Representation of women as editors in dermatology journals: A comprehensive review

Gender equity in academic dermatology: Problems aplenty, yet paths ahead

Efforts to achieve gender equity of health professionals should be a priority in all fields of medicine, including academic dermatology. This review aimed, first, to summarize available evidence about the status of gender equity in various domains of academic dermatology-headship positions, salary, editor and editorial board appointments, publications, conference presentations, receipt of research grants and academic prizes-second, to identify challenges to achieving gender equity and, third, to articulate the components of a multifaceted strategy for gender parity. A variety of databases were searched. Manual searching of reference lists and searching of grey literature were also undertaken. It was found that, despite improvements in some domains, the gender inequity persists in all of the above-mentioned areas of academic dermatology. Challenges to achieve gender parity include time in pregnancy, disproportionate participation in childrearing and domestic tasks compared with men, suboptimal legislation in many jurisdictions for parenting and childcare leave, and unconscious biases about women. Elements of a multipronged approach include strengthening women's dermatology societies that advocate for women in academia; celebrating the careers of distinguished female academic dermatologists; mentoring; promoting leadership courses; striving for a greater representation of women among editors-in-chief, authors, and conference presenters, among others; seeking better pay, leave conditions and other work entitlements; conducting high-quality research about gender inequity in academic dermatology; imposing sanctions for violations of gender equity; supporting dermatologists' health; and learning from the experience of other fields of academic medicine.

Gender Parity Analysis of the Editorial Boards of Influential Dermatology Journals: Cross-Sectional Study

This study underscores the persistent underrepresentation of women in academic dermatology leadership positions by examining the gender composition of editorial boards across top dermatology journals, emphasizing the urgent need for proactive strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Gender distribution in surgical pathology journal publications and editorial boards

AIMS

To investigate trends in representation of women among authors and editorial boards of surgical pathology journals over the last two decades.Secondary aims: to identify barriers and potential solutions.

METHODS

The names and gender of first, middle, last authors and editorial board members were obtained from original articles from seven pathology journals from various geopolitical regions in 2002, 2011 and 2021. The proportion of women first, middle, last authors and editorial board members were compared over time.

RESULTS

1097 publications and 8012 individual authors were extracted. In 2002, 2011 and 2021, respectively, the percentage of women first authors were 28.3% (257 of 907), 31.9% (566 of 1773) and 41.1% (1421 of 3457); women middle authorship rates were 30.0% (159 of 530), 32.8% (375 of 1145) and 40.9% (1067 of 2609) and women last authors were 18.0% (34 of 188), 26.0% (82 of 315) and 36.0% (152 of 422). Women representation on editorial boards has increased (11.3%, 15.8%, 26.5%), but of the chief editors, there was only one woman in 2021, while all were men in 2002 and 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this study is the first to document under-representation of women among authors and editorial boards of surgical pathology journals. While women representation has increased over time, predominance of men remains relative to workforce proportions. Our findings are comparable to those from other medical fields and prompt the need to investigate the underlying causes for this imbalance and implement strategies to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in academic surgical pathology.

The gender composition of the members of the editorial board of toxicology journals: Assessment of gender equality

In many areas of medicine, gender equality has not yet been fully adopted despite recent developments. The inequality of gender in various areas of medicine is still debated. In this study, we analysed the gender composition of the editorial boards of toxicology journals in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) databases and the factors affecting this composition. The genders of the participants were determined by the data obtained from the official websites of the journals in September 2023. We analysed the journal metrics and publisher properties using Mann-Whitney U, Fisher's exact, Chi-square tests and Spearman's correlation coefficient. We used logistic regression analysis to reveal the independent factors related to gender parity. The representation rates of women were 28.62% on all editorial boards and 23.33% in editor-in-chief positions. The 'Neuroscience' (OR, 2.46 95%CI, 1.68-3.60, p < 0.001), 'Reproductive Biology'(OR, 2.05 95%CI, 1.22-3.42, p = 0.006) and 'Public, Environmental & Occupational Health'(OR, 1.49 95%CI, 1.18-1.88, p = 0.001) as a coverage category, the United States as a journal country (OR, 1.21, 95%CI, 1.04-1.40, p = 0.001), 5-year-IF≥3.6(OR, 1.54, 95%CI, 1.27-1.86, p < 0.001), 5-year H index≥29 (OR, 1.23, 95%CI, 1.01-1.49, p = 0.037) were the independent factors for gender parity. However, 'Oncology' (OR, 0.08 95%CI, 0.01-0.55, p = 0.011), 'Biochemistry, Molecular Biology' (OR, 0.62 95%CI, 0.44-0.86, p = 0.005) and 'Pharmacology & Pharmacy' (OR, 0.69 95%CI, 0.59-0.82, p < 0.001) as a coverage category, Japan as a publisher country (OR, 0.52 95%CI, 0.35-0.77, p = 0.001), and Switzerland as a journal country (OR, 0.61, 95%CI, 0.46-0.81, p = 0.001) were related to gender disparity. Greater endeavours are needed to reduce gender discrimination in toxicology. Toxicology authorities should continuously improve existing policies by optimising the analysis of objective information to eliminate barriers for toxicologists in terms of gender equality.

