Search

Background: Previous studies have examined the gender and geographic diversity within editorial boards across various academic disciplines, excluding the field of education. Thus, the purpose of this study was to address this gap by investigating the extent of gender and geographic disparity within the editorial boards of education journals. Methods: The selection of top five education journals from each quartile (Q1-Q4) was performed based on Clarivate Analytics' Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2021 within the category of "Education & Educational Research." The information of editors was collected through online sources. Results: Overall, female editors accounted for 17 out of the 29 editors-in-chief (58.62%), 36 out of the 64 deputy/associate editors (56.25%), 378 out of the 728 editorial/advisory board members (51.92%) and 15 out of the 28 other types of editors (53.57%). There was no significant association between the impact factor (IF) and the proportion of female editors (Pearson's r = -0.095, p = 0.689). The United States had the highest number of editors (n = 459, 54.06%), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 98, 11.54%), Australia (n = 63, 7.42%), China (n = 29, 3.42%), Germany (n = 25, 2.94%), and Canada (n = 22, 2.59%). Notably, the majority of the included editors were from developed countries (n = 794, 93.52%), while editors from developing countries constituted a significantly smaller proportion (n = 55, 6.48%). Conclusion: Editorial boards of education journals exhibit reasonable gender diversity than other disciplines, though still fall short when considering the proportion of women in the discipline. Besides, obvious geographical disparity was observed among editorial boards of education journals. There was a notable lack of representation of researchers associated with institutions from developing countries on the editorial boards of education journals. While maintaining sufficient gender diversity, it is imperative to enhance the geographical diversity in these journals, ensuring a more equitable number of positions to individuals from these underrepresented groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between August 2022 and March 2023, the names and affiliations of 2183 American academics were found on the editorial boards of journals owned by nineteen predatory publishers. A survey email went out to 905 of them, and 195 replies were received. Twenty-six replies were uninformative. Sixty-five respondents confirmed that they served knowingly and willingly, ninety-one reported that their names were being used without their knowledge, and thirteen said that their names were being used despite requests to have them removed. Based on these results, a minimum estimate of the number of academics serving on the editorial boards of corrupt publishers runs into the tens of thousands, while the maximum exceeds ninety thousand. The former estimate uses very stringent criteria to define a predatory publisher, excluding all moderate, minor, and doubtful cases. This situation should be intolerable. The academic community is urged to take legal action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sets out to detail the deceptive practice of including stock characters in the editorial boards of journals run by predatory publishers. Stock characters are defined by the author as those that currently (2023) appear 20 or more times on these editorial boards. Predatory publishers are in turn defined by the author as open access publishers in violation of three or more out of eight egregiously 'fatal' criteria such as identity theft and token (or no) peer review. Stock characters (and stolen academic names and affiliations in general) are included in editorial boards to give them an unwarranted appearance of quality and excellence. Ninety‐six of these stock characters were identified, with their numbers of board memberships ranging from 20 to 503 in the current year (2023). Some were cases of total identity theft, some partial identity theft, and some willing compliance. Academics in the latter category could also have records of publications with the predatory publishers in question. Universities typically warn staff and postgraduate students about the dangers of engaging with predatory publishers, but they can be unresponsive or otherwise negative when alerted to instances of such engagements involving their staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The underrepresentation of scholarly works from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in academic literature is a documented concern, attributed partly to editorial biases. This trend, prevalent across various disciplines, has been less explored in the context of medical ethics journals. This study aimed to examine the composition of editorial board members (EBM) in high-impact medical ethics journals and to evaluate the extent of international diversity within these editorial teams. Methods: This study incorporated an analysis of 16 high-impact medical ethics journals. Information regarding the EBM of these journals was systematically gathered and categorized based on the World Bank's country income classifications. An in-depth examination of the editorial board compositions was then conducted. Results: The study identified 669 EBM across the selected journals. A predominant 89.84% (601) of these members were from high-income countries (HICs), with upper-middle-income countries contributing 7.47% (50) and lower-middle-income countries 2.69% (18). No EBM were associated with low-income countries. A