Search

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]

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 evaluated the inclusion and representation of women serving on school psychology journal editorial boards from 1965 to 2020. A total of 3,267 names were collected from six journals at 5-year increments and coded for gender using a four-step process. Across 55 years, women constituted 38% of editorial boards across these journals. When considering their levels of service, they constituted 10% of editors, 42% of associate editors, and 39% of board members. Women demonstrated a consistent increase in participation across all levels, with an overall change from 3.4% to 54.8%. In 2020, five out of six journals included more than 50% women on their editorial boards. However, underrepresentation of women is still apparent as recent reports showed women compose 87% of school psychologists, 63% of school psychology faculty, and 85% of school psychology doctoral recipients. Low numbers of women as editors as well as differences in women's participation across journals suggest a need for further evaluation of potential bias and gender-related barriers related to service in school psychology journals.

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]

Abstract 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.

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to investigate gender composition of the editorial board members of the journals in the field of periodontology and implantology., Materials and Methods: A rigorous search was performed through Web of Science database to identify journals, scoping on the periodontology and implantology research fields. Data on journal's demographic information, gender of the editorial board members were gathered from the journals fulfilling the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Variables including journal impact factor and quartiles were extracted as well., Results: The proportion of women in the editorial team in periodontology journals was 27.3%, whereas it was almost 19% in implantology journals. As for editorial leadership, these ratios were 22.1% and 19.8%, respectively. There were significantly less women than men in editor-in-chief position in periodontology journals (p = 0.042). Journal metrics had no impact on the gender distribution of editor-in-chief positions in both fields., Conclusions: Women seem to be under-represented as editorial leaders or board members in journals of periodontology and implantology. The proportion of women in periodontology journals has increased in the last decade; however, there is still a clear need for further increase to have a gender balance., (© 2023 The Authors. Oral Diseases published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Members of editorial boards of academic journals are often considered gatekeepers of knowledge and role models for the academic community. Editorial boards should be sufficiently diverse in the background of their members to facilitate publishing manuscripts representing a wide range of research paradigms, methods, and cultural perspectives.Objectives: To critically evaluate changes in the representation of binary gender and geographic diversity over time on the editorial boards of Chemical Geology and Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, flagship geochemistry journals, respectively, from the European Association of Geochemistry and the Geochemical Society – Meteoritical Society partnership.Methods: The composition of editorial boards was ascertained as given in the first issue of each year, over 1965–2021 for Chemical Geology and 1950–2021 for Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, and members of the editorial boards were coded for their country of affiliation (the country of origin may have been different) and for their binary gender.Results: Gender parity, limited to men and women, and the number of countries of affiliation increased steadily between the late 1980s and 2021. However, the geographic distribution remained dominated by affiliations from North America and Western Europe. The editor-in-chief or board of editors had a significant impact on the diversity of the editorial boards, and both geographic and gender diversity may evolve with nearly every newly appointed editor. However, the persistently substantial under-representation on editorial boards of affiliations outside North America and Europe is of concern and needs to be the focus of active recruitment and ongoing monitoring. This approach will ensure that traditionally low geographic diversity is increased and maintained in the future.Conclusion: Improving diversity and inclusion of editorial boards of academic journals and strengthening journal and disciplinary reputations are mutually reinforcing. Instituting a rotating editorship with emphasis on embedding broader geographic networks and more equitable international recruitment could ensure sustained and wider geographic representation and gender balance of editorial boards and promote originality and quality of published research, representing our global communities.

This study underscores the persistent underrepresentation of women in academic dermatology leadership positions by examining the gender composition of editorial boards across top dermatology journals, emphasizing the urgent need for proactive strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Abstract 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.

