International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Prague, CZE, 1997/09.
Context. - Journal editors are responsible to many publics, and their choices of articles to publish are a frequent source of dispute.
- To assess the extent of agreement between topics identified by experts and by JAMA readers as most important for publication.
- Modified Delphi process of polling of JAMA Editorial Board members and senior staff (ie, experts) in 1996, and masked direct mail survey of a stratified sample of JAMA readers in late 1996 and early 1997.
- Agreement between experts and readers on the topics most important for JAMA to deal with in 1997.
Of 55 experts polled, the 40 respondents (73% response rate) proposed 178 topics.
Editing to combine similar topics left 73.
The same 55 persons were asked to stratify all 73 alphabetically arranged topics on a scale of 1 to 5 (85% [47/55] response rate).
They were then given the results of this ballot and asked to vote again (76% [42/55] response rate).
Of the 55 experts, 40 attending the annual editorial board meeting were given all results ; 39 attendees voted on the final topics.
In response to the mail survey, a single pass of the same 73 topics yielded a response rate of 41.6% (208 returns).
Nonresponders were roughly equivalent to responders demographically.
Readers agreed with the experts on only 3 of the top 10 subjects : managed care, cancer, and aging.
Mots-clés Pascal : Article, Médecine, Document publié, Editeur, Lecteur, Etude comparative, Homme, Littérature scientifique, Revue médicale JAMA, Sujet, Opinion
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Article, Medicine, Published document, Publisher, Reader, Comparative study, Human, Scientific literature, Opinion
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 98-0445325
Code Inist : 002B30A09. Création : 25/01/1999.