regional breakdown indicated that North America was the most represented area, accounting for 48.88% (327), followed by Europe & Central Asia (27.50%, 184), East Asia & Pacific (13.45%, 90), Latin America & Caribbean (4.63%, 31), Sub-Saharan Africa (4.19%, 28), Middle East & North Africa (0.75%, 5), and South Asia (0.60%, 4). In total, these EBMs hailed from 46 different countries, with the United States representing the largest proportion (43.80%, 293), followed by the United Kingdom (13.15%, 88), Australia (7.92%, 53), Germany (6.73%, 45), and Canada (5.08%, 34). Conclusions: There is a significant lack of international representation within the EBM of high-impact medical ethics journals. The majority of editors in this field are affiliated with HICs, leading to a severe underrepresentation of LMICs within the editorial boards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the current era of evidence-based medicine, scientific publications play a crucial role in guiding patient care. While the lack of diversity among orthopaedic surgeons has been well documented, little is known about the diversity of orthopaedic journal editorial boards. The purpose of this study was to assess the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of U.S. orthopaedic journal editorial boards. Methods: The editorial boards of 13 orthopaedic journals were examined, including 10 subspecialty and 3 general orthopaedic journals. Race/ethnicity and gender were determined for each editorial board member. The representation observed on orthopaedic journal editorial boards was compared with representation at other phases of the orthopaedic pipeline, as well as within the various subspecialty fields of orthopaedics. Logistic regression and t tests were used to evaluate these comparisons. Results: We identified 876 editorial board members of the 13 journals; 14.0% were Asian, 1.9% were Black, 1.9% were Hispanic, 2.4% were multiracial/other, and 79.7% were White. Racial/ethnic representation was similar across the subspecialty fields of orthopaedics (p > 0.05). The representation of women on orthopaedic editorial boards was 7.9%, with differences in gender diversity observed across subspecialty fields (p < 0.05). Among journals in the subspecialty fields of spine and trauma, female editorial board representation was lower than expected, even after taking into account the representation of women in these subspecialty fields (2.0% versus 9.0% [p = 0.002] and 3.8% versus 10.0% [p = 0.03], respectively). Conclusions: In this study of 13 subspecialty and general orthopaedic journals, the representation of racial/ethnic minorities and women on editorial boards was similar to their representation in academic orthopaedics. However, these values remain low in comparison with the population of patients treated by orthopaedic surgeons. Given the importance of scientific publications in the current era of evidence-based medicine, orthopaedic journals should continue working to diversify the membership of their editorial boards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of our study was to investigate the representation of women in the editorial boards of otorhinolaryngology journals indexed in the Science Citation Index‐Expanded (SCIE) database. Methods: We examined the gender distribution of editors‐in‐chief, editorial board members, and associate/section editors in otorhinolaryngology journals indexed in the Web of Science SCI‐E core collection. We also analyzed the number of years the journals have been publishing, their categories (general otorhinolaryngology, otology‐audiology, phoniatrics, rhinology‐allergy), the country and continent of publication, the Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) 2021 values, 2‐year and 5‐year impact factors (IF), H‐index, and quartile rank of the journals. Results: Out of the 54 editors‐in‐chief included in our study from a total of 44 journals, only 6 (11.1%) were women. Women constituted 21.6% of the editorial board members and 35.1% of the associate/section editors. The proportion of women in the editorial boards of journals with a 5‐year impact factor >3.0 was significantly higher compared to others. As the 5‐year impact factor of the journals increased, the number of women in the boards showed a linear increase. When evaluated based on journal categories, phoniatrics journals had higher representation of women in both editorial board membership and associate/section editor roles compared to other categories. Conclusion: The representation of women in the editorial boards of otorhinolaryngology journals is still inadequate. To rectify this situation, it is important for the entire academic community to exhibit a collective attitude rather than individual efforts. Level of Evidence: 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To assess trends in gender representation within editorial boards of European and North American orthodontic journals from 2000 to 2023. Materials and methods Retrospective cross-sectional study of editorial boards of orthodontic journals. The first issue of volumes of identified journals from the years 2000, 2010 and 2023 were investigated to demonstrate trends over time. Results Eight journals were included. Across the period investigated, a total of 810 editorial board positions were identified with most positions held by men (657/810; 81.1%). The proportion of female editorial board members increased from 14.7% (36/245) in 2000 to 24.5% (73/298) in 2023. The number of female Editor-in-Chief increased from zero in 2000 to two in 2023. Three journals demonstrated a