Characterizing Gender and Leadership Trends Among Mohs Micrographic Surgery Fellowship Directors

BACKGROUND

Fellowship directors (FDs) play a key role in shaping Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). Studies characterizing director trends are lacking and may provide a framework for improving gender diversity.

OBJECTIVE

To explore characteristics of FDs and trends in gender of both fellows and FDs over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors compiled a comprehensive list of FDs and fellows for all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited Micrographic Surgery & Dermatologic Oncology programs from 1996 to 2023. Publicly available data from various internet sources from February 1, 2023 to May 30, 2023 were used to assess characteristics of MMS FDs.

RESULTS

The percentage of female FDs increased from 6% to 25% from 1996 to 2023. Female directors were more likely to select female fellows than male directors ( p = .0002) and had fewer years between fellowship completion and FD appointment (9.1 ± 4.7 years) compared with male directors (13.6 ± 8.8 years; p = .036). H-index, program type, and academic rank were similar between male and female directors.

CONCLUSION

Although gender parity among MMS trainees has been achieved, discrepancies remain in the gender composition of FDs. Further studies are required to determine why women are underrepresented as FDs.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in medical education journals: An evaluation of editorial board composition

PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE

As editorial boards (EBs) of medical education journals (MEJs) hold substantial control over framing current medical education scholarship, we aimed to evaluate representation of women as well as geographic and socioeconomic diversity on EBs of these journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In our cross-sectional study, Composite Editorial Board Diversity Score (CEBDS) was used to evaluate diversity at gender, geographic region, and country income level. Websites of MEJs were screened for relevant information. Job titles were categorized into 3 editorial roles and data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.

RESULTS

Out of 42 MEJs, 19 journals (45.2%) were published from the Global South. Among 1219 editors, 57.5% were men. Out of 46 editors in chief (EICs), 34.7% were women, and 60.9% were based in high income countries. No EIC belonged to low-income country. The proportion of female advisory board members was found to be positively correlated with the presence of a female EIC. Moreover, 2 journals achieved the maximum CEBDS. All editors belonged to the same World Bank income group and geographic region for 12 and 8 journals respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to allow a truly global perspective in medical education to prevail, diversity and inclusivity on these journals become important parameters to address. Thus, promoting policies centered on improving diversity in all aspects should become a top priority.

Gender Representation of Editors at Journals Affiliated with Major U.S. Medical Societies

Objectives: To assess the gender composition of upper-level specialty-specific editor positions among United States (U.S.) medical society-affiliated journals and to evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and women physicians. Materials and Methods: The gender composition of upper-level (e.g., editor-in-chief, deputy) specialty-specific editor positions among 39 U.S. medical society-affiliated journals as of January 5, 2023, was analyzed. Editor positions below the level of associate editor were excluded. Parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared with the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty) benchmarks were utilized to determine if women are underrepresented in editor positions. Results: A total of 862 editor positions among 39 journals were assessed. Women held 32.9% (284/862) of positions (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.9%-36.2%), significantly less than expected based on the U.S. population (p < 0.001). Physicians comprised 90.8% (783/862) of positions, of whom 30.4% (238/783) were women physicians (95% CI: 27.3%-33.7%), significantly less than expected (p < 0.001). Thirty-three (84.6%, 95% CI: 70.3%-92.8%) journals were below parity for women overall, whereas 34 (87.2%, 95% CI: 73.3%-94.4%) were below parity for women physicians. Fourteen (35.9%, 95% CI: 22.7%-51.6%) journals were below equity for women physicians. Notably, 13 (33.3%, 95% CI: 20.6%-49.0%) journals were below both parity and equity for women overall and women physicians. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women in editor positions of journals affiliated with U.S. medical societies. Despite the equitable inclusion of women in editorial roles being a remediable issue, approximately one third of journals affiliated with major U.S. medical societies remain inequitable.

