Editorial Positions Research Articles

Irrational numbers of journal editors and of editorial positions: a threat to society

Irrational numbers of journal editors and of editorial positions: a threat to society

Representation of women among cardiothoracic surgery editorial boards: Trends over the past 2 decades

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to examine representation of women on the editorial boards of cardiothoracic surgery-focused journals over the past 2 decades to identify changes over time compared with women cardiothoracic surgeon and trainee representation, and to highlight additional opportunities for improvement. MethodsThe editorial boards of 2 high-impact cardiothoracic surgery journals were reviewed from 2000 to 2023. Data on editorial board positions, including editors-in-chief, associate/deputy editors, feature editors, and general members of the editorial board were abstracted. The proportion of women editors was assessed. Data were compared with publicly available information from the Association of American Medical Colleges on physician specialty by sex. ResultsOf 3460 editorial positions, 332 (9.6%) were held by women. Women occupied 2.2% (1 out of 45) of editor-in-chief positions, 13.2% (78 out of 592) of senior editor positions, 11.5% (33 out of 287) of feature editor positions, and 8.3% (221 out of 2663) of general editorial board positions. The proportion of women holding any editorial board position significantly increased from 2.4% in 2000 to 18.2% in 2023 (P = .01). Overall, editorial board representation increased at a rate of 0.7% ± 1.3% per year, not significantly different from the growth of practicing women cardiothoracic surgeons at 0.3% ± 0.5% per year (P = .584). DiscussionRepresentation of women on the editorial boards of cardiothoracic surgery-focused journals has increased commensurate with the increasing proportion of practicing women cardiothoracic surgeons, although remains at 16%. Work remains to continue the recruitment of women to cardiothoracic surgery as well as to identify the key elements that can support them in positions of leadership.

‘Film, Fashion, Costume in Italy and Beyond’

This editorial positions the study of fashion and costume against the field of film studies and the history of Italian cinema and media. Although scholarly approaches to this field of study first appeared in Anglo American literature at the beginning of the 1990s, the pioneering work of Italian historian and film critic Mario Verdone has yet to be acknowledged. The anthology Verdone edited in 1950, a pivotal year of Italy’s post-war reconstruction, was the first of its kind: prior to its publication, the relationship between costume, fashion and film had never been the subject of scholarly enquiry. The title of Verdone’s book, La moda e il costume nel film (‘Fashion and costume in film’) calls attention to how these arts, techniques and industries work in the actual process of making films. Verdone’s book offers a context for the articles contained in this volume.

Viewpoint: the evolving landscape of peer review

PurposeThe purpose of this viewpoint is to spotlight the role of reviewers within the collaborative triad of academic publishing. It argues that the significance of reviewers is often disregarded, leading to a gap in our understanding of the peer review process. This perspective emphasizes reviewers as unsung heroes in the publishing ecosystem, providing intentional and thought-provoking insights into the less-discussed yet impactful developments in the evolving peer review landscape.Design/methodology/approachLeveraging the author’s distinguished background as a recipient of the Journal of Service Marketing Outstanding Reviewer Award, this paper offers a personal reflection and synthesised viewpoints on the peer review process. Serving as a representative voice for reviewers, it provides insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, diverging from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors.FindingsAcknowledging the shrinking reviewer pool, this viewpoint suggests a mandatory “review for review” system alongside incentives like editorial positions, while considering financial rewards for reviewers. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in review prompts ethical concerns but offers solutions for handling diverse submissions and dealing with “Reviewer 2.” While embracing open review for its transparency, potential pitfalls surrounding article confidence and copyright require attention. Ultimately, this viewpoint advocates for a collaborative approach, valuing reviewers, exploring innovative solutions, navigating ethical dilemmas in the technological age and implementing transparent practices responsibly for the betterment of scholarly discourse.Originality/valueThis viewpoint highlights the invaluable contributions of reviewers, enriching the scholarly community and promoting intellectual growth.

Re/visiting

It is an honor to receive an invitation from Tawny Andersen and Dena Davida to republish the curatorial essay for our exhibition-event, CounterPoses: Reimagining Tableaux Vivants, that was presented by the gallery Oboro in Montreal in 1998. The opportunity to revisit the project and share it with a larger audience reignites the joy, generosity, and openness we experienced within the Montreal art community. During those years, we were engaged in interdisciplinary graduate studies that illuminated our interests in sensory aesthetics, affect theory, and experiential art, while our editorial positions at Parachute magazine located us at the nexus of the critical art apparatus, where we sought to expand upon art-historical discourse by nurturing writers working in cultural studies, media studies, and performance studies. Now full-time academics, we continue to be involved in these fields of inquiry as founding editors of the Journal of Curatorial Studies, as well as through independent curatorial projects.1

Gender and Geographical Distribution of Editorial Board Members of Three Leading Suicide Journals.

