Knowledge about the Editorial Process of Scientific Journals: Cross-sectional Study among Orthopedic Surgeons
Article Sidebar
Published:
Dec 20, 2023
Keywords:
Scientific journal, peer review, knowledge, orthopedic surgeon
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Our aim was to assess the level of knowledge of the editorial process of scientific journals among orthopedic surgeons.
Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that evaluates participants’ understanding of the editorial process of scientific journals. Between June and August 2022, a questionnaire was distributed to orthopedic surgeons who were members of the Argentinian Association of Orthopedics and Traumatology. Demographic data and variables on research experience andknowledge about editorial process were recorded.
Results: The survey had 130 respondents, 118 men (90.8%) and 12 women (9.2%), with a mean age of 48 years old (SD = 12). More than half of surveyed surgeons (n = 72; 55%) were from the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area. In our study, 60% of orthopedic surgeons had a low or moderate understanding of the editorial process. A high level of knowledge of the editorial process was associated with having published more than 5 articles in indexed journals (p<0.001), in our association’s journal (p<0.001), and in scientific congresses/seminars (p= 0.008).
Conclusions: The majority of the orthopedic surgeons surveyed in our cross-sectional study had a low or moderate level of knowledge about the scientific manuscript editing process. On the other hand, having a high level of knowledge in this area was associated with more experience in the publication of scientific manuscripts in indexed journals.
Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that evaluates participants’ understanding of the editorial process of scientific journals. Between June and August 2022, a questionnaire was distributed to orthopedic surgeons who were members of the Argentinian Association of Orthopedics and Traumatology. Demographic data and variables on research experience andknowledge about editorial process were recorded.
Results: The survey had 130 respondents, 118 men (90.8%) and 12 women (9.2%), with a mean age of 48 years old (SD = 12). More than half of surveyed surgeons (n = 72; 55%) were from the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area. In our study, 60% of orthopedic surgeons had a low or moderate understanding of the editorial process. A high level of knowledge of the editorial process was associated with having published more than 5 articles in indexed journals (p<0.001), in our association’s journal (p<0.001), and in scientific congresses/seminars (p= 0.008).
Conclusions: The majority of the orthopedic surgeons surveyed in our cross-sectional study had a low or moderate level of knowledge about the scientific manuscript editing process. On the other hand, having a high level of knowledge in this area was associated with more experience in the publication of scientific manuscripts in indexed journals.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
Article Details
How to Cite
Ricciardi, G. A., Arzac Ulla , I., Patiño, J. M., Zanotti, G., Loterzo, L. G., & Bersusky, E. (2023). Knowledge about the Editorial Process of Scientific Journals: Cross-sectional Study among Orthopedic Surgeons. Revista De La Asociación Argentina De Ortopedia Y Traumatología, 88(6), 630-638. https://doi.org/10.15417/issn.1852-7434.2023.88.6.1737
Issue
Section
Clinical Research
Copyright (c) 2023 Revista de la Asociación Argentina de Ortopedia y Traumatología
Manuscript acceptance by the Journal implies the simultaneous non-submission to any other journal or publishing house. The RAAOT is under the Licencia Creative Commnos Atribución-NoComercial-Compartir Obras Derivadas Igual 4.0 Internacional (CC-BY-NC.SA 4.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es). Articles can be shared, copied, distributed, modified, altered, transformed into a derivative work, executed and publicly communicated, provided a) the authors and the original publication (Journal, Publisher and URL) are mentioned, b) they are not used for commercial purposes, c) the same terms of the license are maintained.
In the event that the manuscript is approved for its next publication, the authors retain the copyright and will assign to the journal the rights of publication, edition, reproduction, distribution, exhibition and communication at a national and international level in the different databases. data, repositories and portals.
It is hereby stated that the mentioned manuscript has not been published and that it is not being printed in any other national or foreign journal.
The authors hereby accept the necessary modifications, suggested by the reviewers, in order to adapt the manuscript to the style and publication rules of this Journal.