reduction in female representation from 2000 to 2023. Conclusion Females remain underrepresented within editorial boards of orthodontic journals which is a key metric of presence and leadership in orthodontic academia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this work is to identify the different names, positions, and roles of editorial board members (EBMs) of journals in the Information Science and Library Science (ISLS) field of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and to establish a classification of the different roles to improve communication between editors and researchers. Among the 86 journals included in the ISLS field, the first and last names, position, and institutional affiliation of each EBM were extracted from 84 journals that allowed access to committee information. The information was standardized, and the positions were classified by consensus into major groups according to the role they play in the journals. The 84 journals included 4,122 positions held by EBMs, distributed in 201 positions and classified into 11 broad categories. The majority of positions were included in the Editorial Board category (n = 1,516), followed by Editorial Advisory Board (n = 734) and Associate Editor (n = 566). The journals were published by 36 publishers, with Elsevier and Taylor & Francis contributing the most journals (11 each). The journals in which the EBMs had the highest percentage of foreign members were those published in the Netherlands. This study provides a picture of the broad distribution of the roles and terminological titles that EBMs have in Information Science and Library Science journals. Because of this diversity, it is advisable to develop a guide to good editorial practices that includes both a description of the complex range of roles performed by EBMs and a unified nomenclature for these universal positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inequitable representation in journal editorial boards may impact women's career progression across surgical, anesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) specialties. However, data from Latin America are lacking. We evaluated women's representation on editorial boards of Latin America SAO journals in 2021. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis, retrieving journals through Scimago Journal and Country Rank 2020. Journals were included if active, focused on SAO topics, and publicly provided information on editorial board staff. Editorial board member names and positions were extracted from journals' websites. Members were classified into senior (e.g., editor-in-chief), academic (e.g., reviewer), and non-academic roles (e.g., administrative office). Women's representation was predicted from first names using Genderize.io. The number of women SAO physicians per country was obtained from articles and governmental reports. Results: We included 19 of 25 identified journals and analyzed 1,318 names. Three anesthesiology, seven obstetric, and nine surgical journals represented five Latin American countries. Women held 17% (224/1,318) of board positions [p < 0.0001; 95% CI(0.14, 0.19)]. Women held fewer academic roles (14.3%, 155/1,084) compared to senior [28.9%, 64/221 (p < 0.001)] and non-academic roles [38.4%, 5/13 (p = 0.042)]. Surgical journals had fewer women (7.7%, 58/752) compared to anesthesia [25.5%, 52/204 (p = 0.006)] and obstetrics [31.5%, 114/362 (p < 0.001)]. Women's proportion on editorial boards increased according to the number of women SAO physicians per country (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our study assessed the composition of editorial boards from Latin America SAO journals and demonstrated that women remain underrepresented. Our findings highlight the need for regional strategies to advance women's careers across SAO specialties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diversity among editorial boards and in the peer review process maximizes the likelihood that the dissemination of reported results is both relevant and respectful to readers and end users. Past studies have examined diversity among editorial board members and reviewers for factors such as gender, geographic location, and race, but limited research has explored the representation of people with disabilities. Here, we sought to understand the landscape of inclusivity of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury specifically in journals publishing papers (2012–2022) on their quality of life. Methods: An open and closed 12-question adaptive survey was disseminated to 31 journal editors over a one-month period beginning December 2022. Results: We received 10 fully completed and 5 partially completed survey responses (response rate 48%). Notwithstanding the small sample, over 50% (8/15) of respondents indicated that their journal review practices involve people with lived experience of spinal cord injury, signaling positive even if incomplete inclusivity practices. The most notable reported barriers to achieving this goal related to identifying and recruiting people with lived experience to serve in the review and editorial process. Conclusions: In this study we found positive but incomplete trends toward inclusivity in journal practices involving people with lived experience of spinal cord injury. We recommend, therefore, that explicit and genuine efforts are directed toward recruitment through community-based channels. To improve representation even further, we suggest that editors and reviewers be offered the opportunity to self-identify as living with a disability without