Editorial Board Members Of Journals Research Articles

ВІДПОВІДАЛЬНЕ ТА ЕТИЧНЕ ВИКОРИСТАННЯ ШТУЧНОГО ІНТЕЛЕКТУ В ДОСЛІДНИЦЬКІЙ І ПУБЛІКАЦІЙНІЙ ДІЯЛЬНОСТІ

Artificial intelligence (AI) is gradually gaining a stable place in our lives, and its use is spreading too quickly in all areas of activity, changing approaches and simplifying the solution of some tasks. AI can help at certain stages of scientific research, but it also poses risks of plagiarism, lack of academic integrity and high ethical standards. The problem of plagiarism and its prevention in the research and publication process has reached a high degree of relevance, especially with the use of AI programs and services. The article presents a comprehensive analysis of scientific sources covering the prevention of plagiarism in scientific publications, the development of AI in research culture, the observance of academic integrity in the university environment, and changes in the assessment of students' academic achievements..Using the GoogleTrends service, based on the search engine's statistical data, it was determined that recently, scientific topics related to ChatGPT have been dominating in the queries of Internet users, while the discourse related to plagiarism, academic integrity, research ethics, and responsible use of AI is not noticeably relevant, and there is an increase in related queries between "plagiarism" and AI tools. The authors substantiate the impact of the use of AI on the responsible attitude to the presentation of research results. After processing the downloaded data in Excel, a hypothesis is formulated regarding the convergence of interests and joint consideration of the problems of ethics in research and responsible use of AI. The analysed data demonstrate that the relevance of ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scientific manuscripts is extremely high. The article demonstrates how digital tools such as Connected Papers, Inciteful, LitMaps, Scite.Ai, ResearchRabbit, and Semantic Scholar can conveniently visualise documents related to search terms. The article offers recommendations for researchers and editorial board members of scientific journals to promote responsible presentation of research findings in the context of the growing availability and use of AI.

Health Care Industry Payments to Editorial Board Members of Major Neurosurgery Journals Between 2017 and 2022.

Financial conflicts of interest between editorial board members and industry could lead to biases and impartial editorial decisions. We aimed to evaluate the frequency, amount, and characteristics of payments to editorial board members of neurosurgery journals over a 6-year period. In this cross-sectional study, editorial board members were derived from the top 10 neurosurgery journals based on Google Scholar metrics. The Open Payments database by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was accessed to evaluate industry payments to editorial board members from 2017to 2022. Descriptive analyses were performed on payment data, adjusted for inflation using the consumer price indices. We included 805 editorial board members. After excluding duplicate names, 342 (53.9%) of 634 had received payments between 2017 and 2022. Eight of 10 journals had more than 50% of editorial board members listed in the Open Payments database. Between 2017 and 2022, the total number of payments to editorial board members was $143 732 057, encompassing $1 323 936 in research payments, $69 122 067 in associated research funding, $5 380 926 in ownership and investment interests, and $67 905 128 in general payments. General payments decreased from $13 676 382 in 2017 to $8 528 003 in 2022. Royalties ($43 393 697) and consulting ($13 157 934) contributed the most to general payments between 2017 and 2022. Four journals had a percentage increase in total payments, whereas general payments decreased for 6 journals. Around 54% of editorial board members of neurosurgical journals received industry payments between 2017 and 2022. We identified journal-specific trends in industry payments and highlighted the importance of transparency and disclosure of financial conflicts of interests for neurosurgery journals.

