• Xiaoyang Hu, Nicola Robinson, He Yu, and Jianping Liu.
• J Tradit Chin Med. 2015 Jun 1; 35 (3): 335-42.

ObjectiveTo explore consensus among Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)/integrative medicine (IM) journal executive editors in China regarding: (a) Their perceptions about the differences between papers published in Chinese/English journals; (b) the key elements required for publishing a good quality paper; (c) how editors manage and decide on the manuscripts submitted to their journals.MethodsA three classic round Delphi was conducted with a purposive sample of TCM/M Chinese journal executive editors. The key themes and items generated from six open ended questions in the first round were redistributed to the editors in two subsequent questionnaire rounds and scored on a five-point Likert scale. Consensus, reliability and stability of responses were assessed between the editors in the same round and between rounds.ResultsAll ten editors initially agreeing to participate completed the three rounds, provided 60 comments in the first round, relating to 6 themes on: elements of publishing good quality article; differences between Chinese and English published articles; reasons for low quality of Chinese studies; maintaining the journal's good reputation; initiatives and strategies; and differences between Chinese and English versions of the same journal. High levels of consensus were reached for 97% items. Intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient for agreement among editors was high in both second and third round and there was a good stability between the two rounds.ConclusionHigh inter/intra-editor agreement was identified in the differences between TCM/IM research papers published in English and Chinese. Publishing standards and probity are keys in elevating the reputation of research. Editors' perspectives in maintaining and improving quality journal can be viewed as fundamental for editors and researchers in publishing any articles.

17 keywords...

hide…