Supporting Career Progression in Publishing Through Systematic Analysis of Job Descriptions: A Cross-Industry Initiative

IF 2.4 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Learned Publishing Pub Date : 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1002/leap.1656
Lauretta S. P. Cheng, Kate Heaney, Michelle Lam, Jacklyn Lord, John W. Warren, Charles Watkinson
{"title":"Supporting Career Progression in Publishing Through Systematic Analysis of Job Descriptions: A Cross-Industry Initiative","authors":"Lauretta S. P. Cheng,&nbsp;Kate Heaney,&nbsp;Michelle Lam,&nbsp;Jacklyn Lord,&nbsp;John W. Warren,&nbsp;Charles Watkinson","doi":"10.1002/leap.1656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Little consistency exists in how individuals enter scholarly publishing, let alone advance their careers. More transparency and documentation can help increase diversity in an industry that wrestles with its privilege. In this article, we report on a project initiated by three publishing industry associations to aggregate, normalise, and analyse public job postings and internal position descriptions in scholarly publishing. After gathering more than 1000 unique descriptions, a group of knowledgeable volunteers qualitatively coded them. Researchers from the University of Michigan checked for data consistency and analysed the job description corpus. Preliminary visualisations highlight the skills that suit potential applicants for various publishing positions and the skills that are most important to build for advancement. The findings can inform the development of products to make publishing a more equitable industry, such as interactive tools to match individuals with types of publishing jobs, well-formed template positions, and training programs that address skills gaps.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.1656","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learned Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1656","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Little consistency exists in how individuals enter scholarly publishing, let alone advance their careers. More transparency and documentation can help increase diversity in an industry that wrestles with its privilege. In this article, we report on a project initiated by three publishing industry associations to aggregate, normalise, and analyse public job postings and internal position descriptions in scholarly publishing. After gathering more than 1000 unique descriptions, a group of knowledgeable volunteers qualitatively coded them. Researchers from the University of Michigan checked for data consistency and analysed the job description corpus. Preliminary visualisations highlight the skills that suit potential applicants for various publishing positions and the skills that are most important to build for advancement. The findings can inform the development of products to make publishing a more equitable industry, such as interactive tools to match individuals with types of publishing jobs, well-formed template positions, and training programs that address skills gaps.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过对工作描述的系统分析来支持出版业的职业发展:一个跨行业的倡议
个人进入学术出版界的方式几乎没有一致性,更不用说职业发展了。更多的透明度和文档可以帮助增加这个与特权斗争的行业的多样性。在本文中,我们报告了一个由三个出版行业协会发起的项目,该项目旨在对学术出版的公开招聘和内部职位描述进行汇总、规范和分析。在收集了1000多个独特的描述后,一群知识渊博的志愿者对它们进行了定性编码。密歇根大学的研究人员检查了数据的一致性,并分析了职位描述语料库。初步的可视化突出了适合各种出版职位潜在申请人的技能,以及对晋升最重要的技能。研究结果可以为产品的开发提供信息,使出版成为一个更公平的行业,例如将个人与出版工作类型相匹配的互动工具,格式良好的模板职位,以及解决技能差距的培训计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Learned Publishing
Learned Publishing INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.90%
发文量
72
期刊最新文献
Clinical Evidence Behind a Paywall: An Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews Scoping Reviews Should Describe—Not Score From Findings to Meaning: A Strategic Framework for the Discussion Section Scholarly Communications in 2025: An Aerial Evaluation of a System Challenged by AI and Much More Enhancing, Understanding and Adoption of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1