Analyzing the composition of the editorial boards in high-impact medical ethics journals: a survey study

BackgroundThe underrepresentation of scholarly works from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in academic literature is a documented concern, attributed partly to editorial biases. This trend, prevalent across various disciplines, has been less explored in the context of medical ethics journals. This study aimed to examine the composition of editorial board members (EBM) in high-impact medical ethics journals and to evaluate the extent of international diversity within these editorial teams.MethodsThis study incorporated an analysis of 16 high-impact medical ethics journals. Information regarding the EBM of these journals was systematically gathered and categorized based on the World Bank’s country income classifications. An in-depth examination of the editorial board compositions was then conducted.ResultsThe study identified 669 EBM across the selected journals. A predominant 89.84% (601) of these members were from high-income countries (HICs), with upper-middle-income countries contributing 7.47% (50) and lower-middle-income countries 2.69% (18). No EBM were associated with low-income countries. A regional breakdown indicated that North America was the most represented area, accounting for 48.88% (327), followed by Europe & Central Asia (27.50%, 184), East Asia & Pacific (13.45%, 90), Latin America & Caribbean (4.63%, 31), Sub-Saharan Africa (4.19%, 28), Middle East & North Africa (0.75%, 5), and South Asia (0.60%, 4). In total, these EBMs hailed from 46 different countries, with the United States representing the largest proportion (43.80%, 293), followed by the United Kingdom (13.15%, 88), Australia (7.92%, 53), Germany (6.73%, 45), and Canada (5.08%, 34).ConclusionsThere is a significant lack of international representation within the EBM of high-impact medical ethics journals. The majority of editors in this field are affiliated with HICs, leading to a severe underrepresentation of LMICs within the editorial boards.

A Medical Education Research Library: key research topics and associated experts

ABSTRACT When clinician-educators and medical education researchers use and discuss medical education research, they can advance innovation in medical education as well as improve its quality. To facilitate the use and discussions of medical education research, we created a prefatory visual representation of key medical education research topics and associated experts. We conducted one-on-one virtual interviews with medical education journal editorial board members to identify what they perceived as key medical education research topics as well as who they associated, as experts, with each of the identified topics. We used content analysis to create categories representing key topics and noted occurrences of named experts. Twenty-one editorial board members, representing nine of the top medical education journals, participated. From the data we created a figure entitled, Medical Education Research Library. The library includes 13 research topics, with assessment as the most prevalent. It also notes recognized experts, including van der Vleuten, ten Cate, and Norman. The key medical education research topics identified and included in the library align with what others have identified as trends in the literature. Selected topics, including workplace-based learning, equity, diversity, and inclusion, physician wellbeing and burnout, and social accountability, are emerging. Once transformed into an open educational resource, clinician-educators and medical education researchers can use and contribute to the functional library. Such continuous expansion will generate better awareness and recognition of diverse perspectives. The functional library will help to innovate and improve the quality of medical education through evidence-informed practices and scholarship.

Editorial boards of information science and library science journals: roles, terminology, origin, and internationalization

The objective of this work is to identify the different names, positions, and roles of editorial board members (EBMs) of journals in the Information Science and Library Science (ISLS) field of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and to establish a classification of the different roles to improve communication between editors and researchers. Among the 86 journals included in the ISLS field, the first and last names, position, and institutional affiliation of each EBM were extracted from 84 journals that allowed access to committee information. The information was standardized, and the positions were classified by consensus into major groups according to the role they play in the journals. The 84 journals included 4,122 positions held by EBMs, distributed in 201 positions and classified into 11 broad categories. The majority of positions were included in the Editorial Board category (n = 1,516), followed by Editorial Advisory Board (n = 734) and Associate Editor (n = 566). The journals were published by 36 publishers, with Elsevier and Taylor & Francis contributing the most journals (11 each). The journals in which the EBMs had the highest percentage of foreign members were those published in the Netherlands. This study provides a picture of the broad distribution of the roles and terminological titles that EBMs have in Information Science and Library Science journals. Because of this diversity, it is advisable to develop a guide to good editorial practices that includes both a description of the complex range of roles performed by EBMs and a unified nomenclature for these universal positions.

Underrepresentation of Low- and Middle-Income Nations in Ophthalmology Journals: A Critical Analysis on Diversity, Equity, and Global Representation.

