Article Text
Abstract
Background: Publication bias and discrimination are increasingly recognised in medicine. A survey was conducted to determine if medical journals were more likely to publish research reports from members of their own than a rival journal’s editorial board.
Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all research reports published in 2006 in the four competing medical journals within five medical specialties. Only three journals were willing to divulge the authorship of reports that had been rejected.
Results: Overall, 4460 research reports were published in 2006 by the 20 journals from five subspecialties (mean 223 (SD = 164) reports per journal; median 176; interquartile range 108–238). On average, 17.2 (7.7%) reports were from a journal’s own editorial board (SD = 10.7; median 15; interquartile range 10–23; n = 20), and 6.3 (2.8%) reports were from a member of the editorial board of one of the three rival journals within the specialty (SD = 7.3; median 3.5; interquartile range 1–8; n = 60). There was a statistically significant excess of publications from the journal’s own editorial board in 14 of the 20 journals (p<0.05). Journals were almost three times more likely to publish reports from their own editorial board than from one of the three rivals within their subspecialty (p<0.0001; median difference 11; Mann–Whitney U test; power for 5% significance >99.99%).
Conclusions: There was a significant excess of publications from medical journals’ own editorial boards, although it is not possible to determine whether this is due to bias in the peer review process or selective submission by editors.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding: The research was funded entirely by the authors. One author (JL) received a free donation of Escitalopram from the manufacturers for a randomised controlled trial of antidepressants in depressed alcoholics. The company provided no other support. The authors have no financial or other association with any commercial company including any pharmaceutical company, the alcoholic drinks industry or any association with the Portman Group, nor have they ever had any such association. The authors are not, nor have ever been, members of the editorial board of any journal.
Competing interests: None.
Other content recommended for you
- Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women’s reproductive physiology
- Representation of women in ophthalmology journal editorial boards
- Gender distribution in surgical pathology journal publications and editorial boards
- Representation of women on editorial boards of ophthalmology journals: protocol for a cross-sectional study
- Pitfalls of editorial miscommunication
- Accessibility and transparency of editor conflicts of interest policy instruments in medical journals
- Gender imbalance in gynecologic oncology authorship and impact of COVID-19 pandemic
- Invitations received from potential predatory publishers and fraudulent conferences: a 12-month early-career researcher experience
- Representation of authors and editors from countries with different human development indexes in the leading literature on tropical medicine: survey of current evidence
- Poor adherence of randomised trials in surgery to CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT): a cross-sectional study