Literature DB >> 9676685

A comparison of the opinions of experts and readers as to what topics a general medical journal (JAMA) should address.

G D Lundberg1, M C Paul, H Fritz.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Journal editors are responsible to many publics, and their choices of articles to publish are a frequent source of dispute.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent of agreement between topics identified by experts and by JAMA readers as most important for publication. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: 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. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement between experts and readers on the topics most important for JAMA to deal with in 1997.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: Expert opinion and the opinion of readers as to what JAMA should emphasize vary widely.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9676685     DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.288

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  2 in total

1.  Optimising a curriculum for clinical haematology and biochemistry in sports medicine: a Delphi approach.

Authors:  K E Fallon; A C Trevitt
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 13.800

2.  Representation of women's health in general medical versus women's health specialty journals: a content analysis.

Authors:  Jocalyn P Clark; Georgina D Feldberg; Paula A Rochon
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2002-06-20       Impact factor: 2.809

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.