Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Background We propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT), which will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal’s operations and policies. We are obtaining preferences from different stakeholders to inform the development of this tool. This study aimed to identi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: David Moher, Erik Cobo, Amaya Perez, Pathiyil Ravi Shankar, Mireille Messih, Margaret Winker, Rubaina Farin, Mehvish Masood, Henry Liu, Jeremy Y. Ng, Ana Marušić, João de Deus Barreto Segundo, Alan Purvis, Eleanor-Rose Papas, Bibi Sumera Keenoo, R. Brian Haynes, Imogen Cranston, Julia Gunn, Kelly D. Cobey, Phaedra Eve Cress, Agnes Grudniewicz, John Willinsky, Wim J. N. Meester, Alfonso Iorio, Alan Ehrlich, Qiuxia Chen, Gregory L. Bryson, Juan Alperin, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Josephine Weisflog, Pavel Stoev
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: F1000 Research Ltd 2025-01-01
Series:F1000Research
Subjects:
health literacy
scholarly publishing
periodicals as topic
publications
ethics in publishing
journal transparency tool
eng
Online Access:https://f1000research.com/articles/13-915/v2
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background We propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT), which will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal’s operations and policies. We are obtaining preferences from different stakeholders to inform the development of this tool. This study aimed to identify the publishing community’s preferences for the JTT. Methods We conducted a modified three-round Delphi survey. Representatives from publishing houses and journal publishers were recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. The first two Delphi rounds involved an online survey with items about JTT metrics and user features. During the third round, participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 within a virtual consensus meeting. We defined consensus as 80% agreement to include or exclude an item in the JTT. Results Eighty-six participants completed the round 1 survey, and 43 participants (50% of round 1) completed the round 2 survey. In both rounds, respondents voted on JTT user feature and JTT metric item preferences and answered open-ended survey questions regarding the JTT. In round 3, a total of 21 participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 during an online consensus group meeting. Fifteen out of 30 JTT metric items and none of the four JTT user feature items reached the 80% consensus threshold after all rounds of voting. Analysis of the round 3 online consensus group transcript resulted in two themes: ‘factors impacting support for JTT metrics’ and ‘suggestions for user clarity.’ Conclusions Participants suggested that the publishing community’s primary concerns for a JTT are to ensure that the tool is relevant, user-friendly, accessible, and equitable. The outcomes of this research will contribute to developing and refining the tool in accordance with publishing preferences.
ISSN:2046-1402

Similar Items