Search

Females remain under-represented in surgery in the United Kingdom and around the globe. Gender representation on journal editorial boards is one of the key metrics of gender representation within academic surgery. The aim of this study was to quantify gender representation within the editorial leadership of journals affiliated with UK surgical specialties. A web-based search for each of the UK surgical specialty associations was conducted, followed by identification of the endorsed journals for each one. As of August 2022, data on the gender of the editor-in-chief and other journal leadership positions, including associate, section, and deputy editors, were collated. Gender classification was completed using first-name recognition, verified by a web search using the name and institution provided. Managing editors without clinical backgrounds were excluded. Ten journals were identified for the following surgical specialties: General Surgery, Trauma and Orthopaedics, Neurosurgery, Cardiothoracic, Urology, Paediatric Surgery, Ear Nose and Throat, Oral and Maxillofacial, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and Vascular Surgery. In total, 242 editorial positions were identified: 207 were held by males (82.8%) and 35 by females (17.2%). There were no female editors-in-chief. The average female proportion of editorial leadership per journal was 18.8%. One journal had no female editorial leadership representation. Overall, the number of females in editorial leadership positions is comparable to the current proportion of UK female consultant surgeons (13.7%). Journals with an under-representation of females in senior editorial leadership positions compared with the parent specialty should consider initiatives that will encourage diversity, promote greater gender parity, and champion female representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to assess the level of international, non-Anglo-American involvement in the editorial boards and content of the leading international journals of criminology and criminal law to investigate a reported bias against non-Anglo-American material. The research employed editorial board and content analysis of ten leading journals of criminology and criminal law, selected because of their international involvement according to their own aims and scope's description. Most of the ten journals were found to have low levels of international involvement, with high proportions of both Anglo-American authors and data, and Anglo-American membership of editorial boards. The editorial board analysis also revealed institutional links with journal boards and a network of overlapping membership between the editorial boards. This suggests the existence of networks of Anglo-American scholars who are naturally inclined to favour research that fits their worldview. Such networks create a hierarchy of knowledge that favours the one produced in the US and the UK and promotes the scientific success of Anglo-American scholars and contents. However, although the shadow of Anglo-American dominance continues to lie over the two fields, there is also evidence of increasing research and authorship diversity. Perhaps, we are entering a new era of research internationalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses configurations, which embody interaction between the constituents of the axiological opposition "us/them" in the British and American discourse of media. The research objective is to identify the configuration patterns and describe peculiarities of the evaluative interaction of "ours" and "theirs". The empirical corpus incorporates 1200 English news reports and feature articles, representing the conflict situation and selected from UK and US newspapers. A number of research methods have been applied, among which are discourse analysis, semantic analysis, contextual analysis, comparative analysis, quantitative analysis. The types of conflicts, which are addressed in British and American media texts of different genres, have been identified. Most of the selected media texts cover foreign policy conflicts (80% in British publications and 60% in the American ones). The modern media agenda concentrates on external conflicts in order to divert the attention of the linguocultural community from domestic problems. Different types of 'evaluators' were singled out in British and American media texts about conflicts. The interaction between the "us/them" opposition constituents is determined by the 'evaluator', who can be a journalist - the author of the article, acting as a narrator/an observer; a character of the article - the author of the quotation containing assessment; or a collective author, i.e. the editorial board, a party, people, community. The configurational models of the axiological interaction of "us" and "them" in British and American media texts on conflict topics have been considered. 8 logically possible patterns of interaction between "ours" and "theirs" as components of the axiological opposition "us/them" were singled out. The most frequent configuration model in the selected media texts of both genres is X → - Y. The Ximpl → + Y configuration pattern is the least representative in both genres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the contribution made by the periodical "Travel Law Quarterly" (TLQ) to the professional literature in the field of travel law. The TLQ has a review process for manuscripts, and has an editorial board that includes 18 lawyers from Great Britain, the U.S., Australia, and Germany. The article also presents information on an assessment of 187 articles in TLQ in October 2014, that also included the generation of a tag cloud.

Nowadays, the Romanian editorial state in terms of quality and quantity is ascending continuously. However, it is still far away from the one found in United Kingdom. The British editorial system is one of the best editorial systems ever known. It was built on the backbone of several very old and well known British publishers such as Nature Publishing Group, Royal Society Publishing, Oxford University Press etc, and moreover, many newer publishers/publications were drawn after the face of these British top publishers/publications. It is normal to try and compare your national system with the best systems in terms of editorial issues. If we compare the two systems, they are different from many points of view. The editorial system of UK is among the oldest in the world, in fact they are the pioneers, while the one from Romania is rather young. If the British system is much of quality, the Romanian system is much of quantity (especially on the academic side). In UK, selling publications can be a good affair; in Romania, a publisher hardly ever recovers its investments. This is mainly due to the language of publication of the most part of the books and materials of general interest in the two countries (English in UK - a language of international circulation, Romanian language in Romania - provide a narrower area of readers) and also due to the economic power of the citizen (Romanians have limited financial resources for the acquisition of books, magazines and journals); for this reason the British publishers are mostly traditional while Romanian publishers are mostly open-access in the true sense or open access like. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract is available for this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The front cover of the July 2014 issue of the "British Journal of Political Science" is presented, along with information on subscriptions, editorial board members such as James Adams and Peter John, and the periodical's editorial policy.

The article presents an information about the journal such as the list of the editorial board members including M. R. Alley, B. M. Buddle and J. P. Chambers.