Dermatology Journals' Editorial Boards Require Improved Gender Equity: JMIR Dermatology's Future Directions

Gender disparities exist across all facets of academic medicine including within the editorial boards of dermatology journals. Only 22% of these editorial boards comprised women, even though 51% of full-time, faculty dermatologists are female. When inviting academic dermatologists to our editorial board at JMIR Dermatology, we invited 50% women to represent the gender distribution of academic dermatologists; however, we have not sufficiently reached gender equity among accepted editorial board members. We will continue to strive toward the goal of gender equity on our editorial board and invite other dermatology journals to do the same.

Sport and exercise medicine/physiotherapy publishing has a gender/sex equity problem: we need action now!

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine (1) the proportion of women authors overall, in first (lead) and last (senior) author positions, (2) the proportion of women research participants and (3) the association between women in first and/or last author positions and the proportion of women research participants in original research articles and editorials/opinion pieces in four sport and exercise medicine/physiotherapy journals.

METHODS

The journals evaluated were the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, Physical Therapy in Sport and International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy.We reviewed all original research articles and editorials/opinion pieces published in 2008, 2009, 2018 and 2019. For each, we aimed to determine the gender/sex of all authors (through gender pronouns, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, institutional profiles, personal websites, photographs and/or social media), and the gender/sex of study participants reported as 'female' or 'male' or 'women' or 'men' or 'girls' or 'boys'.

RESULTS

We included 952 original studies and 219 editorials/opinion pieces. There were 5146 authors of original studies and 706 authors of editorials/opinion pieces. Compared with 2008/2009, the proportion of women as first and last authors was 3.6% (33.0% compared with 29.4%) and 4.8% (33.2% compared with 27.4%) higher respectively in 2018/2019. On average, the proportion of women participants in original studies remained largely unchanged over the 10-year period, only 10% of all participants were women in studies.

CONCLUSION

Women are strikingly under-represented in first and last author positions, as are women participants in sports and exercise medicine/physiotherapy journals.

Gender Equity in Medicine and Dermatology in the United States: The Long Road Traveled and the Journey ahead

Over the past 50 years there has been an increase in the representation of women in medicine with similar rates of men and women graduating from medical training today. Nevertheless, gender gaps in leadership, research publications, and compensation persist. Herein, we review trends in gender differences among leadership positions in academic medicine with a particular focus on dermatology, evaluate the roles of mentorship, motherhood, and gender bias on gender equity, and discuss constructive solutions for addressing gender inequities that persist in academic medicine today.

Gender Differences in Clinical Practice and Medicare Reimbursement Among Mohs Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate Medicare reimbursement and clinical activity between male and female dermatologic surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment data from 2018 was performed for all dermatologists performing MMS. Provider gender, place of service, number of services, and average payment per service was recorded for all relevant procedure codes.

RESULTS

Women represented 31.5% of the 2,581 surgeons who performed MMS in 2018. Women were paid significantly less than men (mean difference, -$73,033). On average, women performed 123 fewer cases than their male counterparts. When surgeons were stratified by productivity, remuneration was the same.

CONCLUSION

Remuneration from CMS was disparate between male and female dermatologic surgeons, which may be attributed to submission of fewer charges by women. Further efforts are necessary to better evaluate and address causes for this discrepancy, because greater parity of opportunity and pay would greatly benefit this subspecialty of dermatology.

