This issue was published in the framework of a program that has been made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Department of State. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of State or the United States Government.

This article investigates whether editorial board members of selected economic journals publish their research papers in their ‘own’ journal. Journals were selected from the Journal Citation Report® from the categories Business; Business, Finance; and Economics. Only research articles published between 2012 and 2015 were included in the analysis. We recorded ratios concerning the share of articles authored by editorial board members, the share of editorial board members publishing in their own journals and ratios representing their publication output. (...) The average share of articles authored by editorial board members ranges from 0.6 to 17.5%. The average share of editorial board members publishing in their own journals ranges from 5.6 to 24.4%. Considering only editorial board members publishing in their own journals, the share of their articles in their journals ranges from 8.2 to 71.4%. While the share of board members publishing only in their own journals, to the number of board members publishing in their own journals, the ratio in a quarter of journals is equal to zero, with a maximum reach of 85.7%. All observed ratios are significantly positively correlated with the gap between impact factor and impact factor without Journal Self Cites; and negatively correlated with the Article Influence Score. A cluster of journals in which a high proportion of editorial board members publish and simultaneously these members publish in their own journal at a high rate was identified. (shrink)

This is a short editorial, maybe introducing editorial board members' changes.

Next SectionBackground: 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. (shrink)

In a recent opinion paper, it was argued that individuals with multiple retractions or a record of academic misconduct should not serve as editors, including as editors-in-chief, on the editorial boards of scholarly or academic journals. As a first step towards appreciating how such a policy could be applied in practice, the presence of 30 individuals listed on the Retraction Watch Leaderboard on editorial boards was screened. Six cases are highlighted to gain an appreciation of the (...) potential reputational risks that journals and publishers might incur by including individuals with a tainted academic record on editorial boards. Given the reputational, legal and other risks associated with this type of assessment and decision, more formal positioning and guidance are needed by global ethics policy-related bodies such as COPE, the ICMJE, and the CSE, even more so in journals that claim to follow these organizations’ ethical guidelines. (shrink)