+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Possible Bias in the Publication Trends of High Impact Factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology Journals -An Analysis of 5 Years' Data



Possible Bias in the Publication Trends of High Impact Factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology Journals -An Analysis of 5 Years' Data



Anesthesia, Essays and Researches 12(3): 611-617



We hypothesize that being an editorial board member (EBM) in a high impact factor specialty medical journal increases the chances of publishing in the same journal. The publication trends of the first five EBMs in the five highest impact factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology journals were analyzed. Preceding 5 years' publications appearing on PubMed were grouped into as follows: number of publications in the journal in which the EBM serves (N1), number of publications by the same author in the other four highest impact factor (IF) journals (N2) and number of publications in all the other journals (N3). We evaluated the probability of the observed distribution of publications in the five highest IF journals happening by chance alone, assuming that all the EBMs had the same opportunity of publishing in any of these journals. The probability of publishing in their own journal was assumed to be one fifth. The EBMs published their manuscripts in their own journal at a very high frequency. Encompassing all ten journals, the calculated P value for such a distribution was <0.001. In two journals, Anesthesia and Analgesia and Anaesthesia, the EBMs' publications in their journal were more than twice the cumulative total in the remaining four journals. In three of the five gastroenterology journals analyzed, combined publications of the five EBMs were greater in their own journal than the remaining four journals combined. Despite proclaimed fair peer review process, EBMs seem to get preference in their own journals.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 065882753

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 30283164


Related references

The more publication, the higher impact factor: citation analysis of top nine gastroenterology and hepatology journals. Hepatitis Monthly 12(12): E8467, 2013

Publication bias is underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals: metaepidemiologic study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67(12): 1320-1326, 2015

Publication bias for CAM trials in the highest impact factor medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60(11): 1123-1126, 2007

Review and Analysis of Publication Trends over Three Decades in Three High Impact Medicine Journals. Plos One 12(1): E0170056, 2017

Publication trends of shared decision making in 15 high impact medical journals: a full-text review with bibliometric analysis. Bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making 14: 71, 2015

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals. Anesthesia and Analgesia 123(4): 1018-1025, 2017

Scientific Publication Performance of Turkish Anaesthesia Clinics in High Impact Factor International Journals Between 2005 and 2014: A Bibliometric Analysis. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation 45(1): 16-25, 2017

Factors associated with publication of randomized phase iii cancer trials in journals with a high impact factor. Current Oncology 21(4): E564-E572, 2014

Publication Metrics of Dental Journals - What is the Role of Self Citations in Determining the Impact Factor of Journals?. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice 15(3): 97-104, 2017

Perceived information gain from randomized trials correlates with publication in high-impact factor journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 65(12): 1274-1281, 2013

Publication efficiency among the higher impact factor nursing journals in 2009: a retrospective analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies 50(4): 543-551, 2013

Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals. Plos One 12(7): E0180986, 2017

Representation of Nursing Scientists from German-speaking countries in High Impact Journals. A bibliometric publication analysis. Pflege 31(1): 31-39, 2018

Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials in high-impact ophthalmology journals and general medical journals: a systematic review. British Journal of Ophthalmology 101(10): 1309-1314, 2017

Alternative bibliometrics from impact factor improved the esteem of a journal in a 2-year-ahead annual-citation calculation: multivariate analysis of gastroenterology and hepatology journals. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 27(2): 115-122, 2015