A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Alexandre Scanff, Florian Naudet, Ioana A Cristea, David Moher, Dorothy V M Bishop, Clara Locher
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Biology (General) QH301-705.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/49c97b92d1854207b7853b0ada502d71
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:49c97b92d1854207b7853b0ada502d71
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:49c97b92d1854207b7853b0ada502d712021-12-02T19:54:42ZA survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.1544-91731545-788510.1371/journal.pbio.3001133https://doaj.org/article/49c97b92d1854207b7853b0ada502d712021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001133https://doaj.org/toc/1544-9173https://doaj.org/toc/1545-7885Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.Alexandre ScanffFlorian NaudetIoana A CristeaDavid MoherDorothy V M BishopClara LocherPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleBiology (General)QH301-705.5ENPLoS Biology, Vol 19, Iss 11, p e3001133 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Biology (General) QH301-705.5
spellingShingle	Biology (General) QH301-705.5 Alexandre Scanff Florian Naudet Ioana A Cristea David Moher Dorothy V M Bishop Clara Locher A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.
description	Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.
format	article
author	Alexandre Scanff Florian Naudet Ioana A Cristea David Moher Dorothy V M Bishop Clara Locher
author_facet	Alexandre Scanff Florian Naudet Ioana A Cristea David Moher Dorothy V M Bishop Clara Locher
author_sort	Alexandre Scanff
title	A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.
title_short	A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.
title_full	A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.
title_fullStr	A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.
title_full_unstemmed	A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.
title_sort	survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/49c97b92d1854207b7853b0ada502d71
work_keys_str_mv	AT alexandrescanff asurveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT floriannaudet asurveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT ioanaacristea asurveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT davidmoher asurveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT dorothyvmbishop asurveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT claralocher asurveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT alexandrescanff surveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT floriannaudet surveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT ioanaacristea surveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT davidmoher surveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT dorothyvmbishop surveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior AT claralocher surveyofbiomedicaljournalstodetecteditorialbiasandnepotisticbehavior
_version_	1718375897485017088

A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.

Ejemplares similares