discrimination or bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: A 2019 study highlighted significant gender inequities among blood banking and transfusion medicine (BBTM) journal editorial boards. We sought to assess if the representation of women has improved in the intervening 3 years. Materials and Methods: We analysed the gender composition of nine BBTM journal editorial boards as of 13 September 2022, including the seven journals studied in 2019. We compared this to the proportion of females (term used by authors) on seven BBTM journal editorial boards in 2019 to assess change in the editorial board composition. We also assessed gender composition by editorial position (editor‐in‐chief [EIC], associate/assistant/titled editors and editorial board members). Results: Nine BBTM journals have a total of 398 editorial positions and comprise significantly more men than women (68.8%, 274/398 vs. 31.2%, 124/398; p < 0.001). Among the seven journals analysed in 2019, the proportion of women on these seven editorial boards has remained unchanged (2019: 30.1%, 81/269 vs. 2022: 31.9%, 103/323; p = 0.66) despite the addition of 54 editorial positions. Conclusion: Women remain inequitably represented on journal editorial boards among all journal editorial positions. Although advocacy efforts are increasing, there has been limited improvement in gender equity in 3 years, despite a 20% increase in editorial positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Knowledge pertaining to scholarly publishing is not limited to information held within academic papers, and within a complex publishing environment that is in constant flux due to challenges and threats, there is interest in knowing how journals are adjusting to these parameters. The Internet Archive is a free and easy way to archive information that is found on websites. We recently argued for its use in the archival of website-based citations, and expand those arguments herein to focus on the importance to archive journal editorial boards, for three reasons: first, journals might not have any formal mechanisms to register changes in the editorial constitution of the board; second, there is historical importance in appreciating changes to editorial board constituency, including changes to gender representation; and third, changes might be made opaquely to hide or masquerade information that is intricately linked to the historical aspect of that journal. Our interest is thus not only within a historical prism, but also from a bibliometric point of view, given that the editorial board defines—to some extent—the journal's content by serving as its gatekeepers of quality. We attempted to archive the editorial board pages of 46 journal editorial board URLs, achieving 100% mementos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diversity is widely recognized as a driver of excellence and innovation. In recent years, women have become an increasingly significant part of the rheumatology workforce. We aimed to assess the gender representation of the leading rheumatology journals' editors and to explore whether editors' gender correlates with the gender of the first and last authors of published articles. We conducted a cross-sectional study and extracted editorial members of rheumatology journals in quartiles 1 to 3 (Clarivate Analytics) from each journal's website. We categorized editorial positions according to the level of influence in manuscript acceptance decision-making (levels I to III). The gender of editors and of the first and last authors in all 2019 original articles published in a sample of 15 rheumatology journals was assigned using a combination of digital gallery and manual searches. There were 2242 editors' names retrieved from 43 journals, 24 (26%) of the 94 editors at level I, 139 (36%) of 385 editors at level II, and 469 (27%) of 1763 at level III were female. The imbalance between journals was heterogeneous. Females were the first authors in 1342 (48%) and the last authors in 969 (35%) of the 2797 published articles. However, we found no significant correlation between editors' and authors' gender. Our data showed uneven gender representation on the editorial boards of most rheumatology journals, but we did not find any apparent vertical segregation or influence on publishing by gender. Our findings suggest that a generational transition may be occurring among authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women are disadvantaged across all stages of academic publishing. In science, contribution to editorial boards of journals is evidence of a high reputation within a specialty or field. Therefore, the low presence of women on editorial boards can be considered a disadvantage indicator for women in academia. This study aims to highlight the gap in women's contributions in land science journals. We assessed the gender composition of editorial boards in 60 peer-reviewed journals using systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and we obtained data on current and past editorial boards of these journals. The result shows that the current number of editorial board members is 5197 of which only 25.47 percent are women. Gender inequality is very evident in this group of journals to the extent that journals with a high impact factor indicate inequality that is even more than 75 percent. The results of the time series analysis have also shown that the presence of women on editorial boards has increased over the last decade, although this increase has been more in the Nordic countries. The geographical distribution of editorial board members is also