Low- to middle-income nations contain more than 80% of the world's population; however, only 4% of articles in ophthalmology journals belong to these countries. We aim to analyze the global diversity of the editorial boards of ophthalmology journals. Cross-sectional study, including all journals in the Ophthalmology section of the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR). Journals were classified according to the country of origin, SJR interquartile range (Q1-Q4), impact factor, and open-access policy. Global diversity among journals was determined by the country of affiliation of editors-in-chief and editorial board members. Nations were classified by income according to the World Bank's 2022 system. The association between editorial diversity and the journal's metrics and country of origin was analyzed using the χ2 test and the Mann-Whitney U test. A total of 116 journals were included and 83.6% belonged to high-income nations. Only 18 (13.3%) editors-in-chief and 582 (13.5%) board members were affiliated with middle-income nations. The most prevalent middle-income countries in editorial boards were Brazil (n = 184, 4.26%), India (n = 150, 3.47%), Turkey (n = 42, 0.97%), and Iran (n = 36, 0.83%). Only 40 (1.07%) editorial board members of Q1 journals were affiliated with non-high-income nations, most belonging to India (n = 28, 70%). Journals from middle-income nations had a statistically significant lower prevalence in the first- and second-quartile ranking (P < 0.001) and a higher proportion of open-access policies (P = 0.019). A clear underrepresentation of low- to middle-income nations was observed in ophthalmology journals. Promoting editorial diversity and minimizing the possibility of editorial bias could lead to greater exposure to real-world data from resource-constrained settings. The documented underrepresentation of low- to middle-income nations in ophthalmology journals highlights the importance of promoting diversity and inclusion.

What makes experimental research publishable in leading hospitality and tourism journals? Perspectives of editorial board members

PurposeHospitality and tourism research lags in using experimental designs. This study aims to reveal prestigious scholars’ opinions and suggestions on how to effectively design and execute experimental research.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted an open-ended survey on 187 editors and editorial board members from 22 top hospitality and tourism journals. Their answers were coded following an inductive method of coding, and a list of themes and categories was synthesized.FindingsThe results summarize common problems of this method and indicate significant barriers to making experimental studies publishable. The review criteria for experimental studies are presented from four aspects: overall design, stimuli and manipulations, data collection and reporting results.Research limitations/implicationsThe results provide valuable suggestions for researchers interested in experimental design in the hospitality and tourism field. The study contributes to a shift toward well-designed and well-executed experimental research in hospitality and tourism.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, the study is the first to survey editorial board members of impactful hospitality and tourism journals to reveal their insights into the experimental methodology. The study makes significant theoretical and methodological contributions by addressing calls to understand common problems and barriers to experimental research in our field.

Industry Funding among Physician Editorial Board Members of Plastic Surgery Journals.

Industry Funding among Physician Editorial Board Members of Plastic Surgery Journals.

Academic paramedicine

Journal of Paramedic PracticeVol. 15, No. 6 EditorialAcademic paramedicineTom MallinsonTom MallinsonPrehospital doctor, BASICS Scotland; and editorial board member of Journal of Paramedic PracticeSearch for more papers by this authorTom MallinsonPublished Online:2 Jun 2023https://doi.org/10.12968/jpar.2023.15.6.225AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails 2 June 2023Volume 15Issue 6ISSN (print): 1759-1376ISSN (online): 2041-9457 Metrics History Published online 2 June 2023 Published in print 2 June 2023 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download

Exploring Diversity in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Journal Editorial Boards.

Despite increasing diversity in medical school entrants, disparities exist in academic leadership. This study sought to examine the proportion of women and visible minorities (VMs) among editorial board members (EBMs) of otolaryngology journals. Two reviewers collected journal, editorial board, and editor-in-chief characteristics using journal mastheads or official websites. Gender and VM representation on editorial boards and factors associated with increased representation were investigated. Forty-one journals were explored, from January to April 2022. Of 2128 EBMs, 663 (31.3%) were VMs and 551 (25.9%) were women. Editor-in-chief roles were held by 12 (25%) VM individuals and 3 (6.2%) women. Gender differences in the distribution of editorial board positions were found (P < .001); women had higher representation as associate editors (24.5%, n = 551 vs 15.4, n = 1577%) and deputy/managing editors (2.2%, n = 551 vs 0.4%, n = 1577), while men were more represented as editor-in-chief (2.9%, n = 1577 vs 0.5%, n = 551). Similar VM representation existed between genders (31.0% male; 31.6% women) (P = .80). Journal impact factor quartile and gender were significantly correlated (P < .001); a higher proportion of women were represented in the first (27.0% vs 24.5%) and fourth (12.0% vs 4.9%) quartile. No significant factors were identified for higher women's editorial board representation. Larger editorial board size (P = .002) and Asian/South American journals (P = .003 to P < .001) had significantly higher representation of VMs. Women and VMs are underrepresented in high-ranking editorial positions. Diversity in editorial boards is needed to ensure fair and balanced journal reviews and equity within otolaryngology.