References
1. Mendoza S, Paravic T. Origen, clasificación y desafíos de las revistas científicas. Investigación y
Postgrado 2006;21(1):49-75. Disponible en: http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1316-00872006000100003&lng=es&nrm=iso>. ISSN 1316-0087
2. Priem J, Hemminger BM. Decoupling the scholarly journal. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:19.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00019
3. Aparicio A, Banzato G, Liberatore G. Manual de gestión editorial de revistas científicas de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas. La Plata: CLACSO, CAICYT-CONICET y PISAC; 2016. Disponible en: http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/bitstream/handle/10915/90378/Manual_de_gesti%C3%B3n_editorial_de_revistas_cient%C3%ADficas_de_ciencias_sociales_y_humanas.482.pdf-PDFA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
4. Standing up for Science 3. Peer Review: The nuts and bolts. A guide for early career researchers.
https://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PEER-REVIEW-the-nuts-and-bolts.pdf [Consulta: 18 de julio, 2022]
5. Tvina A, Spellecy R, Palatnik A. Bias in the peer review process: Can we do better? Obstet Gynecol
2019;133(6):1081-3. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003260
6. Sprowson AP, Rankin KS, McNamara I, Costa ML, Rangan A. Improving the peer review process in orthopaedic journals. Bone Joint Res 2013;2(11):245-7. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.211.20002
7. Saxe JP. Opening the black box of peer review. Cell Stem Cell 2019;24(6):843-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2019.05.017
8. Likis FE, Swett B. Demystifying the journal submission, peer review, and publication process. J Midwifery Womens Health 2019;64(2):145-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12978
9. Adler JR Jr. A new age of peer reviewed scientific journals. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3:145. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.103889
10. Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 2020;5:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
11. Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics 2017;113(1):633-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5
12. Das AK. ‘Peer review’ for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies. Med J Armed Forces India 2016;72(2):172-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014
13. Bunner C, Larson EL. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(8):701-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.05.012
14. Fernandez-Llimos F; Pharmacy Practice 2018 peer reviewers. Peer review and publication delay. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2019;17(1):1502. https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2019.1.1502
15. O’Brien BC, Artino AR Jr, Costello JA, Driessen E, Maggio LA. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers’ confidential comments to editors. PloS One 2021;16(11):e0260558.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260558
16. Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X, Moylan EC. Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Res 2018;7:969. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
17. Wiechert K, Wang JC, Chapman JR. Predator journals: An urgent and global problem. Global Spine J
2019;9(3):253. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219836129
18. Bersusky E. Las editoriales predadoras. [Predatory publishers]. Rev Asoc Argent Ortop Traumatol 2017;82(2):89-90. https://doi.org/10.15417/696
Postgrado 2006;21(1):49-75. Disponible en: http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1316-00872006000100003&lng=es&nrm=iso>. ISSN 1316-0087
2. Priem J, Hemminger BM. Decoupling the scholarly journal. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:19.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00019
3. Aparicio A, Banzato G, Liberatore G. Manual de gestión editorial de revistas científicas de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas. La Plata: CLACSO, CAICYT-CONICET y PISAC; 2016. Disponible en: http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/bitstream/handle/10915/90378/Manual_de_gesti%C3%B3n_editorial_de_revistas_cient%C3%ADficas_de_ciencias_sociales_y_humanas.482.pdf-PDFA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
4. Standing up for Science 3. Peer Review: The nuts and bolts. A guide for early career researchers.
https://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PEER-REVIEW-the-nuts-and-bolts.pdf [Consulta: 18 de julio, 2022]
5. Tvina A, Spellecy R, Palatnik A. Bias in the peer review process: Can we do better? Obstet Gynecol
2019;133(6):1081-3. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003260
6. Sprowson AP, Rankin KS, McNamara I, Costa ML, Rangan A. Improving the peer review process in orthopaedic journals. Bone Joint Res 2013;2(11):245-7. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.211.20002
7. Saxe JP. Opening the black box of peer review. Cell Stem Cell 2019;24(6):843-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2019.05.017
8. Likis FE, Swett B. Demystifying the journal submission, peer review, and publication process. J Midwifery Womens Health 2019;64(2):145-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12978
9. Adler JR Jr. A new age of peer reviewed scientific journals. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3:145. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.103889
10. Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 2020;5:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
11. Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics 2017;113(1):633-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5
12. Das AK. ‘Peer review’ for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies. Med J Armed Forces India 2016;72(2):172-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014
13. Bunner C, Larson EL. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(8):701-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.05.012
14. Fernandez-Llimos F; Pharmacy Practice 2018 peer reviewers. Peer review and publication delay. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2019;17(1):1502. https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2019.1.1502
15. O’Brien BC, Artino AR Jr, Costello JA, Driessen E, Maggio LA. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers’ confidential comments to editors. PloS One 2021;16(11):e0260558.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260558
16. Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X, Moylan EC. Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Res 2018;7:969. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
17. Wiechert K, Wang JC, Chapman JR. Predator journals: An urgent and global problem. Global Spine J
2019;9(3):253. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219836129
18. Bersusky E. Las editoriales predadoras. [Predatory publishers]. Rev Asoc Argent Ortop Traumatol 2017;82(2):89-90. https://doi.org/10.15417/696