Geographical representation of editorial boards: a review in the field of library and information sciences

Akça, Sümeyye; Şenyurt, Özlem

doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04614-0

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…So far, previous literature on journals' EB influence on science has focused on the geographical background (Akça & Şenyurt, 2023;Harzing & Metz, 2013;Hedding & Breetzke, 2021), gender representation of EB members (Mauleón et al, 2013;Metz et al, 2016), and the structure of connections between journals within (Teixeira & Oliveira;Goyanes, 2020b) and between fields (Goyanes et al, 2022), visualized through the empirical analysis of EB interlocks. Research has typically framed findings and normative conclusions in terms of the diversity of EB appointments and the potential deleterious effects they may prompt in shaping sciences.…”

Section: Editorial Board Interlockingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping science through editorial board interlocking: connections and distance between fields of knowledge and institutional affiliations

de-Marcos,

Goyanes,

Domínguez-Díaz

2024

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research is a global enterprise underpinned by the general belief that findings need to be true to be considered scientific. In the complex system of scientific validation, editorial boards (EBs) play a fundamental role in guiding journals’ review process, which has led many stakeholders of sciences to metaphorically picture them as the “gatekeepers of knowledge.” In an attempt to address the academic structure that governs sciences through editorial board interlocking (EBI, the cross-presence of EB members in different journals) and social network analysis, the aim of this study is threefold: first, to map the connection between fields of knowledge through EBI; second, to visualize and empirically test the distance between social and general sciences; and third, to uncover the institutional structure (i.e., universities) that governs these connections. Our findings, based on the dataset collected through the Open Editors initiative for the journals indexed in the JCR, revealed a substantial level of collaboration between all fields, as suggested by the connections between EBs. However, there is a statistically significant difference between the weight of the edges and the path lengths connecting the fields of natural sciences to the fields of social sciences (compared to the connections within), indicating the development of different research cultures and invisible colleges in these two research areas. The results also show that a central group of US institutions dominates most journal EBs, indirectly suggesting that US scientific norms and values still prevail in all fields of knowledge. Overall, our study suggests that scientific endeavor is highly networked through EBs.

show abstract