A70 PREVALENCE OF SELF-PUBLICATION AMONG EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS OF GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".