| Title |
Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0927-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Moher, James Galipeau, Sabina Alam, Virginia Barbour, Kidist Bartolomeos, Patricia Baskin, Sally Bell-Syer, Kelly D. Cobey, Leighton Chan, Jocalyn Clark, Jonathan Deeks, Annette Flanagin, Paul Garner, Anne-Marie Glenny, Trish Groves, Kurinchi Gurusamy, Farrokh Habibzadeh, Stefanie Jewell-Thomas, Diane Kelsall, José Florencio Lapeña, Harriet MacLehose, Ana Marusic, Joanne E. McKenzie, Jay Shah, Larissa Shamseer, Sharon Straus, Peter Tugwell, Elizabeth Wager, Margaret Winker, Getu Zhaori |
| Abstract |
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. We describe the development of a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. 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. 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 195 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 37 | 19% |
| United States | 29 | 15% |
| Canada | 16 | 8% |
| Spain | 8 | 4% |
| Australia | 8 | 4% |
| Norway | 3 | 2% |
| Colombia | 3 | 2% |
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 26 | 13% |
| Unknown | 60 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 95 | 49% |
| Scientists | 51 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 25 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 24 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Professor | 8 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 29% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 130. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2024.
All research outputs
#326,616
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#267
of 4,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,860
of 324,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.