Editing the editors: Aims and priorities of health professions education journals

Abstract

Purpose: Although health professions education (HPE) scholarship has flourished in recent decades, the influence of HPE journals has received little attention. This study examines the editorial policies and priorities of leading HPE journals. Methods: Fourteen HPE journals with the highest impact factors were reviewed for their editorial aims, scope, intended readership, and priority topic areas. Text from journal websites was coded using thematic analysis. Results: 10/14 HPE journals included in this study were linked to regional or national education societies. Two focussed predominantly on medicine, one on dentistry, one on nursing, one on nutrition, and the remaining nine on general HPE. Although journals differed in their projected aims and proposed readerships, four overarching editorial themes were identified: (1) methodological and theoretical rigor; (2) impact on practice; (3) global relevance; (4) advancing knowledge. Conclusions: Leading HPE journals share a number of priority areas and principles, implying some cohesion and consensus amongst the HPE scholarly community. These journals prioritise impact at the level of individual practitioners. Given the importance of policy level change in the development and reform of HPE around the world, the relative lack of focus on policy impact in HPE journals is worthy of further exploration.

The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape

“…As such, we would not necessarily expect these author characteristics to change over time. However, similar to Arfeen and colleagues' findings, we observed that the majority of the journals examined here explicitly describe themselves as ‘international’ in focus 58 . That said, our data align with other studies 5,58 indicating that most do not at present publish a diverse representation of authors.…”

“…However, similar to Arfeen and colleagues' findings, we observed that the majority of the journals examined here explicitly describe themselves as ‘international’ in focus 58 . That said, our data align with other studies 5,58 indicating that most do not at present publish a diverse representation of authors. Additionally, it is important to note that Global South authors may decide not to publish in these journals for reasons beyond (or unrelated to) epistemic injustice.…”