A70 PREVALENCE OF SELF-PUBLICATION AMONG EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS OF GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNALS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Editorial self-publication refers to the practice wherein editors publish research in journals to which they serve as editorial board members. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has detailed recommendations against the practice of self-publication. There is evidence to suggest that editorial board membership may influence the decision to publish academic papers, which may contribute to publication bias. Despite this, there have been few attempts to characterize this practice in gastroenterology journals. Aims To determine the prevalence of original gastroenterology research articles published by editorial board members in their own journal. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of editorial board members publishing within their own journals. A list of the top 25 highest impact factor gastroenterology journals was created through InCites Journal reports. Journals were screened to determine eligibility based on whether their primary focus included gastroenterology research and whether archives with the names and affiliations of editorial board members were available. 10 journals were selected based on these criteria. For each journal, we extracted all original research articles published in 2019 using Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics ©). Articles classified as editorial material, meeting abstracts, reviews, and clinical practice guidelines were excluded. We cross-referenced the affiliations of all authors found in each publication with affiliations of editors disclosed on the journal website. For each editorial board member, we determined the number of publications within their own journal. Results We identified 844 editorial board members in the 10 journals included. Overall, 337 (39.9%) of the editors had a publication in their own journal, of which, 152 (18.0%) had more than one publication. Across all journals, the median number of editors with self-publication is 27 (IQR=20.3–49.8). The median number of editors with more than one self-publication is 16 (IQR=10.0–25.3). In total, 507 (60.1%) of all editors had no publications within their respective journals. Conclusions Despite recommendations against this practice, our results show a high number of research publications authored by editorial board members. These results demonstrate a potential risk for publication bias. However, this study was limited by the inability to investigate beyond the prevalence of self-publication. Furthermore, the explicit implications of our results remain unclear. Further research is required to evaluate factors such as disclosures and the review process associated with increased rates of self-publication as well as its impact on publication bias. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,102 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».