Poor Representation of Developing Countries in Editorial Boards of Leading Obstetrics and Gynaecology Journals

Abstract

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.

How international are the editorial boards in the field of hand research? A cross-sectional study of leading subspecialty hand journals

“…Additionally, they are better positioned to advocate for implementing the research findings [ 44 ]. However, conducting research in LMIC differs significantly from HIC [ 45 , 46 ]. Many clinicians in LMIC do not have dedicated time for research due to heavy clinical workloads [ 45 ].…”

“…However, conducting research in LMIC differs significantly from HIC [ 45 , 46 ]. Many clinicians in LMIC do not have dedicated time for research due to heavy clinical workloads [ 45 ]. Furthermore, there are barriers that restrict access to current scientific literature for authors and readers in LMIC [ 41 , 46 ].…”

“…However, publishing in open access journals can be costly [ 41 , 46 , 47 ]. Authors from LMIC often have to allocate a larger portion of their available income to publish open access publication [ 45 , 46 ]. These factors may result in limited contributions to the overall research output by researchers from LMIC.…”

Who drive the health policy agenda in India? Actors in National Health Committees since Independence

“…However, evidence from smaller decision-making committees highlights that increased representation of women in leadership facilitates better representation of women in a committee, as noted in a study from the United States of America where it was observed that the proportion of women on the board of directors was higher when the chairperson was a woman [ 8 ]. Increased women representation is also important to ensure that a diverse range of issues is addressed by a committee [ 9 ]. Reduced diversity in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity is a problem that plagues committees formulating clinical guidelines as well.…”

“…Similarly, the location and experience of the decision-maker also play a significant role [ 11 ]. Although direct evidence of the impact of diversity of representation on policy formulation is limited, inference can be drawn from the similar impact of poor diversity seen in the world of academia [ 12 ]. Diverse representation has also been shown to improve the outcome of teams [ 13 ], better equipping them to handle inequities in health [ 14 , 15 ].…”