Despite substantial progress for women in science, women remain underrepresented in many aspects of the scholarly publication process. We examined how the gender diversity of editors and reviewers changed over time for six journals in ecology and evolution (2003–2015 for four journals, 2007–2015 or 2009–2015 for the other two), and how several aspects of the peer review process differed between female and male editors and reviewers. We found that for five of the six journals, women were either absent or very poorly represented as handling editors at the beginning of our dataset. The representation of women increased gradually and consistently, with women making up 29% of the handling editors (averaged across journals) in 2015, similar to the representation of women as last authors on ecology papers (23% in 2015) but lower than the proportion of women among all authors (31%) and among members of the societies that own the journals (37%–40%). The proportion of women among reviewers has also gradually but consistently increased over time, reaching 27% by 2015. Female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors, and this difference increased with age of the editor. Men and women who were invited to review did not differ in whether they responded to the review invitation, but, of those that responded, women were slightly more likely to agree to review. In contrast, women were less likely than men to accept invitations to serve on journal editorial boards. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.

Though women now comprise approximately 21.5% of all neurosurgery residents in the United States, women only represent 10% of practicing neurosurgeons nationally. Serving as a journal editor is 1 measure of academic success. We investigated characteristics of editorial boards for top neurosurgical journals to identify factors influencing membership on editorial boards. We sought to identify gender differences to explain the paucity of women on editorial boards. This is a cross-sectional study of editorial boards for the top 10 English-language neurosurgical journals. Data were obtained from journal websites, program faculty lists, or physician online profiles. Gender differences were compared using Student t test and χ2 analysis. Seven hundred twenty-two editorial board members were examined (female n = 65; male n = 650; unidentified n = 7). Overall, women had fewer years in practice (P = 0.002) and more often had additional advanced degrees (P = 0.009) while men had higher h-indices (P < 0.0001). Within the boards of Neurosurgery and Acta Neurochirurgica, men had been in practice longer (P = 0.014; P = 0.023) and had higher h-indices (P = 0.003; P = 0.025). Male editors for Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine and World Neurosurgery had higher h-indices (P = 0.007; P = 0.018). Women constitute ∼9% of editorial boards for top neurosurgical journals, a percentage comparable to the amount of practicing female academic neurosurgeons. This finding is encouraging as in that there appears to be no readily identifiable bias in the selection of editorial board members. The differences in years in practice and h-index suggest that gender distribution may equalize with time as more women enter practice and produce scientific literature. Efforts to recruit and retain women in neurosurgery should be pursued to rectify this discrepancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundPrevious 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsOverall, 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%).ConclusionEditorial 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.

Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement L.B. is an advisor for Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and Bristol Myers Squibb and a speaker for Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and AstraZeneca. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.

Abstract 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 Background Although low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have great disease burden, but the lack of studies from LMIC have been shown in several fields. Multiple researchers from LMIC perceive editorial bias against their studies. Editorial board members (EBMs) from LMIC are under-represented across many medical journals. It is still unclear whether this phenomenon exists in the field of hand research. The purpose of this study was to investigate the composition of EBMs in leading subspecialty hand journals, and to reveal the international representation of EBMs in the field of hand research. Methods This cross-sectional study included seven leading subspecialty hand journals. The EBMs were obtained from the journals’ websites. The country affiliations of EBMs were categorized based on their locations and economy status. The composition of EBMs was investigated. Results There were 211 EBMs in the seven journals. A total of 185 EBMs (87.7%) were affiliated with high-income countries (HIC), 18 (8.5%) with upper middle-income countries, and 8 (3.8%) with lower middle-income countries. None EBMs were affiliated with low income countries. The EBMs were affiliated with 30 countries. The biggest number of EBMs were affiliated with the USA 74 (35.07%), followed by the United Kingdom (45, 21.33%), and France (13, 6.16%). Most of EBMs were based in Europe and Central Asia (86, 40.8%) and North America (81, 38.4%). Conclusions The EBMs of leading subspecialty hand journals are dominated by HIC with a very low representation of LMIC. There is a need to make the editorial boards more international in the field of hand research.

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]

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]