INTRODUCTION
Most recent discussion on conflict of interest (COI) in academic publishing focuses on the role of authors’ and peer reviewers’ interests in research integrity,1–3 and the flows of the peer-review process,3,4 while there has been less focus on journal editors’ COIs.1,2,5,6 Academic editors often hold senior faculty positions at universities, which might be considered a COI if this leads to a more favourable processing of articles submitted by institutional colleagues. This may occur throughout the entire editorial process. However, recent evidence found out that only 12% of the journals reported individual editor potential COIs.2 The current study aims to assess whether academic editor affiliation, a potential COI, can influence academic institution ranking as top contributor in the biomedical field.
METHODS
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis extracting publicly available data from the 2019 Clarivate InCites Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for journals in the “Medicine, General & Internal” category and from each journal website. The analysis was based on publicly available, aggregated data. No ethics committee approval was necessary. Journals were excluded from the analysis if (i) the journal did not have an assigned JCR impact factor or (ii) the journal editorial board comprised more than twenty editors (considering editors in chief and associate editors only) or (iii) the journal’s editorial board members did not have academic affiliations or (iv) the journal website did not include information on the editorial board.
Study Variables
For each journal, JCR publishes information on the top 50 journal contributor institutions in the previous 3 years stratified by country/region and organization (https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr/home). Data is generated for all listed authors’ affiliations in an article. This represented the unit of observation in our analysis.
Extracting information from journal websites and considering all editors’ affiliations, we constructed the following variables: whether (i) the editor in chief or (ii) any member of the editorial board shares the same academic affiliation of any of the institutions which are top contributors for the specific journal.
We constructed the following study outcomes: (i) being a top 5 academic contributor for the peer-review journal of interest (yes/no), (ii) being a top 10 academic contributor for the peer-review journal of interest (yes/no), and (iii) ranking position as top 50 academic contributor for the peer-review journal of interest.
Other study variables included journal JCR impact factor, journal open access only (yes/no), editorial board size, journal nationality, and university ranking (extracted from the 2019-20 World University Ranking, https://cwur.org/2019-20.php).
Statistical Analysis
Mixed-effect linear and logistic regression models were employed, as appropriate. Academic journal was included in the models as random intercept. Analyses were adjusted for the above-mentioned variables and stratified by JCR impact factor quartiles to explore whether this association might be greater in journals with lower impact factor because, with more limited resources, they might have adopted less stringent COI policies. Considering their prominent role in the decision process, we conducted a sensitivity analysis only considering whether the editor in chief had the same affiliation as each of the top academic contributors for each journal. Due to sample size constraint, this latter analysis was not stratified by JCR impact factor quartiles.
RESULTS
We included 114 journals in our analysis because they met the inclusion criteria; 49% were open-access-only journals, the mean impact factor was 2.2 (± 2.4) and the mean editorial board size was 7 (± 3.6), and 42% of the journals were European and 30% American. Data on the 2707 universities that published among the top 50 contributors in the included journals were analysed. Among them, 8.5% were ranked as top 300 universities. Sharing the same affiliation with any of the editorial board members was associated with a 6.7 and 5.6 greater likelihood of being top 5 and top 10 contributors, respectively (Table 1). Similarly, sharing the same affiliation was associated with being 12.1 places higher as top contributor (Table 1). The likelihood of being a top 5 and top 10 contributor progressively increased when stratifying analyses according to JRC impact factor quartiles (Table 1, Fig. 1). When considering the editor-in-chief affiliation solely, association was even stronger (top 5 journal contributor: OR 21.62, 95% CI 12.95–36.09; top 10 journal contributor: OR 25.26, 95% CI 12.89–49.51; ranking as top 50 journal contributor: coeff. 18.83, 95% CI 15.55–22.12).
Table 1.
