Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Nov 23;19(11):e3001133.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001133. eCollection 2021 Nov.

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

Affiliations

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

Alexandre Scanff et al. PLoS Biol. .

Erratum in

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Flow chart of included journals.
Selection flow chart for journals labeled with at least one “Broad Subject Term” in the NLM. NLM, National Library of Medicine.
Fig 2
Fig 2. PPMP and Gini index among all articles.
Distribution of PPMP author(s) (A) and Gini index (B) in relation to journal size, and comparison between the PPMP and the Gini index (C), across all articles published by all journals in the United States NLM catalog having at least one Broad Subject Term and having published at least 50 authored articles between 2015 and 2019. The data underlying this figure may be found in https://osf.io/6e3uf/. NLM, National Library of Medicine; PPMP, Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Publication lag.
Distribution of the publication lag median for the subgroup of 2,725 (49.8%) journals reporting submission and publication dates. Publication lag median (in days) are presented for articles signed by the most prolific authors compared to the articles without any of the most prolific authors (with marginal density plot of distributions). The data underlying this figure may be found in https://osf.io/6e3uf/.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Publication lag among articles of the most prolific author.
Distribution of publication lag (in days) and number of articles authored for each of the most prolific authors, across all articles (with marginal density plot of distributions) for the subgroup of 2,725 (49.8%) journals reporting submission and publication dates. The data underlying this figure may be found in https://osf.io/6e3uf/.

References

    1. Rennie D. Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review. JAMA. 1986;256:2391–2. - PubMed
    1. Locher C, Moher D, Cristea IA, Naudet F. Publication by association: how the COVID-19 pandemic has shown relationships between authors and editorial board members in the field of infectious diseases. BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2021. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111670 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Deevybee. BishopBlog: “Percent by most prolific” author score: a red flag for possible editorial bias. BishopBlog [Internet]. 2020. Jul 12 [cited 2020 Oct 23]. Available from: http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2020/07/percent-by-most-prolific-author-sco...
    1. Cowell FA. Chapter 2 Measurement of inequality. Handbook of Income Distribution. Elsevier; 2000. p. 87–166. doi: 10.1016/S1574-0056(00)80005-6 - DOI
    1. Hart KL, Perlis RH. Authorship inequality: a bibliometric study of the concentration of authorship among a diminishing number of individuals in high-impact medical journals, 2008–2019. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e046002. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046002 - DOI - PMC - PubMed