The representation of nationalities on the editorial boards of international journals and the promotion of the scientific output of the same countries

García-Carpintero, Esther; Granadino, Begoña; Plaza, Luis M.

doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0199-3

Cited by 41 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to space limitations we were not able to review all these contributions. Yet, while performing the systematic search of the scientometrics literature, we came across a number of innovative research topics such as those focusing on spatial aspects of editorial boards (Bański & Ferenc, 2013;García-Carpintero, Granadino, & Plaza, 2010;Schubert & Sooryamoorthy, 2010); research results (Fanelli, 2012); authorships (Hoekman, Frenken, de Zeeuw, & Heerspink, 2012); journal language (Bajerski, 2011;Kirchik, Gingras, & Larivière, 2012); and the internationality of journals (Calver, Wardell-Johnson, Bradley, & Taplin, 2010;He & Liu, 2009;Kao, 2009). They provide useful additions to the growing body of spatial scientometrics articles.…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Scientometrics and Scholarly Impact: A Review of Recent Studies, Tools, and Methods

Frenken

Hoekman

2014

Measuring Scholarly Impact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previously, we proposed a research program to analyze spatial aspects of the science system which we called "spatial scientometrics" (Frenken, Hardeman, & Hoekman, 2009). The aim of this chapter is to systematically review recent (post-2008) contributions to spatial scientometrics on the basis of a standardized literature search. We focus our review on contributions addressing spatial aspects of scholarly impact, particularly, the spatial distribution of publication and citation impact, and the effect of spatial biases in collaboration and mobility on citation impact. We also discuss recent dedicated tools and methods for analysis and visualization of spatial scientometric data. We end with reflections about future research avenues.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Scientometrics and Scholarly Impact: A Review of Recent Studies, Tools, and Methods

Frenken

Hoekman

2014

Measuring Scholarly Impact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to gender disparity issues, editorial boards of scholarly journals that publish for international communities can be geographically unrepresentative of their author communities (Willett ; but see Uzun ; García‐Carpintero, Granadino & Plaza ). Geographic representation of scientists on editorial boards of international journals may better reflect the distribution of PhD‐granting institutions for a subject than the professional locations of the authors published by these journals (Hodgson & Rothman ) or reflect the ownership of the journal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Geographic representation of scientists on editorial boards of international journals may better reflect the distribution of PhD‐granting institutions for a subject than the professional locations of the authors published by these journals (Hodgson & Rothman ) or reflect the ownership of the journal. In particular, US academics dominate the editorial boards of leading journals in a number of fields (García‐Carpintero, Granadino & Plaza ; Willett ), likely because there is a higher volume of scholarly research output and PhD production from the United States than from other nations (Braun & Dióspatonyi ; Zhou & Leydesdorff ; Leydesdorff & Wagner ). As most international journals are published in English (Belcher ), they must necessarily recruit editors who have fluency in writing English.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Lack of diversity on editorial boards might generate disparities in editorial and peer review that contribute to gender and geographic disparities in scholarly publishing. We use a comprehensive data set of the peer review process for all papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from January 2004 to June 2014 to examine how gender, seniority and geographic location of editors and reviewers influence reviewer recruitment and scores given to papers by reviewers. The gender ratio of editors for Functional Ecology was majority male, but the proportion of female editors increased over time. The gender ratio of selected reviewers was also highly majority male, but the proportion of women selected as reviewers increased over the 10 years largely because the number of women on the editorial board increased and female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors. Male editors selected <25% female reviewers even in the year they selected the most women, but female editors consistently selected ˜30–35% female reviewers. Editors also over‐selected reviewers from their own geographic locality. Women invited to review were less likely to respond to review invitations, but more likely to accept if they responded. Women invited to review responded to the invitation similarly regardless of whether the editor inviting them was male or female, but men invited to review were both less likely to respond and more likely to decline if the editor was female. Review scores given to papers did not differ between male and female reviewers, and final decisions (proportion of papers rejected) did not differ between male and female editors. The proportion of women among selected reviewers decreased with editor seniority when the editor was male but increased with editor seniority when the editor was female. Thus, the gender ratio of selected reviewers differed little between early‐career male and female editors but differed a lot between late‐career (more senior) male and female editors. Individuals invited to review were less likely to agree to review if the editor was more senior. Editor gender, seniority and geographic location affect who is invited to review for Functional Ecology, and how invitees respond to review invitations, but not the final outcome of the peer review process. To increase diversity of reviewer populations, journals should increase gender, age and geographic diversity of their editorial boards.

show abstract

“…Scientometric studies have attracted considerable interest in disciplines such as accounting (Lowe & Van Fleet, ), chemistry (Zsindely, Schubert, & Braun, ), economics (Baccini & Barabesi, ; Gibbons & Fish, ), education and educational psychology (Campanario, González, & Rodríguez, ), and nanoscience (Braun, Dióspatonyi, Zádor, & Zsindely, ). Complementary studies comparing several scientific disciplines also have been undertaken (e.g., Bedeian, Van Fleet, & Hyman, ; Börner, ; Braun & Dióspatonyi, ; Braun, Dióspatonyi, Zsindely, & Zádor, ; García‐Carpintero, Granadino, & Plaza, ; Nisonger, ). The general purpose of such studies is to assure the research community and general public that peer‐reviewed journals ensure high standards of scholarship (Bedeian, Van Fleet, & Hyman, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: A scientometric study of 77 leading journals

Cabanac

2012

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Characteristics of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology and 76 other journals listed in the Information Systems category of the Journal Citation Reports-Science edition 2009were analyzed. Besides reporting usual bibliographic indicators, we investigated the human cornerstone of any peer-reviewed journal: its editorial board. Demographic data about the 2,846 gatekeepers serving in information systems (IS) editorial boards were collected. We discuss various scientometric indicators supported by descriptive statistics. Our findings reflect the great variety of IS journals in terms of research output, author communities, editorial boards, and gatekeeper demographics (e.g., diversity in gender and location), seniority, authority, and degree of involvement in editorial boards. We believe that these results may help the general public and scholars (e.g., readers, authors, journal gatekeepers, policy makers) to revise and increase their knowledge of scholarly communication in the IS field. The EB_IS_2009 dataset supporting this scientometric study is released as online supplementary material to this article to foster further research on editorial boards.

show abstract

The representation of nationalities on the editorial boards of international journals and the promotion of the scientific output of the same countries

Cited by 41 publications

References 13 publications

Spatial Scientometrics and Scholarly Impact: A Review of Recent Studies, Tools, and Methods

Spatial Scientometrics and Scholarly Impact: A Review of Recent Studies, Tools, and Methods

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: A scientometric study of 77 leading journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About