Background: Despite the recent progress of women in academia, there is an underrepresentation of female editors in academic journals. Additionally, although suicide affects more low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than high-income countries, little is known about the geographical distribution of editors in suicidology journals. Aims: We aimed to determine the gender and geographical distribution of the editorial board members (EBMs) of leading suicide journals. Method: Data were collected between November 27 and 29, 2022. We purposively selected suicidology journals, searched the journal websites, and extracted data on the gender and affiliated country of the EBM to identify the continent and income category of the country. Results: The proportion of female EBMs was 32.37% with better representation in senior positions. Only six positions (3.47%) were occupied by four individuals affiliated with LMIC backgrounds. The highest number of EBMs was located in North America (58.38%) while one member was from Africa. Limitations: Only three purposively selected journals were scrutinized. Conclusion: This study reveals that approximately one third of the editorial positions were occupied by women and less than 4% of editors were from LMICs, where suicide represents a significant burden.

The status of women in academic ophthalmology: Authorship of papers, presentations, and academic promotions.

As the field of ophthalmology has evolved in the last several decades, so has the gender distribution of ophthalmologists. We conducted a narrative review to further characterise the status of women in the realm of publication, presentations, editorial positions, grants, academic promotion, and financial compensation. While the proportion of women publishing, presenting, and filling academic and editorial roles has increased over time, it still does not match that of men. Women are more likely to be first authors instead of senior authors, have lower average h-indices, and are awarded fewer grants. The magnitude of some of these differences is smaller when adjusted for women's shorter career duration on average. Despite increased representation of women in ophthalmology, women continue to receive less compensation for the same work. This review highlights that more can be done to improve gender parity in ophthalmology.

Indian Editors in Physics and Astronomy

Science stands on the shoulders of its community to ensure the quality of its scholarly communications. Hence, editorship and editorial positions in scholarly journals is a prestigious and rewarding activity for scientists. Physics as a branch of science is no exception to this. The present work endeavoured to look at the situation of Indian physicists’ (with Indian affiliations) representation in the top-ranking physics and astronomy journals as per the Scimago Journal and Country Ranking. Spatio-temporal analysis was undertaken to understand India’s position concerning the other established science research countries like the USA, China, Germany and the UK. It shows that the presence of Indian physicists in these quality journals’ editorship or editorial board membership positions is minimal. Some areas of physics are not represented at all. It may be added that more such positions for Indian physicists in these journals may bring more prestige for them and the country as a whole.

Electoral Competition in the Age of Social Media: The Role of Social Media Influencers

Social media—and, in particular, social media influencers—are playing an increasingly central role in shaping public opinion on a variety of issues. The political sphere is no exception. In response to the impact that social media influencers have on citizens’ political views and voting behaviors, political parties adapt their messages and policies during election campaigns. Media outlets, too, faced with competition for readership from social media, are adjusting their news coverage. To analyze the nature and extent of the impact of social media on parties’ policies, media outlets’ news reports, and citizens’ opinions, we used a game theoretical model of electoral competition involving four key stakeholders—citizens, political parties, media outlets, and social media influencers. Our results show that with social media, parties’ policy positions become more moderate while media outlets’ editorial positions become more extreme. We also show that citizens’ opinions may become more polarized when the influencers’ true editorial positions are more homogeneous as a result of increased information distortion.

Gender representation in rheumatology journals: an assessment of editors, editorial boards, and authors.

Diversity is widely recognized as a driver of excellence and innovation. In recent years, women have become an increasingly significant part of the rheumatology workforce. We aimed to assess the gender representation of the leading rheumatology journals' editors and to explore whether editors' gender correlates with the gender of the first and last authors of published articles. We conducted a cross-sectional study and extracted editorial members of rheumatology journals in quartiles 1 to 3 (Clarivate Analytics) from each journal's website. We categorized editorial positions according to the level of influence in manuscript acceptance decision-making (levels I to III). The gender of editors and of the first and last authors in all 2019 original articles published in a sample of 15 rheumatology journals was assigned using a combination of digital gallery and manual searches. There were 2242 editors' names retrieved from 43 journals, 24 (26%) of the 94 editors at level I, 139 (36%) of 385 editors at level II, and 469 (27%) of 1763 at level III were female. The imbalance between journals was heterogeneous. Females were the first authors in 1342 (48%) and the last authors in 969 (35%) of the 2797 published articles. However, we found no significant correlation between editors' and authors' gender. Our data showed uneven gender representation on the editorial boards of most rheumatology journals, but we did not find any apparent vertical segregation or influence on publishing by gender. Our findings suggest that a generational transition may be occurring among authors.

