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

Helgesson, Gert; Radun, Igor; Radun, Jenni; Nilsonne, Gustav

doi:10.1002/leap.1449

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, for researchers it is notoriously difficult to have such a pervasive presence in a single journal; their work is typically spread across many publication venues. Fourth, other scientists have previously voiced concern about editors-in-chief publishing in their own journals (Helgesson et al, 2022;Scanff et al, 2021). Here, one should separate between original research and editorializing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study

Ioannidis

2023

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journalistic papers published in high impact scientific journals can be very influential, especially in hot fields. This meta-research analysis aimed to evaluate the publication profiles, impact, and disclosures of conflicts of interest of non-research authors who had published > 200 Scopus-indexed papers in Nature, Science, PNAS, Cell, BMJ, Lancet, JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine. 154 prolific authors were identified, 148 of whom had published 67,825 papers in their main affiliated journal in a non-researcher capacity. Nature, Science, and BMJ have the lion's share of such authors. Scopus characterized 35% of the journalistic publications as full articles and another 11% as short surveys. 264 papers had received more than 100 citations. 40/41 most-cited papers in 2020-2022 were on hot COVID-19 topics. Of 25 massively prolific authors with > 700 publications in one of these journals, many were highly-cited (median citations 2273), almost all had published little or nothing in the Scopus-indexed literature other than in their main affiliated journal, and their influential writing covered diverse hot topics over the years. Of the 25, only 3 had a PhD degree in any subject matter, and 7 had a Master's degree in journalism. Only the BMJ offered conflicts of interest disclosures for prolific science writers in its website, but even then only 2 of the 25 massively prolific authors disclosed potential conflicts with some specificity. The practice of assigning so much power to non-researchers in shaping scientific discourse should be further debated and disclosures of potential conflicts of interest should be emphasized.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study

Ioannidis

2023

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 2 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 As a result of the IF's perceived reflection on a journal's reputation and influence, increasing IF is frequently an objective of journal editors and publishers. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 Moreover, the import that IF has to journals’ readerships and authors is reflected, for example, by the prominent placement of the IF on journal websites as well as reference to IF in editorials. 26 , 27 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, despite its limitations and the availability of viable metric alternatives, the IF remains an important metric used in assessing a journal, its publications and its authors by academicians, their institutions, and their funding agencies 2,13,15–20 . As a result of the IF's perceived reflection on a journal's reputation and influence, increasing IF is frequently an objective of journal editors and publishers 21–25 . Moreover, the import that IF has to journals’ readerships and authors is reflected, for example, by the prominent placement of the IF on journal websites as well as reference to IF in editorials 26,27 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of impact factor and Eigenfactor score in otolaryngology journals

Ali

Phillips

Sedaghat

2023

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study aims to identify determinants of high impact, measured by Impact Factor (IF) and Eigenfactor score, among otolaryngology journals. Methods Bibliometric data of “otorhinolaryngology” journals were collected from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) database. For the years 2009–2020, we collected normalized Eigenfactor score, 5‐year IF, immediacy index, fraction of IF from journal‐self citation, proportion and magnitude of published citable articles, and total citation counts. High‐IF and ‐Eigenfactor journals were considered those within the top‐quartile of that metric each respective year. Results High‐IF and ‐Eigenfactor otolaryngology journals displayed higher 5‐year IFs, immediacy indexes, and IF without self‐citation ( p < .05 for all years) including total citations counts and citable articles when ranked by Eigenfactor ( p < .05 for all years). Otolaryngology IF correlated with 5‐year IF and immediacy index within the same year ( p < .05 for all years) and from previous years ( p < .05 for all years; p < .05 for 2017‐2018; p > .05 for 2009‐2016). Eigenfactor correlated with 5‐year IF, total citation counts, and citable articles within the same year ( p < .05 for all years) and previous years ( p < .05 for 2013–2018). Multilinear regression revealed that 5‐year IF ( p < .05 for 2009–2018) and immediacy index from the prior 2 years ( p < .05 for 2017‐2018; p > .05 for 2009‐2016) predicted 2019 IF. Similarly, 5‐year IF, total citation counts, and citable articles ( p < .05 for 2013–2018) predicted 2019 Eigenfactor score. Conclusion Sustained publication of impactful articles is the dominant driver of high IF and Eigenfactor score. Eigenfactor score reflects a unique evaluation of otolaryngology journals; ranking otolaryngology journals by their Eigenfactor scores significantly alters journal ranking compared to ranking by IF. Level of evidence NA.

show abstract

“…Editors may have an advantage over non‐editors regardless of blinding status, since they possess greater knowledge of the processes and goals of the journal, and may be especially knowledgeable of which reviewers to request that may be more favourable to the manuscript. An additional advantage may be offered in non‐blinded review, as reviewers may prefer manuscripts from editors due to a potential increase in visibility and reputation, and editors may be more likely to accept papers from colleagues even if the reviewers' comments are not fully supportive (Helgesson et al, 2022). For these reasons, we hypothesize that among a sample of urology journals, blinding author identity to peer reviewers may impact the proportion of publications that have an editor as author in that respective journal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As authors, editors may face a potential conflict, as the journals that most match their interests may also be the ones on which they serve as board members. Prior research has documented variable rates at which editors publish in their own journal, in some instances at significant rates (Helgesson et al, 2022). We are interested in whether the blinding status of a journal affects this rate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rates of editor‐authored manuscripts among urology journals using blinded or non‐blinded review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared publication rates of editor‐authored publications between journals that do not blind peer reviewers to author identity with one that does. Our hypothesis was that the if the identity of editors as authors is known to peer reviewers this may potentially bias the recommendation for publication. To do this, we queried Scopus for all publications from five top urology journals from 2013 to 2018, and linked them to a database of editors. Poisson regression analysis was used to compare publication rates of manuscripts with at least one editor as author between blinded journals and a non‐blinded journal. In separate analyses, we compared publication frequency before and after authors became editors and the frequency with which articles were cited. We found that the adjusted rate ratio of editor‐authored manuscripts comparing the non‐blinded journal to the blinded journal was 5.4 (95% CI 3.8–7.6) for ‘total publications’, and 1.9 (95% CI 1.5–2.2) among ‘articles only’. Median citation frequency was slightly higher among articles written by editors compared with non‐editors at 11 (3–26) versus 7 (2–16) (p < 0.001). We concluded that the blinded journal had a smaller representation of their editors as authors of their manuscripts, compared with the non‐blinded journals.

show abstract

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

Cited by 13 publications

References 26 publications

Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study

Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study

Determinants of impact factor and Eigenfactor score in otolaryngology journals

Rates of editor‐authored manuscripts among urology journals using blinded or non‐blinded review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About