quite unequal in the North and South, 83 percent of female editorial board members are from northern countries, while only 12 percent are from the global South. According to the results, there is still a long way to go to achieve gender equality, especially in the field of land science. Our results also support previous findings of a considerable gender difference in urban land science, geoscience community, biodiversity conservation, and veterinary sciences. Thus, the academic community, editors, and journals must take proactive measures to achieve gender balance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence suggests a limited contribution to the total research output in leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals by researchers from the developing world. Editorial bias, quality of scientific research produced and language barriers have been attributed as possible causes for this phenomenon. The aim of this study was to understand the prevalence of editorial board members based out of low and lower-middle income countries in leading journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. The top 21 journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology were selected based on their impact factor, SCImago ranking and literature search. The composition of the editorial boards of these journals was studied based on World Bank Income Criteria to understand the representation status of researchers from low and lower-middle income countries. A total of 1315 board members make up the editorial composition of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. The majority of these editors belong to high-income countries (n = 1148; 87.3%). Low (n = 6; 0.45%) and lower-middle income (n = 55; 4.18%) countries make up for a very minuscule proportion of editorial board members. Only a meagre 9 out of 21 journals have editorial board members from these countries (42.85%). Low and low-middle countries have poor representation in the editorial boards of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. Poor representation in research from these countries has grave consequences for a large proportion of the global population and multidisciplinary collaborative efforts must be taken to rapidly change this statistic with immediate effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales is the property of Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Journals have been described as "duty bearers" of upholding fundamental ethical principles that are essential for maintaining the ethical integrity of newly generated and disseminated knowledge. To play our part, we evaluated diversity and inclusion in the leadership and management of global and international health journals. We developed Journal Diversity Index (JDI) to measure three parameters of diversity and representation (gender, geographic, socioeconomic status). Relevant information regarding editorial board members of systematically screened journals was sequentially extracted and job titles were categorized into five editorial roles. Chi-squared test was utilized to study associations between gender and geographic distribution of editors along with the Medline indexing of the journal and its impact factor. Out of 43 journals included, 62.7% were published from two high-income countries. Women comprised 44% of the total editors. Among all the editorial board members, we did not find any information suggesting the representation of non-binary and transgender individuals. Furthermore, 68.2% of editors were based in high-income countries with 67.3% of the editors belonging to the Global North. This disparity in geographic region and socioeconomic level was observed across all five editorial roles. Among all women editors, more than 70% worked in non-Medline and non-impact factor journals. Only two journals scored "excellent" on JDI. Despite the continuous evolution of the definition of global health ethics, marginalized individuals, and their perspectives remain underrepresented in this field. Thus, we call for swift action regarding the decentralization and redistribution of global and international health journal editorial boards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the presence of women on the editorial boards of journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR), in the category of Criminology and Penology. For this purpose, a comparative study of the representation of women in editorial positions has been carried out, based on the following indicators: responsibility on the board, individually for each of the publications, quartile of the journals, publisher responsible for the publication and country of publication. The results obtained show the existing gender inequality in the editorial committees of the main journals in Criminology, where there is still a male predominance, and how female representation decreases the higher the position of responsibility in the journal and the lower the quartile where it is located in the ranking. If we take the publisher or the country of publication as a reference, the data confirm the low presence of women in editorial decision-making positions. The study concluded that, although there is a trend towards reversal, in the committees of scientific journals specialized in Criminology, the female presence is still scarce and the existing gender inequality in these positions is verified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background While progress is evident in gender and ethnic representation in the workplace, this disparity remains prevalent in academic positions. Objectives We examined gender and Asian ethnic representation in editorial boards of cardiology journals. