Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study
Ng, Jeremy Y ; Liu, Henry ; Masood, Mehvish ; Farin, Rubaina ; Messih, Mireille ; Perez, Amaya ; Aalbersberg, IJsbrand Jan ; Alperin, Juan ; Bryson, Gregory L ; Chen, Qiuxia ... show 10 more
Authors
Liu, Henry
Masood, Mehvish
Farin, Rubaina
Messih, Mireille
Perez, Amaya
Aalbersberg, IJsbrand Jan
Alperin, Juan
Bryson, Gregory L
Chen, Qiuxia
Ehrlich, Alan
Iorio, Alfonso
Meester, Wim J N
Willinsky, John
Grudniewicz, Agnes
Cobo, Erik
Cranston, Imogen
Cress, Phaedra Eve
Gunn, Julia
Haynes, R Brian
Keenoo, Bibi Sumera
Marušić, Ana
Papas, Eleanor-Rose
Purvis, Alan
Segundo, João de Deus Barreto
Shankar, Pathiyil Ravi
Stoev, Pavel
Weisflog, Josephine
Winker, Margaret
Cobey, Kelly D
Moher, David
Student Authors
Faculty Advisor
Academic Program
UMass Chan Affiliations
Document Type
Publication Date
Subject Area
Embargo Expiration Date
Link to Full Text
Abstract
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.
Source
Ng JY, Liu H, Masood M, Farin R, Messih M, Perez A, Aalbersberg IJ, Alperin J, Bryson GL, Chen Q, Ehrlich A, Iorio A, Meester WJN, Willinsky J, Grudniewicz A, Cobo E, Cranston I, Cress PE, Gunn J, Haynes RB, Keenoo BS, Marušić A, Papas ER, Purvis A, Segundo JDB, Shankar PR, Stoev P, Weisflog J, Winker M, Cobey KD, Moher D. Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study. F1000Res. 2025 Jan 31;13:915. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.154408.2. PMID: 40046244; PMCID: PMC11880752.