Gender Composition in Occupational Therapy Journals' Editorial Boards

This paper analyses the Editorial Board (EB) distribution of Occupational Therapy journals from a gender perspective. The "Occupational Therapy" field in the Scimago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) and the "Occupational Therapy" term in the title search of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) were used to find the Occupational Therapy-specific journals. The following indicators were calculated: Editorial Board Member (EBM) gender distribution by journal, publisher, subject speciality, country, and journal quartile. Thirty-seven journals were located, including 667 individuals, 206 males (31%) and 461 females (69%). Referring to the EB positions, most members (557) were EB members, 70 were listed as Associate Editors, and 20 as Editorial Leaders. The results show that the proportion of women in the EB's of Occupational Therapy journals represents a majority. Regarding the distribution by gender of the EBMs, six journals had a female proportion below the cut-off point revealed in this study (69%). Four did not reach parity, with female representation below 50%. Additionally, the balance among the EBMs is significantly underrepresented compared to the percentage of female Occupational Therapy practitioners.

A Comparison of the Representation of Women in Editor Positions at Major Medical Journals in 2021 vs 2011

PURPOSE

There continues to be a disparity in the representation of women across medicine, including in editor positions at major medical journals. The authors repeated a study they had conducted in 2011 to compare the representation of women in editor-in-chief and editorial board member positions in 2011 and 2021.

METHOD

The authors included in their analysis the 60 journals from their original 2011 study and the top 5 ranked journals by Journal Impact Factor in each of 12 disciplines in 2021. This led to the inclusion of 86 journals. The authors collected the names and genders of the editors-in-chief and editorial board members at these journals, using information provided by the journals and a Google search for the photos and/or pronouns of the remaining editors. They compared results across years (2021 vs 2011), editor positions, disciplines, Journal Impact Factors, and ranks.

RESULTS

Twenty-two of the 90 editors-in-chief (24.4%) were women in 2021 compared with 10 of 63 (15.9%) in 2011, an increase of 8.5%. Of the 6,285 editorial board members, 1,756 were women (27.9%) in 2021 compared with 719 of 4,112 (17.5%) in 2011, an increase of 10.4%. Journals with women editors-in-chief gained 3.5 ranks and 9.1 points in Journal Impact Factor on average over this 10-year period, compared with no gain in rank and an increase of 4.7 points in Journal Impact Factor for journals with men editors-in-chief; both are statistically significant differences (P = .045 and P = .016, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In almost all evaluated disciplines and editor positions, there was an increase in the percentage of women at top-ranked medical journals over a 10-year period. Despite this increase, improvements are still needed to accelerate the currently slow rate of change in these positions to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion for women in medicine.

Participación femenina en los comités editoriales de revistas médicas en Latinoamérica

Introducción.

La participación femenina en el campo de la medicina y la investigación se ha incrementado en los últimos años; sin embargo, aún existen inequidades en la proporción de hombres y mujeres, especialmente en los cargos directivos y la participación en los comités editoriales de revistas científicas.

Objetivo.

Establecer la participación femenina en los comités editoriales de revistas médicas en Latinoamérica, y explorar su asociación con los cargos editoriales y los indicadores de impacto.

Materiales y métodos.

Se hizo un estudio descriptivo de tipo bibliométrico de revistas médicas de Latinoamérica indizadas en Scopus, actualizadas y vigentes en el 2020, las cuales se seleccionaron del portal de Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Los equipos editoriales se categorizaron en tres grupos según sus funciones y, posteriormente, se registró el sexo de sus miembros a partir de sus nombres.

Resultados.

Se incluyeron 113 revistas. En cuanto al liderazgo editorial, entre los 264 directores de comités editoriales, las mujeres representaban el 12,9 %. En lo concerniente a las diferentes funciones, de 1.449 miembros, las mujeres eran el 28,9 %, en tanto que, de los 4.575 miembros de comités consultivos, el 19,0 % correspondía a mujeres. Se observó una mayor presencia de mujeres en los comités editoriales de revistas de Chile, Brasil y Venezuela, y en las especialidades de salud pública, pediatría y anestesiología.

Conclusiones.

La participación femenina en los comités editoriales de revistas médicas de Latinoamérica es escasa.

