Massive study reveals editorial bias and nepotism in biomedical journals
Sketch by David of Napoleon crowning himself (L’Empereur Napoleon se couronnant lui-même). Credit score: Jacques-Louis David, Wikipedia, CC 0 (creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)

Scientific journals are expected to have faith in thoughts research manuscripts dispassionately and with out settle on. Nonetheless in a take into consideration publishing on November 23rd within the delivery receive entry to journal PLOS Biology, Alexandre Scanff, Florian Naudet and Clara Locher from the University of Rennes, and colleagues, point out that a subset of journals would per chance be exercising noteworthy bias and favoritism.

To title journals that are suspected of favoritism, the authors explored close to 5 million articles printed between 2015 and 2019 in a sample of 5,468 of biomedical journals listed within the Nationwide Library of Medication. Particularly, they assessed authorship disparity the use of two capacity crimson flags: (i) the proportion of papers in a given that are authored by that journal’s most prolific author, and (ii) a journal’s Gini index, a statistical measure widely ancient by economists to express income or wealth inequalities.

Their results point out that in most journals, publications are dispensed all the map by a amount of authors, as one would possibly presumably maybe hope. On the other hand, the authors title a subset of biomedical journals the assign about a authors, customarily participants of that journal’s , were to blame for a disproportionate choice of publications. As well, the articles authored by these “hyper-prolific” folk were more more seemingly to be authorised for e-newsletter internal 3 weeks of their submission, suggesting favoritism in journals’ editorial procedures.

Essentially based on a gigantic available within the market database, this ogle would possibly presumably maybe not carry out an intensive qualitative evaluation of the papers printed in such journals suspected of biased editorial resolution-making, and wide extra work would per chance be wished to evaluate the character of the articles printed by hyper-prolific authors in journals flagged as potentially “nepotistic.”

Why would this matter? Such “nepotistic journals,” suspected of biased editorial resolution-making, would per chance be deployed to game productivity-based metrics, which would per chance presumably well possess a fundamental knock-on enact on choices about promotion, tenure and research funding. To enhance have faith in their practices, the authors argue that journals would possibly presumably maybe also tranquil be more clear about their editorial and watch evaluate practices and to stick with the Committee on E-newsletter Ethics (COPE) pointers.

Locher provides, “To spotlight questionable editorial behaviors, this take into consideration explores the connection between hyper-prolific authors and a journal’s group.”



Extra knowledge:
Scanff A, Naudet F, Cristea IA, Moher D, Bishop DVM, Locher C (2021) A ogle of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior. PLoS Biol 19(11): e3001133. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001133

Citation:
Big take into consideration finds editorial bias and nepotism in biomedical journals (2021, November 23)
retrieved 24 November 2021
from https://phys.org/news/2021-11-huge-finds-editorial-bias-nepotism.html

This memoir is discipline to copyright. Rather then any heavenly dealing for the reason for private take into consideration or research, no
phase would per chance be reproduced with out the written permission. The snarl is equipped for knowledge functions handiest.

Comments to: Big take into consideration finds editorial bias and nepotism in biomedical journals

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Attach images - Only PNG, JPG, JPEG and GIF are supported.

Login

Welcome to Typer

Brief and amiable onboarding is the first thing a new user sees in the theme.
Join Typer
Registration is closed.