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using publicly available data on Cardiology and Cardiovascular medicine journals in the first quartile of the 2020 Scimago Journal & Country Rank indicator. The proportions of female and Asian editorial board members, associate editors and editors-in-chief were assessed. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the journal's geographical origin, subspecialty and demographic of the editor-in-chief. Results Seventy-six cardiology journals, involving 8915 editorial board members, were included. Only 19.6% of editorial board members were female, 20.8% Asians and 4.0% Asian females. There were less female representation amongst editors-in-chief (9.9%) compared to associate editors (22.3%). European (18.1%) and North American-based journals (21.1%) had higher female representation compared to Asian-based journals (8.7%). There was lower Asian representation in European (18.1%) and North American-based journals (19.9%) compared to Asian-based journals (72.3%). Females were underrepresented in interventional (14.5%) journals, while Asians were underrepresented in general cardiology (18.3%) and heart failure (18.3%) journals. Journals led by female editors-in-chief had significantly higher female representation compared to male-led ones, while journals with Asian editors-in-chief had greater Asian representation compared to non-Asian led ones. Conclusion This study highlights the female and Asian ethnic underrepresentation in academic roles in cardiology journal editorial boards. Further analysis is needed for other ethnicities, while the community pushes towards gender-balanced and ethnic diversity across editorial boards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to characterize the gender distribution of first authors, senior authors, and editorial board members across several high-impact factor journals in PCCM. In this cross-sectional study, we analysed gender disparities in critical care authorship and editorial boards, based on publications from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021 from the top 20 high impact journals based on the Journal of Citation Reports. Among 20 journals (median impact factor of 6.66), 25% of editors-in-chief and 28.8% of editorial board members were female. From 2019 to 2021, a total of 23,994 articles were published. Female first authors and last authors made up 29.1% and 21.2% of the authorship, respectively (n = 6637 articles). Our study demonstrates significant gender disparities in critical care authorship and editorial boards, with males predominantly filling the roles of editors in chief, editorial members, and first and senior authors. Despite this significant difference in gender distribution, there was no statistically significant correlation between authorship and editor gender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the role and evolution of Editorial Advisory Boards (EABs) in academic journals, specifically focusing on the Information Systems Journal (ISJ). The author explains that while EABs are meant to provide advice to the Editor in Chief and lend respectability to the journal, they are rarely consulted and their composition often lacks diversity. The ISJ took steps to revitalize its EAB by increasing gender and ethnic balance, but ultimately decided to dissolve it due to the journal's maturity and reputation. Instead, a new Editorial Review Board (ERB) was created to recognize and support high-quality reviewers. The article concludes by highlighting the diversity of the ISJ's Senior Editors (SEs) and Associate Editors (AEs) and emphasizing the importance of representation in academic journals. [Extracted from the article]

Disparities continue to pose major challenges in various aspects of science. One such aspect is editorial board composition, which has been shown to exhibit racial and geographical disparities. However, the literature on this subject lacks longitudinal studies quantifying the degree to which the racial composition of editors reflects that of scientists. Other aspects that may exhibit racial disparities include the time spent between the submission and acceptance of a manuscript and the number of citations a paper receives relative to textually similar papers, but these have not been studied to date. To fill this gap, we compile a dataset of 1,000,000 papers published between 2001 and 2020 by six publishers, while identifying the handling editor of each paper. Using this dataset, we show that most countries in Asia, Africa, and South America (where the majority of the population is ethnically non-White) have fewer editors than would be expected based on their share of authorship. Focusing on US-based scientists reveals Black as the most underrepresented race. In terms of acceptance delay, we find, again, that papers from Asia, Africa, and South America spend more time compared to other papers published in the same journal and the same year. Regression analysis of US-based papers reveals that Black authors suffer from the greatest delay. Finally, by analyzing citation rates of US-based papers, we find that Black and Hispanic scientists receive significantly fewer citations compared to White ones doing similar research. Taken together, these findings highlight significant challenges facing non-White scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diversity of editorial boards of academic journals has recently become one of the most frequently discussed topics