"Broad" Impact: Perceptions of Sex/Gender-Related Psychology Journals

Because men are overrepresented within positions of power, men are perceived as the default in academia (androcentrism). Androcentric bias emerges whereby research by men and/or dominated by men is perceived as higher quality and gains more attention. We examined if these androcentric biases materialize within fields that study bias (psychology). How do individuals in close contact with psychology view psychology research outlets (i.e., journals) with titles including the words women, gender, sex, or feminism (sex/gender-related) or contain the words men or masculinity (men-related; Study 1) versus psychology journals that publish other-specialized research, and do these perceptions differ in the general public? While the men-related journal was less meritorious than its other-specialty journal, evidence emerged supporting androcentric bias such that the men-related journal was more favorable than the other sex/gender-related journals (Study 1). Further, undergraduate men taking psychology classes rated sex/gender-related versus other-specialty journals as less favorable, were less likely to recommend subscription (Studies 1–2), and rated the journals as lower quality (Study 2 only). Low endorsement of feminist ideology was associated with less support for sex/gender-related journals versus matched other-specialty journals (Studies 1–2). Decreased subscription recommendations for sex/gender-related journals (and the men-related journal) were mediated by decreased favorability and quality beliefs, especially for men (for the sex/gender-related journals) and those low in feminist ideology (Studies 1–2). However, we found possible androcentric-interest within the public sphere. The public reach of articles (as determined by Altmetrics) published in sex/gender-related was greater than other-specialty journals (Study 3). The consequences of these differential perceptions for students versus the public and the impact on women’s advancement in social science and psychological science are discussed.

Where are female editors from low-income and middle-income countries? A comprehensive assessment of gender, geographical distribution and country’s income group of editorial boards of top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals

Objective

We aimed to examine the gender, geographical region and income group of the country of affiliation for editorial leadership (eg, editor-in-chief, section editor, associate editor) and advisors (eg, editorial board members) in top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals.

Methods

A list of Scopus indexed, Q1 (25% top) rehabilitation and sports science journals, available under four different journal categories, was prepared based on the data from the Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) website. The information for editorial leadership and advisors for these journals was obtained and their gender was determined through a multistep process. The country of affiliation of editorial leadership and advisors was used to categorise them to World Bank’s different geographical regions and income groups (for countries).

Results

There were 7248 editors (35.7% leadership and 64.3% advisors) across 113 rehabilitation and sports science journals. Of all editors, 1792 (24.7%) were women. Women represented 24.5% of editorial leadership positions, 24.8% of advisory roles and 10.4% of editors-in-chief. Editors from South Asia (0.5%) and sub-Saharan Africa (0.6%) had the least representation, while those affiliated with institutions from high-income countries represented 93.5% of leadership roles and 93.1% of advisory positions. Moreover, editors affiliated with institutions from North America occupied almost half of all editorial roles.

Conclusions

Women and researchers affiliated with institutions from low-income and middle-income countries are under-represented on the editorial boards of top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals indexed in the Scopus database. Editors are responsible for promoting research in their specific field, and therefore, the current leadership in rehabilitation and sports science journals should consider diversifying their editorial boards by providing equitable opportunities to women and researchers from a broader geographical distribution.

Representation of Women on Journal Editorial Boards Affiliated with the Association of American Medical College's Council of Faculty and Academic Societies

Background: The Council of Faculty and Academic Societies (CFAS) comprises representatives from medical schools and professional societies who guide the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Given the AAMC's stated mission to improve diversity and inclusion, we used gender-related representation on journal editorial boards as a proxy for evaluating CFAS member societies' commitments to equity. Methods: From screenshots of journal mastheads (n = 44) collected June 3-6, 2019, individuals were categorized by editorial position. Outcome measures included numbers of men and women among faculty, deans, department chairs, physicians, and nonphysicians on editorial boards. Outcomes were compared with 2018 AAMC and US Bureau of Labor Statistics workforce data. Results: Overall, the proportion of women among journal editors was 29.0% (364 of 1,255), range 0%-53.3%. This proportion was significantly less than the proportion of women among US medical school faculty and medical scientists. The lowest percentages of women were found among journals' section or topic editors (19.2%) and editors-in-chief (20.4%). Men were significantly more likely to be a professor or department chair and women were significantly more likely to be an associate professor or assistant professor, suggesting a bidirectional process between rank and editorial position that may inhibit the advancement of academic women, particularly women physicians. Conclusions: This study revealed disparities in the equitable representation of women among CFAS member-affiliated journal editors. Because CFAS member societies participate in a mutually beneficial relationship with the AAMC, they should strive to attain the equity goals set forth by the AAMC.

