19 knowledge exchange coalition will benefit oral health practitioners, professional regulators, government policy makers, and researchers in future pandemic planning.

scholarly journals quantitative analysis of the open access business and economics journals

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fayaz Ahmad LOAN ◽  
Refhat- UN-NISA ◽  
Asmat ALI
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
English Language ◽  
Actual Number ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Economic Journals ◽  
The World ◽  
Economics Journals ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
Linguistic Assessment

The main purpose of the paper is to study the publishing trends of the open access business and economics journals available in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The online survey was conducted for collection of data and quantitative method was applied for data analysis. The data were collected from the December 10-20, 2013 about more than six hundred business and economic journals and later presented in tabular forms to reveal the findings in accordance with desired objectives. The findings show that 607 business and economics journals are listed in the DOAJ and are published fromthe 67 countries of the world. The maximum number of journals (88, 14.50%) is published from Brazil, and during the first decade (2001-2010) of the 21st century (382, 62.93%). The linguistic assessment shows that the open access business and economics journals are mostly monolingual (405, 66.72%) and the majority of these are published in English language (498, 82.04%). The results also reveal that the majority of the business and economics journals (415, 68.37%) doesn’t charge publication fees to authors whereas almost one-fourth (147, 24.22%) of the journals demand article processing charges. The study does not explore the whole World Wide Web, but only the DOAJ and therefore, figures do not represent the actual number of the open access business and economics journals available online. The study is very beneficial for the business and economics scientists, academicians, researchers, information experts and open access advocates across the globe.

scholarly journals An Evaluation of the Self-Reported Knowledge Base of Disaster Management Core Competencies of Australian Paramedics

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (s1) ◽  
pp. s129-s130
Author(s):  
Peter Horrocks ◽  
Vivienne Tippett ◽  
Peter Aitken
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Disaster Management ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Core Competencies ◽  
Ambulance Service ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Extensive Experience

Introduction:Evidence-based training and curriculum are seen as vital in order to be successful in preparing paramedics for an effective disaster response. The creation of broadly recognized standard core competencies to support the development of disaster response education and training courses for general health care providers and specific health care professionals will help to ensure that medical personnel are truly prepared to care for victims of mass casualty events.Aim:To identify current Australian operational paramedic’s specific disaster management education and knowledge as it relates to disaster management core competencies identified throughout the literature and the frequency of measures/techniques which these paramedics use to maintain competency and currency.Methods:Paramedics from all states of Australia were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. Two professional bodies distributed the survey via social media and a major ambulance service was surveyed via email.Results:The study population includes 130 respondents who self-identified as a currently practicing Australian paramedic. Paramedics from all states except South Australia responded, with the majority coming from Queensland Ambulance Service (N= 81%). In terms of experience, 81.54% of respondents report being qualified for greater than 5 years. Initial analysis shows that despite the extensive experience of the practitioners surveyed when asked to rate from high to low their level of knowledge of specific disaster management core competencies a number of gaps exist.Discussion:Core competencies are a defined level of expertise that is essential or fundamental to a particular job, and serve to form the foundation of education, training, and practice for operational service delivery. While more research is needed, these results may help inform industry, government, and education providers to better understand and to more efficiently provide education and ongoing training to paramedics who are responsible for the management of disaster within the Australian community.

P003 INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE PATIENTS’ PERSPECTIVES OF CLINICAL TRIALS

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S53-S53
Author(s):  
David Rubin ◽  
Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet ◽  
Walter Reinisch ◽  
Swati Tole ◽  
Laura Sullivan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Pharmaceutical Manufacturer ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

