Core Competences of Scientific Journal Editors Proficiency in Open Science Section Articles

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Mar 6, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 27 (2025)

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

A. Noorhidawati
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

Scientific research is a complex process involving data collection, data analysis, and dissemination of research findings through scholarly communication, such as publication in journals. In scholarly communication, the role of journal editors as gatekeepers is essential. Editorial appointments are often based on administrative duties, with faculty or department heads appointed as editors-in-chief, which can lead to a lack of editorial competence.


This paper examines the core competencies required of journal editors to demonstrate editorial professionalism in the era of digital scholarship and open science. The study uses a questionnaire to collect data. A total of 79 responses were received from participants, including editors-in-chief and associate editors of Malaysian journals indexed in the WoS or Scopus databases. Most respondents gave positive responses in the four identified areas of core competencies. However, the lowest ratings were in areas related to open science, specifically open access, open peer review, and open data. The results are important for understanding editors' skills in open research. The findings would be helpful in developing training modules for scientific editors based on the identified core competencies.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Noorhidawati, A. (2026). Core Competences of Scientific Journal Editors: Proficiency in Open Science. Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries, 27, 45–68. Retrieved from https://pjiml.pu.edu.pk/jo/index.php/pjiml/article/view/198

References

  1. Clemow, D. B., Wagner, B., Marshallsay, C., Benau, D., L’Heureux, D., Brown, D. H., Dasgupta, D. G., Girten, E., Hubbard, F., Gawrylewski, H., Ebina, H., Stoltenborg, J., York, J. P., Green, K., Wood, L. F., Toth, L., Mihm, M., Katz, N. R., Vasconcelos, N.,
  2. Aoyama, Y. (2018a). Medical writing competency model — Section 1: Functions, tasks, and activities. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 52(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017721585
  3. Clemow, D. B., Wagner, B., Marshallsay, C., Benau, D., L’Heureux, D., Brown, D. H., Dasgupta, D. G., Girten, E., Hubbard, F., Gawrylewski, H., Ebina, H., Stoltenborg, J., York, J. P., Green, K., Wood, L. F., Toth, L., Mihm, M., Katz, N. R., Vasconcelos, N., … Aoyama, Y. (2018b). Medical writing competency model — Section 2: Knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 52(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017723680
  4. Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. (2011). Code of conduct for journal editors (COPE). https://publicationethics.org
  5. Collier, R. (2011). No favour, no friends: Parsing the qualifications for a journal’s editor-in-chief. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 183(4), 415–416. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-3785
  6. Galipeau, J., Barbour, V., Baskin, P., Bell-Syer, S., Cobey, K., Cumpston, M., Deeks, J., Garner, P., MacLehose, H., Shamseer, L., Straus, S., Tugwell, P., Wager, E., Winker, M., & Moher, D. (2016). A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. BMC Medicine, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2
  7. Galipeau, J., Cobey, K. D., Barbour, V., Baskin, P., Bell-Syer, S., Deeks, J., Garner, P., Shamseer, L., Sharon, S., Tugwell, P., Winker, M., & Moher, D. (2017). An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors’ perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. F1000Research, 6, 1634. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12400.1.
  8. Fontes, I., & Menegon, L. F. (2021). The competences of the editor-in-chief of a scientific journal: Gaps and trends. Revista de Gestão, 29(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/rege-04-2021-0062
  9. Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2009). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning.
  10. Heisel-Stoehr, S., & Schindler, T. M. (2012). Pharmaceutical medical writing competencies: Comparing self-perception with employers' expectations. Medical Writing, 21(3), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480612z.00000000049
  11. Kirkham, J., & Moher, D. (2018). Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? Findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research. F1000Research, 7, 920.
  12. Maggin, D. M. (2021). Journal editor and associate editor perspectives on research reproducibility and open science. Remedial and Special Education, 43(3), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211017294.
  13. Matarese, V., & Shashok, K. (2018). Improving the biomedical research literature: Insights from authors’ editors can help journal editors define and refine their core competencies [Version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 7, 109. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13760.2
  14. Melero, R., Boté‐Vericad, J., & López‐Borrull, A. (2022). Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain. Learned Publishing, 36(2), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1511
  15. Moher, D., Galipeau, J., Alam, S., et al. (2017). Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: Consensus statement. BMC Medicine, 15, 167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0927-0
  16. Moylan, E. (2022, February 12). How can editors encourage open research practices? Wiley | Global Leader in Publishing, Education, and Research. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/network/publishing/research-publishing/editors/how-can-editors-encourage-open-research-practices
  17. Ross-Hellauer, T., & Gorogh, E. (2019). Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9
  18. Segado‐Boj, F., Prieto‐Gutiérrez, J., & Martín‐Quevedo, J. (2022). Attitudes, willingness, and resources to cover article publishing charges: The influence of age, position, income level, country, discipline, and open access habits. Learned Publishing, 35(4), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1455.
  19. Sekaran, U. (2001). Research methods for business: A skills-building approach (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  20. UNESCO. (2023, September 21). UNESCO: Building Peace through Education, Science and Culture, communication and information. https://www.unesco.org/en/open-science/about
  21. Verderame, M. F., Freedman, V. H., Kozlowski, L. M., & McCormack, W. T. (2018). Competency-based assessment for the training of PhD students and early-career scientists. eLife, 7. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.34801
  22. Wong, V. S., & Callaham, M. L. (2012). Medical journal editors lacked familiarity with scientific publication issues despite training and regular exposure. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(3), 247-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.003.