Jump to comment:

• Preferential Publication of Editorial Board Members in Biomedical Journals
  Christian T. K.-H. Stadtländer, PhD, MPH, MBA
  Published on: 27 April 2009

• Published on: 27 April 2009

  Preferential Publication of Editorial Board Members in Biomedical Journals

  • Christian T. K.-H. Stadtländer, PhD, MPH, MBA, Microbiologist and Epidemiologist

  Dear Editor,

  I read with interest the article by Luty et al. (1) about the retrospective survey they conducted to determine whether medical specialty journals were more likely to publish the research of their own editorial board members or the research of editorial board members of rival journals. I was surprised about the high degree (i.e., almost three times more likely) to which these cases occur.

  Typic...

  Show More

  Dear Editor,

  I read with interest the article by Luty et al. (1) about the retrospective survey they conducted to determine whether medical specialty journals were more likely to publish the research of their own editorial board members or the research of editorial board members of rival journals. I was surprised about the high degree (i.e., almost three times more likely) to which these cases occur.

  Typically, the reviewer evaluates the merit and acceptability of a submitted manuscript, but the final decision is made by the editor. Macrina (2) pointed out that "Reviewers [and editors] must be comfortable with the job of impartially reviewing the work. Their review of the paper must not constitute a conflict of interest, real or perceived [by others]." I believe that editorial board members who want to publish in their own journals should be required to disclose in their manuscripts this conflict of interest, since all other authors are always required to do so, be it financial or other substantive conflict of interest. Bosetti and Toscano (3) suggested in a recent article a standardized and written code of ethics which governs all stakeholders (authors, editors, members of the editorial board and reviewers) in the peer review process, which includes a mandated disclosure of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Reyes (4) emphasized that "honesty and good faith in all the actors involved in the process of biomedical publications remain the cornerstone of scientific good behavior." I believe that if this relationship breaks down, publications become nothing more than papers manipulated during the review process. The ultimate outcome is that science will be distorted.

  I agree with Luty et al. (1) that there is most likely not a single factor attributable to this phenomenon of publication bias and discrimination. In my opinion, more research should be conducted in this area because of its importance to science and the many stakeholders involved, last but not least, the reader of scientific articles.

  REFERENCES

  1. Luty J, Arokiadass SMR, Easow JM, Anapreddy JR. Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. J Med Ethics 2009;35:200-2.

  2. Macrina FL. Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press, 2005.

  3. Bosetti F, Toscano CD. Is it time to standardize ethics guiding the peer review process? Lipids 2008;43:107-8.

  4. Reyes H. Honesty and good faith: Two cornerstones in the ethics of biomedical publications. Rev Med Chile 2007;135:415-8.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top