Abstract Background Despite recent progress in treatment for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), there is a need for therapies with long-term efficacy and improved safety. Clinical trials in IBD face challenges with patient recruitment because of study designs, competitive or overlapping trials, and a limited number of eligible patients. We sought to better understand patients’ motivations, awareness of, and experience with IBD clinical trials. Methods We conducted an international survey of adult patients with IBD consisting of 2 components. The quantitative component, a 15-minute online survey, was completed by all patients. A qualitative component, a 30-minute telephone interview, was completed by a subset of patients from the United States (US). All percentages indicate results from the online survey. Results 226 patients (mean age, 41.9 y) completed the online survey. Survey respondents included patients with ulcerative colitis (52%) and Crohn’s disease (48%) from the US (n=100, 21 of whom underwent a phone interview), Brazil (n=26), Canada (n=25), France (n=25), Germany (n=25), and Spain (n=25). Ninety-six percent of respondents reported at least a basic understanding of clinical trials, and 34 (15%) were current or past clinical trial participants. Patients reported learning about trials through 1 or more sources (could select as many as applied): health care providers (42%), pharmaceutical manufacturer websites (31%), social media (30%), online support groups (28%), and foundations (18%-23%). In the survey, patients rated conversations with health care providers most helpful, but patients who were interviewed revealed that most physicians often do not initiate conversations about clinical trials, and patients typically do not ask. Primary motivators for trial participation (rated from “does not encourage me at all” to “encourages me very much”) included altruistic goals of advancing medicine (67%), potentially mitigating risks of uncontrolled IBD such as colon cancer (59%), and access to treatment options that could improve quality of life (59%) or would otherwise be unaffordable (52%). Major barriers to participation (rated from “does not discourage me at all” to “discourages me very much”) included invasive screening and monitoring (35%), concern over receiving placebo (35%), or suboptimal treatment (33%), and concerns about posttrial access to study medication (27%). The majority (68%) reported that being in a clinical trial means being a “guinea pig” for an experimental treatment. Conclusion Opportunities to improve patients’ clinical trial experience in IBD include better communication with health care providers and improved patient education about clinical trial design and ethics. Ultimately, a better understanding of the patient perspective will be important for more informed patients and potentially higher recruitment and enrollment.

scholarly journals Effect of Health Care Providers’ Focused Discussion and Proactive Education About Relapse Management on Patient Reporting of Multiple Sclerosis Relapse

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Royce W. Waltrip ◽  
Nancy Mahler ◽  
Alina Ahsan ◽  
Leslie B. Herbert
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Patient Reporting ◽  
Multiple Sclerosis Relapse ◽  
The Past ◽  
Disease Modifying Therapy

Abstract Background: Treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS) relapse include intravenous corticosteroids and repository corticotropin injection. Despite available treatment, in the Multiple Sclerosis in America 2017 survey, only 47% of patients reported always/often contacting their MS health care provider (HCP) during relapse. In this study, the Multiple Sclerosis in America 2017 survey participants who received intravenous corticosteroids or repository corticotropin injection for treatment of past relapses completed a follow-up survey to understand how patients characterize relapse severity and to explore predictors of patients contacting their HCP during a relapse. Methods: Patients were18 years and older, diagnosed as having MS by an HCP, and currently using disease-modifying therapy. Patients completed an online survey assessing relapse characteristics and interactions with the HCP treating the patient’s MS. Regression analysis identified predictors of patients contacting their HCP during relapse. Results: Mean age of the 126 respondents was 49.2 years, 81.0% were female, and most (80.2%) had one or more relapses in the past 2 years. Patients estimated that 38.3% of their relapses were mild; 45.1%, moderate; and 16.6%, severe. Number and frequency of symptoms increased with relapse severity. Less than half (46.0%) reported they were extremely likely to contact their HCP during a relapse. The best predictors of being likely to contact the HCP during relapse were the HCP having previously discussed the importance of immediately communicating a relapse and patients’ willingness to accept the HCP’s recommendation for relapse treatment. Conclusions: Findings highlight the importance of HCPs’ advance discussions with patients with MS regarding relapse management to increase the likelihood patients will contact their HCP during relapse.

scholarly journals Assessing the knowledge, attitude and perception on workplace readiness regarding COVID-19 among health care providers in Ethiopia—An internet-based survey