Female representation among editorial boards of social, clinical, and educational pharmacy journals

Recent studies on editorial team members of healthcare journals have been showing disparities in this distribution. However, there are limited data with respect to pharmacy journals. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the distribution of women among editorial board members of social, clinical, and educational pharmacy research journals around the globe. A cross-sectional study was conducted between September and October 2022. Data were extracted from Scimago Journal & Country Rank and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal Citation Reports The top 10 journals in each region of the world (continents) were analyzed. Editorial board members were categorized into four groups and determined based on information available on the journal's website. The sex was classified in binary form through name and photography, the personal and institutional web pages, or the Genderize program. A total of 45 journals were identified in the databases, of which 42 of them were analyzed. We identified 1482 editorial board members with only 527 (35.6%) being female. Analyzing the subgroups, there were 47 total editors-in-chief, 44 total co-editors, 272 associate editors, and 1119 editorial advisors. Of these, 10 (21.27%), 21 (47.72%), 115 (42.27%), and 381 (34.04%) were female, respectively. Only 9 journals (21.42%) presented more females among their editorial board members. A notable sex disparity among social, clinical, and educational pharmacy journals' editorial board members was identified. Efforts should be made to involve more female sex in their editorial teams.

Imaging-guided gene delivery: seeing is delivering

Imaging-guided gene delivery: seeing is delivering

Editorial Board Composition Among Pediatric Cardiology Journals: Time to Cast the Net Wider

BackgroundNo data currently exist on the diversity of editorial board members (EBMs) of pediatric cardiology journals. ObjectivesThe objective was to investigate the editorial boards of 5 pediatric cardiology journals to assess the composition of these boards in terms of the geographical, gender, and economic representation of their members. MethodsInformation on EBMs was collected directly from 5 journal websites accessed in February 2022. The following data were collected: country of practice (including World Bank geographical and income classification), institution of practice, role on editorial board, and whether an individual held a role on 1 or more of the boards included. ResultsA total of 455 EBMs were identified. A total of 369 (81%) were male. All editors-in-chief were male, and 4 were from the United States. EBMs practicing in North America accounted for 278 individuals (61%) of the editorial boards reviewed. The next majority of EBMs are practicing within Europe and Central Asia (23%, n = 103), East Asia and Pacific (7%, n = 31), Middle East and North Africa (4%, n = 18), and Latin America and Caribbean (4%, n = 16). Less than 2% (n = 9) practice in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Over 90% (n = 415) practice in high-income countries. There was no representation from low-income countries. ConclusionsWomen and pediatric cardiologists practicing in countries outside of Europe and North America were underrepresented on the editorial boards of the journals studied. Diversifying composition of editorial boards may provide greater representation of underserved areas and encourage broader avenues of investigation and research.

Assessment of Sex Diversity Among Craniofacial Academic Faculty.