in scientific communication. Diversity of editorial board is considered to be an important element affecting the journal, the field and the region in terms of the number and diversity of publications. In parallel with this increasing awareness in the academic circles, many studies on diversity in the literature at both the field and journal levels have been carried out. In this study, the editorial boards of academic journals in the field of Library and Information Sciences were analyzed in terms of accommodating geographical representation, and the effect of such diversity, if any, on the number of publications was investigated. The data set consisted of the journals in the mentioned field in the SCImago web page Journal Rankings. The analyzes were carried out based on 6126 persons registered to 212 journals, including chief editors. The findings of the study showed that 75.11% of all members of editorial boards were from North American and European countries. While Asian countries (Central and South Asia, and East and Southeast Asia) were represented by 13.16% in journals in the field of Library and Information Sciences. A linear correlation was found between the regions where the chief editors of the journals were registered and the assignments of the editorial boards. Moreover, a linear correlation was found between the editors of journals (chief editors and other editors assigned to boards) and the scientific outputs (citable documents, citations, and h-index) in terms of regional relationship. The consistency of the results with those of other studies in the literature clearly demonstrates a need for more transparent processes in academic publishing. A policy to ensure a fair and diverse representation in boards of journals features numerous multifaceted positive effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Specialties within the field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have demonstrated that disparities exist within editorial boards of their respective professional journals. However, limited data of this observation exists within the scope of pharmacy practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the distribution of gender across editorial board members of several pharmacy journals. Methods: In this cross‐sectional study, a total of 20 pharmacy journals were selected, using a combination of several factors including the SCImago Journal and Country Rank as of March 2019 and prominence across various organizations within the discipline. Publicly available information from the official website of each respective journal was evaluated to determine the proportion of males and females serving as members of the editorial board. An Internet search was conducted to confirm this demographic for those individuals where gender could not be determined. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify qualitative variables. Results: Data were sufficient to determine the gender of editorial members in all 20 pharmacy journals. Eight hundred and thirteen individuals were identified to serve on editorial boards, of which 326 (40%) were female, with a range of 8% to 63% per journal. Only four journals (20%) had a female editor‐in‐chief. Conclusion: Disparities in gender distribution exist among editorial boards of pharmacy journals. Future efforts should focus on increasing the proportion of women serving as both members of the editorial board and as editor‐in‐chief to drive diversity, minimize implicit bias, and possibly enhance the content and quality of publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, established in 1972, is 50 years old now. The number of citations of the journal and the interest of national and international researchers are high. This success has been achieved by the editorial boards who have contributed to the journal since its establishment and the writers who have contributed to its development, and this success will continue to increase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite women constituting over half of new doctors, gender disparity remains an issue. Surgery has shown particularly slow progress towards gender parity. This study aimed to quantify gender representation within editorial boards of the highest ranking international general surgery journals. Methods: Surgical journals were collated using two indices: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Non-general surgery journals were excluded. Journals were contacted, requesting gender editorial team demographics. Editorial board data were collected via journal websites on 28 November 2019. Results: The top 25 general surgery journals according to SJR and JIF ranking methods were determined, identifying 28 unique journals. Editorial board data were publicly available for 27 of these 28 surgical journals, and were examined. Women accounted for 20.2 per cent (568 of 2816) of total editorial board positions. Women constituted 11 per cent (4 of 36) of editor-in-chief positions, 32 per cent (29 of 92) of deputy editors, and 19.1 per cent (369 of 1935) of general editorial board positions. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate gender disparity within editorial boards of the most prominent general surgery journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on the manuscript peer review process at the Journal of Marketing Research. Topics include the increase in number of manuscript submissions since 2010, a description of the review process, and a sampling of manuscripts was conducted to provide empirical results about the overall review process at the journal.

