Diversity, equity, and inclusion editorial positions among high-impact biomedical journals

Don't Hold Your Breath—The Rise of Women on Journal Editorial Boards

A 2019 study highlighted significant gender inequities among blood banking and transfusion medicine (BBTM) journal editorial boards. We sought to assess if the representation of women has improved in the intervening 3 years. We analysed the gender composition of nine BBTM journal editorial boards as of 13 September 2022, including the seven journals studied in 2019. We compared this to the proportion of females (term used by authors) on seven BBTM journal editorial boards in 2019 to assess change in the editorial board composition. We also assessed gender composition by editorial position (editor-in-chief [EIC], associate/assistant/titled editors and editorial board members). Nine BBTM journals have a total of 398 editorial positions and comprise significantly more men than women (68.8%, 274/398 vs. 31.2%, 124/398; p <0.001). Among the seven journals analysed in 2019, the proportion of women on these seven editorial boards has remained unchanged (2019: 30.1%, 81/269 vs. 2022: 31.9%, 103/323; p =0.66) despite the addition of 54 editorial positions. Women remain inequitably represented on journal editorial boards among all journal editorial positions. Although advocacy efforts are increasing, there has been limited improvement in gender equity in 3 years, despite a 20% increase in editorial positions.

Evolution and transformation of JVS-CIT

Celebrating Mayo Clinic Proceedings' 90th Anniversary: A Story of Longevity and Progression of Mission

Bibliometrics of the Top 100 Clinical Articles in Digestive Disease

Evolution and transformation of JVS journals

Women have historically been underrepresented as editors of peer-reviewed medical journals. Studies have demonstrated that there are differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender, suggesting that greater representation by women on editorial boards may improve the quality and diversity of the review process. Therefore, the current representation of women on the editorial boards of orthopaedic journals, particularly compared with peer-reviewed surgical and medical journals, is of interest. (1) What is the representation of women as members of editorial boards of prominent orthopaedic surgery journals? (2) How does it compare with representation on the editorial boards of journals in general surgery and internal medicine? The top 15 journals with a strong clinical emphasis based on Impact Factor (Clarivate Analytics) calculated by the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were identified for orthopaedic surgery, general surgery (and all general surgical subspecialties), and internal medicine (with representative internal medicine subspecialties). Clinical publications with their primary editorial office located in the United States led predominantly by physicians or basic scientists were eligible for inclusion. The members of an editorial board were identified from the journals' websites. The gender of editors with gender-neutral names (and editors whose gender we considered uncertain) was identified by an internet search for gender-specific pronouns and/or pictures from an institutional profile. Fisher exact tests and t-tests were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Of the editors analyzed, women made up 9% (121 of 1383) of editorial boards in the orthopaedic journals with the highest Impact Factors, compared with 21% (342 of 1665) of general surgery journals (p < 0.001) and 35% (204 of 587) of internal medicine journals (p < 0.001). The overall mean composition of editorial boards of orthopaedic journals was 10% ± 8% women, compared with that of general surgery, which was 19% ± 6% women (p < 0.001), and that of internal medicine, which was 40% ± 19% women (p < 0.001). Women make up a smaller proportion of editorial boards at orthopaedic surgery journals than they do at general surgery and internal medicine journals. However, their representation appears to be comparable to the proportion of women in orthopaedics overall (approximately 6%) and the proportion of women in academic orthopaedics (approximately 19%). Ways to improve the proportion of women on editorial boards might include structured mentorship programs at institutions and personal responsibility for championing mentorship and diversity on an individual level. Increasing representation of women on editorial boards may improve the diversity of perspectives and quality of future published research, generate visible role models for young women considering orthopaedics as a career, and improve patient care through enriching the diversity of our specialty.

From the Brontës to J.K. Rowling and Beyond – Have We Hit a Wall? The Status of Women Authors

JACEP open annual report 2022.

Gender representation on editorial boards of leading oncology journals

Developing a Society Journal Utilizing the Triad Framework

Peer Review: The Best of the Blemished?

III. Next on the agenda: gender

The ultimate goal of research in medicine, a spectrum starting with basic biomedical research via clinical trials to implementation research, is to improve the health and the quality of life of individuals and communities. Research should therefore be of the very best quality and assessment of its quality is important. Traditionally, research and researchers are evaluated by means of the ‘scientific impact’ of research output, i.e. publications in biomedical journals. The higher the impact factor of a journal, the better the research scores. Journals know how they can polish up their impact factor and for some this is even a deliberate policy. Increasingly, journal impact factors are also used to evaluate academics nominated for promotion and to allocate research funds. Impact factors are considered as an objective way to judge the quality of research/researchers. However, is the journal impact factor an appropriate and sufficient indicator of quality? There are reasons for doubt. The journal impact factor is calculated by dividing the total number of cited articles in the previous 2 years by the number of ‘citable’ articles in the journal during the same period. It is not clear what makes an article citable and the commercial company that creates and manages the journal impact factor, Thomson Scientific, is not very transparent in the criteria it uses to select journals for inclusion in the database either. The Journal Citation Reports database only covers a fraction of all the available biomedical journals; approximately 5000 compared with over 33 000 that are indexed in Medline. The highest impact factors can be found among the journals in the field of basic medical sciences such as molecular biology and biochemistry. In these highly dynamic research fields, a large proportion of citations are captured in the short term used to calculate the impact factor. In fields with a more durable literature, like epidemiology, public health and also family medicine, citations are usually spread over a longer period of time, resulting in lower impact factors. Moreover, the domain of family medicine is nearly invisible in the database. Only eight family medicine journals are listed in the Journal Citation Reports, all located at the tail of the 105 journals that make up the domain of general and internal medicine. In addition, there is a regional bias since in most domains North American journals have the highest impact factor. This is illustrated by a recent development in the family medicine journal landscape. With a first impact factor of 3.803, the Annals of Family Medicine (launched only in 2003) immediately surpasses all other family medicine journals. We congratulate the journal for this achievement that will be an important boost for family medicine research. However, it also shows that impact factors have no relation to the position of family medicine or research in the region, since family medicine (research) is more developed in some European countries than in the US. So there is a bias of discipline and region, but is it still a good indicator of research quality? Although some argue that a high impact factor is generally linked to better quality of the articles, this is not apparent in all domains. Usually, only a minority of articles account for the majority of citations. In fact, the journal impact factor is nothing more than an index of how often a specific journal has been cited in a selected group of journals. Some have even suggested changing its name to ‘citation rate index’ or ‘journal citation ratio’, since the word ‘impact’ suggests more than what it actually stands for. The journal impact factor has an impact on how research and researchers are valued by their academic peers and on the allocation of research funds, but does it have an impact on what research is ultimately about, improving quality of life for all citizens? It has been suggested to pay attention to the ‘societal impact’ of research as well. Adding to the

Challenges and opportunities of electronic publishing