Sex diversity among plastic surgery and its subspecialties faculties lags behind many medical specialties. Despite the significant evidence in favor of diversity in leadership, female presence in high-ranking positions in medicine is lacking across multiple specialties. In this study, we aim to evaluate sex disparity among faculty across craniofacial fellowship programs by comparing the disparities among total number of faculty, program directors, years in practice, and academic rank. Our sample included 354 individuals including 193 craniofacial surgery journal editorial board members, 130 craniofacial surgery academic faculty members, and 31 craniofacial surgery association board members. A significant difference (P-value <0.0001) was seen among male and female craniofacial surgery faculty with 84.6% males. Faculty members were further subdivided by academic rank. A significant difference was found between the number of male and female faculty members at all academic positions (P-value =0.043). Of 41 full professors, 2.4% were female. There were 42 associate professors queried with 14.3% female. Similarly, 43 assistant professors were identified with 32.0% female. Years in practice after completing terminal training were analyzed across the academic faculty. There was a significant difference in the number of male and female faculty members across all experience levels (P-value =0.0037). Among the faculty with <10 years since completion of terminal training, 32.4 % were female. For faculty with 10 to 20 years after post-terminal training, 19.6% were female. For those with 20 to 30 years of experience, 0% were female. Finally, for the faculty with over 30 years since graduation, 5.9% were female. Board membership in 2 craniofacial surgery organizations was analyzed: the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association and the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons. Among the 17 board members of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 8 (47.1%) were female. For the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, 5 (35.7%) were female. Data were collected for 193 editorial board members from 2 craniofacial surgery journals. There was a significant difference between the number of male and female members across both journals (χ2 value: 33.3570; P-value <0.0001). Among 56 editorial board members from Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 26 (46.4%) members were female. In comparison, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery has 24.8% female editorial board members. Sex diversity among faculty members is really important and should be brought into light to highlight and improve areas of particular importance and of tremendous potential impact. Given our results, surgical residencies and fellowship programs should begin to show concrete commitment and increase their efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty not only for the educational benefit but more importantly to achieve a higher level of care for all.

Honoring the Legacy of David Loye

David Loye’s legacy shines through many aspects of the work undertaken at the Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies (IJPS) and the Center for Partnership Systems (CPS). This article is a collection of tributes by journal editorial board members and CPS staff members in the form of personal reflections and key insights into Loye’s developed theory of moral sensitivity and his poetic contributions.

An Update: National Institutes of Health Research Funding for Palliative Medicine 2016-2020.

Background: The evidence base to support palliative care clinical practice is inadequate and opportunities to improve the evidence base remain despite the field's rapid growth. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine current National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of palliative medicine research and trends over time. Design: We sought to identify NIH funding of palliative medicine (2016-2020) in two stages: (1) we searched the NIH grant database, RePORTER, for grants with the keywords, "palliative care," "end-of-life care," "hospice," and "end of life," and (2) identified palliative care researchers likely to have secured NIH funding using three strategies. Methods: We abstracted (1) the first and last authors' names from original investigations published in major palliative medicine journals from 2016 to 2018; (2) names from a PubMed-generated list of original articles published in major medicine, nursing, and subspecialty journals using the above keywords; and (3) palliative medicine journal editorial board members and members of key palliative medicine initiatives. We cross-matched the pooled names against NIH grants funded from 2016 to 2021. Results: A crosswalk analysis of the author search and NIH RePORTER search identified 1658 grants. Of those, 541 were categorized as relevant to palliative medicine, which represented 419 unique principal investigators (mean of 1.34 grants per investigator). Compared with 2011-2015, the number of NIH-funded grants increased by 25%, NIH dollars increased by 35%, and the distribution of grant types remained stable. Conclusions: Despite the challenging NIH funding climate, the number of NIH grants and funding to palliative care have increased. Given the increased funding allocation toward Alzheimer's dementia and related dementia research at the congressional level, this increase in funding reflects this funding allocation and does not represent overall growth. Dedicated federal funding for palliative care research remains critical to grow the evidence base for persons living with serious illnesses and their families.

'You can't be what you can't see': equity, diversity and inclusivity of editorial teams of dental journals.