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.

A review of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts by medical oncology journals.

11023 Background: In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of the ongoing structural inequities impacting all facets of academic medicine. Efforts are underway to adopt an intentional and systemic approach to meaningful incorporation of DEI in academia. Here, we review the ongoing efforts by scientific peer-reviewed journals to ensure an equitable publication process, and an inclusive and diverse participation and distribution of oncological research. Methods: Medical oncology journals with the highest impact factor were identified using the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), a publicly available portal that includes the journals and country scientific indicators developed from the information contained in the Scopus database. 39 Journals in the first ranking quartile (Q1) with the highest impact were identified to have an SJR &gt;2. An online review of journal websites’ content was performed between Jan 8th – Feb 8th, 2023, to extract the data available in the accompanying table. Results: 38.5% of journals include a DEI statement on their website. One journal has a dedicated editorial director of equity. Three journals (8%) have a specific online DEI corner highlighting related articles and initiatives. 20% of the journals publicly outlined specific DEI policies, such as formalizing the process for assessment and reporting, and identifying and inviting peer reviewers with DEI expertise. Finally, 20% of journals published limited specific metrics assessing the impact of their DEI efforts, such as data regarding the primary corresponding authors at country and region level in the last five years, and the gender diversity of their editorial boards. Conclusions: Our study highlights the limited publicly available data online regarding ongoing DEI initiatives and dedicated editorial positions in high impact medical oncology journals. It is imperative that we aim for greater intentionality and transparency about such efforts, with reporting of clear and specific impact metrics. In addition, these efforts cannot be performative and must foster a more equitable scholarly publication process, promote accountability, and assist in formulating best practices. Our analysis suggests a clear unmet need and represents a call to action. High impact oncology journals have an opportunity to set the tone for the entire oncology medical community. [Table: see text]

Race/Ethnicity and Gender Representation in Hematology and Oncology Editorial Boards: What is the State of Diversity?

Women and underrepresented groups in medicine hold few academic leadership positions in the field of hematology/oncology. In this study, we assessed gender and race/ethnicity representation in editorial board positions in hematology/oncology journals. Editorial leadership board members from 60 major journals in hematology and oncology were reviewed; 54 journals were included in the final analysis. Gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data for Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and Second-in-Command (SiC) (including deputy, senior, or associate editors). Descriptive statistics and chi-squared were estimated. In the second phase of the study, editors were emailed a 4-item survey to self-identify their demographics. Out of 793 editorial board members, 72.6% were men and 27.4% were women. Editorial leadership were non-Hispanic white (71.1%) with Asian editorial board members representing the second largest majority at 22.5%. Women comprised only 15.9% of the EiC positions (90% White and 10% Asian). Women were about half as likely to be in the EiC position compared with men [pOR 0.47 (95% CI, 0.23-0.95, P = .03)]. Women represented 28.3% of SiC editorial positions. Surgical oncology had the lowest female representation at 2.3%. Women and minorities are significantly underrepresented in leadership roles on Editorial Boards in hematology/oncology journals. Importantly, the representation of minority women physicians in EiC positions is at an inexorable zero.

Women Representation on Editorial Boards in Latin America Journals: Promoting Gender Equity in Academic Surgery, Anesthesia, and Obstetrics.

Inequitable representation in journal editorial boards may impact women's career progression across surgical, anesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) specialties. However, data from Latin America are lacking. We evaluated women's representation on editorial boards of Latin America SAO journals in 2021. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis, retrieving journals through Scimago Journal and Country Rank 2020. Journals were included if active, focused on SAO topics, and publicly provided information on editorial board staff. Editorial board member names and positions were extracted from journals' websites. Members were classified into senior (e.g., editor-in-chief), academic (e.g., reviewer), and non-academic roles (e.g., administrative office). Women's representation was predicted from first names using Genderize.io. The number of women SAO physicians per country was obtained from articles and governmental reports. We included 19 of 25 identified journals and analyzed 1,318 names. Three anesthesiology, seven obstetric, and nine surgical journals represented five Latin American countries. Women held 17% (224/1,318) of board positions [p < 0.0001; 95% CI(0.14, 0.19)]. Women held fewer academic roles (14.3%, 155/1,084) compared to senior [28.9%, 64/221 (p < 0.001)] and non-academic roles [38.4%, 5/13 (p = 0.042)]. Surgical journals had fewer women (7.7%, 58/752) compared to anesthesia [25.5%, 52/204 (p = 0.006)] and obstetrics [31.5%, 114/362 (p < 0.001)]. Women's proportion on editorial boards increased according to the number of women SAO physicians per country (p < 0.001). Our study assessed the composition of editorial boards from Latin America SAO journals and demonstrated that women remain underrepresented. Our findings highlight the need for regional strategies to advance women's careers across SAO specialties.

