Possible bias in the publication trends of high impact factor anesthesiology and gastroenterology journals –an analysis of 5 years' data

Abstract

Background:We hypothesize that being an editorial board member (EBM) in a high impact factor specialty medical journal increases the chances of publishing in the same journal.Materials and Methods:The publication trends of the first five EBMs in the five highest impact factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology journals were analyzed. Preceding 5 years' publications appearing on PubMed were grouped into as follows: number of publications in the journal in which the EBM serves (N1), number of publications by the same author in the other four highest impact factor (IF) journals (N2) and number of publications in all the other journals (N3). We evaluated the probability of the observed distribution of publications in the five highest IF journals happening by chance alone, assuming that all the EBMs had the same opportunity of publishing in any of these journals. The probability of publishing in their own journal was assumed to be one fifth.Results:The EBMs published their manuscripts in their own journal at a very high frequency. Encompassing all ten journals, the calculated P value for such a distribution was <0.001. In two journals, Anesthesia and Analgesia and Anaesthesia, the EBMs' publications in their journal were more than twice the cumulative total in the remaining four journals. In three of the five gastroenterology journals analyzed, combined publications of the five EBMs were greater in their own journal than the remaining four journals combined.Conclusions:Despite proclaimed fair peer review process, EBMs seem to get preference in their own journals.

Editors publishing in their own journals: A systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects

“…Another methodological issue relates to the type of publications included in analyses. In some studies (e.g., Goudra et al, 2018; Hardin et al, Hardin III et al, 2008) all types of articles were included, also editorials. However, it blurs the picture if editorials are counted the same as original papers and systematic reviews in the analysis.…”

“…to increase the journal's visibility, quality, and citation rates (Dose & Huber, 2009;Goudra et al, 2018). Thus, there may exist an interplay between editors and journals in the prestige economy of science, where reputation and influence can be exchanged for mutual benefit (Kwiek, 2021).…”

Editors publishing in their own journals – a systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects

“…It was unclear when the editors were editors during the whole 4year period. Some inconsistency in reporting (e.g., in abstract it says that there were 256 editors of 180 journals; however, in the text the number is 269) Goudra et al, 2018 It is unclear to us when the editors took the role. It could be that these people became the editors because they had extensively published in the journal before taking the editorial role.…”

“…Another methodological issue relates to the type of publications included in analyses. In some studies (e.g., Goudra et al, 2018;Hardin et al, 2008) all types of articles were included, also editorials. However, it blurs the picture if editorials are counted the same as original papers and systematic reviews in the analysis.…”

“…The papers we have reviewed reveal a complex set of motivations for editors to publish in their own journals. Not only can editors potentially benefit from using their position to gain publications as a currency of merit; also journals can benefit from well-known scientists in editorial roles submitting important work to increase the journal's visibility, quality, and citation rates (Dose & Huber, 2009;Goudra et al 2018). Thus, there may exist an interplay between editors and journals in the prestige economy of science, where reputation and influence can be exchanged for mutual benefit (Kwiek, 2020).…”