Introduction Equity, diversity and inclusivity in research is critical to ensure all of society contributes.Aim This study analysed the gender and location (workplace) of editorial teams across 124 dental journals.Methods All chief editors of the 91 dental journals listed on the journal citation report for 2021 were contacted to provide details of the numbers of chief editors, other editors and the editorial board members, plus a summary of their demographic information including gender, age (group) and location. If chief editors did not respond, publicly available information was collated for the analysis. The same publicly available information of 45 PubMed indexed journals not on the citation report and three emerging online journals was also retrieved.Results Of the 159 chief editors across the 124 journals, 131 (82%) were men and 30% were based in the USA. Of the 1,265 other editors, two-thirds were from the USA, UK, Brazil and Japan. Of the 3,044 editorial board members, half were from the same four countries.Conclusions 'You can't be what you can't see': women and people from many parts of the world cannot see themselves as chief editors, other editors or editorial board members of dental journals.

SMST and Journal Editorial Board Members Named 2022 ASM Awardees and Fellows

SMST and Journal Editorial Board Members Named 2022 ASM Awardees and Fellows

Perceptions and Opinions Towards Data-Sharing: A Survey of Addiction Journal Editorial Board Members

Background We surveyed addiction journal editorial board members to better understand their opinions towards data-sharing. Methods Survey items consisted of Likert-type (e.g., one to five scale), multiple-choice, and free-response questions. Journal websites were searched for names and email addresses. Emails were distributed using SurveyMonkey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the responses. Results We received 178 responses (of 1039; 17.1%). Of these, 174 individuals agreed to participate in our study (97.8%). Most respondents did not know whether their journal had a data-sharing policy. Board members “somewhat agree” that addiction journals should recommend but not require data-sharing for submitted manuscripts [M=4.09 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.97-4.22]. Items with the highest perceived benefit ratings were “secondary data use (e.g., meta-analysis)” [M=3.44 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.31-3.56] and “increased transparency” [M=3.29 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.14-3.43]. Items perceived to be the greatest barrier to data-sharing included “lack of metadata standards” [M=3.21 (SD=0.08); 95% CI: 3.06-3.36], “no incentive” [M=3.43 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.30-3.57], “inadequate resources” [M=3.53 (SD=0.05); 95% CI: 3.42-3.63], and “protection of privacy”[M=3.22 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.07-3.36]. Conclusion Our results suggest addiction journal editorial board members believe data-sharing has a level of importance within the research community. However, most board members are unaware of their journals’ data-sharing policies, and most data-sharing should be recommended but not required. Future efforts aimed at better understanding common reservations and benefits towards data-sharing, as well as avenues to optimize data-sharing while minimizing potential risks, are warranted.

Opportunity Costs of Internal Promotions in Plastic Surgery: Are Women Given a Fair Shot?

Background:Academic advancement in plastic surgery necessitates creation of opportunities for rising faculty, which are pivotal for women in their efforts to close prominent gender gaps in higher ranks. We study positions of academic prestige that benefit from internal nomination as surrogates for opportunities afforded to men and women seeking leadership roles.Methods:We collected the following datapoints: authors of invited discussions published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 2010 to 2019; current editorial board members of representative plastic surgery journals; recipients of society-sponsored traveling fellowships; and directors of the American Board of Plastic Surgery. Public profiles for all authors and surgeons were referenced to confirm gender identification.Results:Seven-hundred ninety-seven plastic and reconstructive surgery discussions were included, 18% of which included female first or senior authorship. Seventy-one (9%) discussions listed a female senior author. Male and female senior authors were equally as likely to collaborate with a female first co-author (25% and 26%, respectively). Only 17% of invited authors contributed to 55% of discussion articles. Women occupied 19% of journal editorial board positions, though none were editors-in-chief. American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery, American Society of Maxiliofacial Surgeons, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, and Plastic Surgery Foundation traveling fellowships were awarded to one (3%), four (7%), five (13%), and 141 (15%) female plastic surgeons, respectively. Women comprise 26% of directors of American Board of Plastic Surgery.Conclusions:Female representation in plastic surgery is rising, but it is not mirrored across appointed positions in academia. We should strive to support advancements that allow selected prestigious positions to more accurately reflect the gender distribution within the plastic surgery community.