Analysis of Repeated Roles in Editorial Boards at Oncology-Focused Journals

INTRODUCTION In medical journals, editorial board members are crucial to the process of reviewing and/or accepting submitted publications. Editorial team members will need to put in time and effort to review submissions, so it's important to provide them adequate time to provide unbiased constructive feedback. Having multiple editorial roles can lead to biased selection of papers, low review quality, burnout, and a lack of diversity. It is unknown how frequently editorial team members in oncology-focused journals have multiple editorial positions. METHODS We conducted an analysis for a total of total of 73 journals with impact factor (IF) ≥10 and an average of ≥ 20 oncology related manuscripts per year in the period of 2016-2020. Information about the editorial team members was collected from the journal's website and editorial team members affiliated institutions. Repeated roles defined as more than one role in different included journals RESULTS A total of 5833 editorial roles were identified and analyzed. 3979 (68%) of the 58833 roles were carried by men, 3572 (61%) were for members located in the U.S, and 93.76% (5468) were carried by members with high-income country affiliations. Repeated roles (n=1101, 19%) were carried by 488 editorial team members. Repeated roles ranged from 2 to 6 roles for each of these 488 members. [Table] Most editorial members with repeated roles carried either 2 roles (80%) or 3 roles (17%), however 18 (3%) editorial members carried ≥4 roles at different journals. A total of 23% of editors-in-chief carried another editorial role at a different journal. Repeated roles occurred more frequently in men and were more frequent in authors with certain institutions affiliations. CONCLUSIONS A considerable number of editorial team members had multiple roles across various journals, including members serving as editors in chief in oncology-focused journals. Such repeated roles limit appropriate representation and hinders diversity in academia. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Analysis of gender representation on transfusion medicine journal editorial boards: Comparison between 2019 and 2022.

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.

Gender representation amongst editorials boards in United Kingdom surgical specialty journals

Females remain under-represented in surgery in the United Kingdom and around the globe. Gender representation on journal editorial boards is one of the key metrics of gender representation within academic surgery. The aim of this study was to quantify gender representation within the editorial leadership of journals affiliated with UK surgical specialties. A web-based search for each of the UK surgical specialty associations was conducted, followed by identification of the endorsed journals for each one. As of August 2022, data on the gender of the editor-in-chief and other journal leadership positions, including associate, section, and deputy editors, were collated. Gender classification was completed using first-name recognition, verified by a web search using the name and institution provided. Managing editors without clinical backgrounds were excluded. Ten journals were identified for the following surgical specialties: General Surgery, Trauma and Orthopaedics, Neurosurgery, Cardiothoracic, Urology, Paediatric Surgery, Ear Nose and Throat, Oral and Maxillofacial, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and Vascular Surgery. In total, 242 editorial positions were identified: 207 were held by males (82.8%) and 35 by females (17.2%). There were no female editors-in-chief. The average female proportion of editorial leadership per journal was 18.8%. One journal had no female editorial leadership representation. Overall, the number of females in editorial leadership positions is comparable to the current proportion of UK female consultant surgeons (13.7%). Journals with an under-representation of females in senior editorial leadership positions compared with the parent specialty should consider initiatives that will encourage diversity, promote greater gender parity, and champion female representation.

Representation of women as editors in andrology journals.

Surveys of gender diversity in editorial boards of journals have been conducted in several disciplines, but not in andrology. The present study was designed to investigate the gender distribution of editorial boards of andrology journals. A total of eight andrology journals were included in the study, and the gender information and geographical location of editors were identified based on the information obtained from the Internet. A total of 382 editors' gender information was confirmed. Women made up 1 of the 9 editors-in-chief (11.1%), 13 of the 68 deputy/associate editors (19.1%), 37 of the 270 editorial/advisory board members (13.7%) and 0 of the 35 other types of editors (0%). There was no significant difference in the journal impact factor between male and female editors-in-chief (3.060±1.274 vs 3.842), and no significant association was found between impact factor and the proportion of female editor (Spearman's r=-0.204, P=0.629). Andrology-related journals lacked adequate gender diversity, not all journals reserved reasonable editorial positions for women. Besides, increased impact factor did not bring additional gender bias. Women should be given more reasonable seats to improve gender diversity in andrology-related journals.

Editorial: academic peer reviewers – The good, bad, and the ugly

Editorial: academic peer reviewers – The good, bad, and the ugly

Shattering Glass Ceilings: Three Black Women Surgeons Ascend to Chairs of Departments of Surgery.

Shattering Glass Ceilings: Three Black Women Surgeons Ascend to Chairs of Departments of Surgery.