Using a unique dataset covering 106 economics journals over the period 1990-2011, we document trends in the incidence of multiple positions, editorial duration and institutional background for 6192 board members. We put these figures into perspective using the literature on boards of directors and measures of market concentration. The picture that emerges is of a discipline with a high concentration of institutional and individual power, especially at the more prestigious journals. Evidence suggests this indeed matters: there is a strong negative association between editorial duration and journal impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One manifestation of the glaring lack of equality, diversity, and inclusion in higher education relates to the underrepresentation of certain individuals and/or regions in the scholarly publication process. Here, we analyse the affiliations of editorial board members in 126 Geography journals. Specifically, we examine editorial board membership by region and determine the extent to which the regional representation of editorial board members is associated with journal impact factor as a measure of journal reach and quality. Of the 5,202 editorial board members examined, almost 80% are located in mainland Europe, North America, and the British Isles, while roughly five percent are located in Central America, South America, the Middle East, and Africa combined. Moreover, editorial board members located in these four regions from the Global South are most often editorial board members of journals in the lowest quartile (by impact factor). These findings highlight the outdated and exclusionary practices that pervade the scholarly publication process in science in general, and Geography specifically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As members of the editorial team at Language Acquisition, we read Kidd and Garcia's target article with enthusiasm. In our commentary, we outline some specific ideas for how journals can help to alleviate the issues raised by Kidd and Garcia, some of which are in progress or in place at Language Acquisition, and some of which we hope to undertake alongside other journals in the field. We focus on concrete steps, acknowledging that systemic changes, too, will be required to ensure that our science reflects the diversity of languages learned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document, titled "Referees for Philosophy of Science," acknowledges and expresses gratitude to the referees who have contributed to the journal. It lists the names of individuals who have reviewed papers for the journal since the April 2023 issue. The document emphasizes the importance of their service and apologizes for any inadvertent omissions. The list includes a diverse range of names from various cultural backgrounds, reflecting the inclusive nature of the journal. [Extracted from the article]

Forum papers are thought-provoking opinion pieces or essays founded in fact, sometimes containing speculation, on a civil engineering topic of general interest and relevance to the readership of the journal. The views expressed in this Forum article do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCE or the Editorial Board of the journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forum papers are thought-provoking opinion pieces or essays founded in fact, sometimes containing speculation, on a civil engineering topic of general interest and relevance to the readership of the journal. The views expressed in this Forum article do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCE or the Editorial Board of the journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Editorial Board of EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry releases a biannual highlight commentary to update the readership on trends in the field of radiopharmaceutical development. Main body: This selection of highlights provides commentary on 19 different topics selected by each coauthoring Editorial Board member addressing a variety of aspects ranging from novel radiochemistry to first-in-human application of novel radiopharmaceuticals. Conclusion: Trends in radiochemistry and radiopharmacy are highlighted. Hot topics cover the entire scope of EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry, demonstrating the progress in the research field in many aspects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the PREFACE to the Special Issue "Queueing-inventory: analytical and simulation modeling and classical and retrial queues and inventory". The year 2022 was the 30th anniversary of Queueing-inventory. It was in that connection that the guest editors requested Professor Endre Boros, the Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Operations Research, for permission to guest edit a special issue. This was granted by the Editorial Board of the journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Bibliographical Society of America is seeking nominations for new council members who will be elected at their Annual Meeting in January 2025. They are particularly interested in nominees who represent the racial and ethnic diversity of bibliographical communities in the United States. Council members are responsible for setting strategic priorities, approving the annual budget, and fundraising. They are also invited to join committees and working groups based on their interests and experience. The society encourages officers and council members to make a financial contribution to the annual fund, but there is no minimum requirement. Membership dues start at $25 for individuals 35 and younger, and $80 for individuals 36 and older. The society also calls for submissions to their open-access digital repository, BibSite, and their journal, the Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. [Extracted from the article]