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0247848
Author(s):  
Agazi Fitsum Gebreselassie ◽  
Abebe Bekele ◽  
Heaven Yeshaneh Tatere ◽  
Rex Wong
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Disease Transmission ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Healthcare Facilities ◽  
Workplace Readiness ◽  
Medical Supplies ◽  
Level Of Knowledge ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

Background Healthcare facilities in Ethiopia are responsible for collecting samples for testing and treating COVID-19 patients, providing COVID-19 information to staff, establishment of response teams, and provision of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE). Working at the frontlines against the pandemic, health care providers’ level of knowledge about COVID-19, attitude towards their work, and confidence in the preparedness of their facilities are essential factors in mounting a successful response. Objectives This study investigated the knowledge level of HCP in Ethiopia on this novel coronavirus, and their perspectives on whether their workplaces have sufficient preparedness to handle this disease. Methods A self-administered online survey was conducted. Results The knowledge related to COVID-19 among HCPs was high, with an overall average of 91.5%. The majority of our respondents were supportive to the government’s measures to minimize disease transmission, but most of them were also frustrated by how COVID affected their day to day lives. The majority of them were worried about contracting COVID at work and transmitting the infection to their families. Most respondents did not feel safe going to work (P<0.001). Apart from providing adequate information on COVID-19, most workplaces did not have sufficient PPE (P<000.1) and medical supplies (P<0.001). Close to 50% of respondents agreed and disagreed that their workplaces had clear protocols for handling COVID-19 (P = 0.144). Those who handled known COVID patients were more likely to agree their workplaces had clear protocols (OR = 2.69, P<0.001). Conclusion Improving supplies of PPEs and establishing a clear communicating protocol in handling COVID patients are highly recommended.

scholarly journals se-atlas: Mapping of Health Care Providers for People With Rare Diseases - a Cross-sectional Survey From the User Perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jannik Schaaf ◽  
Michaela Neff ◽  
Manuela Till ◽  
Niels Tegtbauer ◽  
Holger Storf
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Total Period ◽  
Patient Organisations ◽  
System Usability Scale

Abstract BackgroundIn rare diseases, only a low number of regionally distributed experts are available in medical care. The health service platform for rare diseases (www.se-atlas.de) provides a search for health care providers and patient organisations in Germany for specific rare diseases and presents the results to patients or physicians. The objective of this study was to examine the background and purpose, user satisfaction and usability when using se-atlas and to receive suggestions on improvements for implementation in the next release of se-atlas. MethodsWe conducted an online survey over a total period of five weeks between December 2020 and January 2021. Participants were members of patient organisations of rare diseases and experts of rare diseases centres in Germany. The questionnaire addressed the objectives of this study in 10 questions. We used Likert scales (4 to 6 points), as well as the System Usability Scale to measure usability (range: 0 to 100). The data obtained from the survey was analysed descriptively. ResultsIn total, 55 participants completed the survey (16 experts and 39 members of patient organisations). The results demonstrate that users know se-atlas mainly through patient organisations and the German National Action League for People with Rare Diseases. Furthermore, the experts use se-atlas more frequently than members of patient organisations do. Regarding to user satisfaction, participants were satisfied when using se-atlas (scale 1-6, mean = 4.31, SD = 1.18). They rated se-atlas functions with an average between 3.82 and 4.4 (scale 1-6). Additionally, se-atlas functions were considered as important with an average between 3.11 and 3.75 (scale 1-4). With regard to usability, the website was rated with an overall SUS score of 67.1, whereas the results differ between the participants group (experts = 76.1, patient organisations = 63.1). Moreover, participants made suggestions, e.g. that more disease entries should be available and usability can be improved. ConclusionsThis study involved experts and members of patient organisations to assess the background and purpose, user satisfaction and usability when using se-atlas. Despite the promising results and first new implementations, further optimisations of the platform in terms of usability and various functionalities are necessary.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document