Likelihood that Top Contributors for Academic Journals Included in the JCR “Medicine, General & Internal” Category Share the Same Academic Affiliation with Editorial Board Members. Analyses Were Stratified by Impact Factor Quartiles of the Academic Journal
| Universities N (TOT) | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 5 journal contributors | 359 (2707) | 6.65 (5.07–8.73) |
| IF 1st quartile (highest) | 89 (698) | 2.72 (1.56–4.74) |
| IF 2nd quartile | 104 (793) | 4.78 (2.84–8.06) |
| IF 3rd quartile | 127 (1113) | 16.94 (9.11–31.49) |
| IF 4th quartile (lowest) | 121 (1137) | 15.21 (8.24–28.09) |
| Top 10 journal contributors | 671 (2707) | 5.59 (4.34–7.22) |
| IF 1st quartile (highest) | 167 (698) | 3.49 (2.20–5.53) |
| IF 2nd quartile | 185 (793) | 4.82 (3.03–7.68) |
| IF 3rd quartile | 252 (1113) | 12.54 (6.60–23.84) |
| IF 4th quartile (lowest) | 237 (1137) | 7.62 (4.17–13.94) |
| Coeff. (95% CI) | ||
| Ranking as top 50 journal contributors | 12.08 (10.35–13.81) | |
| 1st quartile (highest) | 8.50 (5.42–11.59 | |
| 2nd quartile | 11.30 (8.18–14.43) | |
| 3rd quartile | 15.99 (12.07–19.90) | |
| 4th quartile (lowest) | 15.53 (11.50–19.56) |
Mixed-effect logistic regression model was used to assess whether the editorial board member affiliation is associated with the likelihood the university the editor is affiliated with is among the top 5 or top 10 academic contributors to a specific journal. Mixed-effect linear regression was used to assess the association between sharing the same affiliation with any member of the editorial board and ranking position as among the top 50 contributors within the journal for the university the editor is affiliated with. Models were adjusted for JCR impact factor, open-access policy (fully open access yes/no), editorial board size, journal nationality, and university ranking. Academic journal was included in the model as random intercept. Analyses were stratified by JCR impact factor quartiles and presented as odds ratios (OR) or regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (CI), as appropriate
Figure 1.
Predicted likelihood for journal top contributors of sharing the same affiliation of the academic editor by journal impact factor in the JCR “Medicine, General & Internal” category. Notes: JCR = journal citation report. To estimate coefficients mixed-effect logistic regression models were employed. Models were adjusted for JCR impact factor, open-access policy (fully open access yes/no), editorial board size, journal nationality, and university ranking. Academic journal was included in the model as random intercept.
DISCUSSION
We found that academic editors sharing the same institutional affiliation with authors was strongly associated with the likelihood of that institution being a top contributor. However, to assess this association, we relied on affiliations authors specifically included when submitting a paper. Furthermore, we did not control for number of authors on papers.
As recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, editors should not have a COI that could lead to bias or the appearance of bias in decision-making. Shared institutional affiliations between editors and authors should be clearly stated as part of an open and transparent peer-review process.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr. Andrea Tajani for the valuable support with the data extraction process.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer Review. Toxicol Pathol. 2018;46(2). 10.1177/0192623318754792 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 2.Dal-Ré R, Caplan AL, Marusic A. Editors' and Authors' Individual Conflicts of Interest Disclosure and Journal Transparency. A Cross-Sectional Study of High-Impact Medical Specialty Journals. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7). 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 3.Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. Is Biomedical Research Protected From Predatory Reviewers? Sci Eng Ethics. 2019;25(1). 10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 4.Akre O, Barone-Adesi F, Pettersson A, Pearce N, Merletti F, Richiardi L. Differences in citation rates by country of origin for papers published in top-ranked medical journals: do they reflect inequalities in access to publication? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65(2):119–23. doi: 10.1136/jech.2009.088690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J, Bhar RH, Mehlman CT. Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest. J Bioeth Inq. 2019;16(2). 10.1007/s11673-019-09908-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 6.Gottlieb JD, Bressler NM. How Should Journals Handle the Conflict of Interest of Their Editors?: Who Watches the "Watchers"? JAMA. 2017;317(17). 10.1001/jama.2017.2207 [DOI] [PubMed]