Contribution of gender on compensation of Veterans Affairs-affiliated dermatologists: A cross-sectional study

Background

Gender disparity in research funding, leadership, authorship, and compensation in medicine is well documented, with most parameters favoring men over women. Gender differences in salary in dermatology have not been well studied.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the contribution of gender to dermatologists’ compensation in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.

Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted by identifying VA-affiliated dermatologists from the U.S. Department of VA website. The contributions of gender, years since graduation, h-index, academic appointment, race, and region on the publicly available salaries were analyzed using a linear-regression model to isolate the effects of gender and interaction with other variables.

Results

This study included 247 VA dermatologists with publicly available salaries (114 women and 133 men). On univariate analyses, male dermatologists had significantly higher compensation than female dermatologists (p = .0333). However, male dermatologists also had significantly more years since graduation (p < .0001) and higher h-indices (p < .0001). Multivariate analysis showed that gender was not a significant contributor to salary. Instead, years since graduation (p < .0001), h-index (p = .0066), and academic appointment (p < .0001) contributed significantly to VA dermatologists’ salaries. Region and race were not determinants of salary. Gender did not contribute to salary overall, but there was an interactive effect between gender and region (p = .0099). Compared with women, male dermatologists had significantly higher salaries in the Midwest (p < .0018).

Conclusion

Our study revealed that VA hospitals have maintained gender equality in dermatologist compensation nationally, which could serve as a model to close salary gender gaps in other health care systems. Further research should focus on inclusion of VA physicians from different specialties, as well as across multiple years, to further characterize this observation.

Gender and race trends in academic rank of dermatologists at top U.S. institutions: A cross-sectional study

Background

Despite growth in the proportion of women and underrepresented minorities in the dermatology workforce, gender and racial differences persist.

Objective

This study sought to analyze the differences in academic rank between genders and races while controlling for achievement indicators.

Methods

Data from 15 institutions, selected based on residency program rankings, were analyzed.

Results

Women were well-represented as assistant professors (60.7% vs. 37.6% of men; p < .001) and underrepresented as full professors (17.0% vs. 37.6%; p < .001). However, in a multivariable analysis controlling for career duration, publications per year, National Institutes of Health funding, and PhD degrees, neither gender (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.01; confidence interval [CI], 0.55-2.73) nor race (aOR: 1.24; CI, 0.53-2.92) was associated with a higher academic rank. Career duration (aOR: 1.24; CI, 1.18-1.30), publications per year (aOR: 1.48; CI, 1.28-1.74), and National Institutes of Health research funding (aOR: 4.29; CI, 1.53-12.88) were predictive of higher academic rank.

Conclusion

Our findings confirm that for equal levels of achievement, men and women are promoted similarly in dermatology, yet reasons for disparity in research output and funding for women and minority dermatologists need further study.

Guidelines for Editing Biomedical Journals: Recommended by Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Background:

Enormous number of medical journals published around the globe requires standardization of editing practice.

Objective:

The aim of this article was to enlist main principles of editing biomedical scientific journals adopted at annual meeting of Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia & Herzegovina (AMSB&H).

Methods:

The evidence for writing this Guideline was systematically searched for during September 2020 in the PUBMED and GOOGLE SCHOLAR databases. The inclusion criteria were: original studies, systematic reviews, invited expert opinions, guidelines and editorials. The exclusion criteria were narrative reviews and uninvited opinion articles. The retrieved evidence was analyzed by members of the AMSB&H, then discussed at 2020 annual meeting of the AMSB&H and adopted by nominal group technique.

Results:

In total 14 recommendations were made, based on A to C class of evidence. The editors should educate potential authors and instruct them how to structure their manuscript, how to write every segment of the manuscript, and take care about correct use of statistical tests. Plagiarism detection softwares should be used regularly, and statistical and technical editing should be rigorous and thorough. International standards of reporting specific types of studies should be followed, and principles of ethical and responsible behavior of editors, reviewers and authors should be published on the journal’s web site. The editors should insist on registration of clinical studies before submission, and check whether non-essential personal information is removed from the articles; when essential personal information has to be included, an article should not be published without signed informed consent by the patient to whom these information relate.

Conclusions:

Principles of editing biomedical scientific journals recommended in this guideline should serve as one of the means of improving medical journals’ quality.