Dealing with the Serious Underrepresentation of Editors from Low-income Countries

Composition of the editorial staff of major spinal journals based on geo-economic background: A survey analysis

Background

The widespread absence of papers originating in low and middle income economies (LAMIE) across various scholarly disciplines has been widely acknowledged. One potential reason for this could be editorial biases against submissions from LAMIE. Although this bias has been observed in different academic areas, its extent in spinal research remains largely uninvestigated. This research endeavored to investigate the composition of editorial staff members (ESM) within major spinal journals and scrutinize the degree of international diversity represented among the ESM.

Methods

We pinpointed ten major spinal journals by referencing their presence in the Journal Citation Reports of 2021. Countries of the ESM affiliated with these journals were categorized according to World Bank classifications. Following this, we conducted a thorough analysis of the ESM compositions.

Results

A total of 982 ESM from 50 countries were identified. The United States exhibited the highest representation among ESM (395, 40.22%), followed by South Korea (57, 5.80%), Switzerland (53, 5.40%). When segmented by geographical regions, North America emerged with the highest representation, constituting 43.38% of ESM at 426, trailed by Europe & Central Asia at 31.16% (306), East Asia & Pacific at 17.92% (175). The majority of ESM, amounting to 87.98%, hailed from high income economies (HIE). There was an absence of ESM representation of low income economies. The relationship regarding the quantity of ESM in each country and its population failed to demonstrate significance (p = 0.274, r = 0.281). However, a notable positive correlation emerged when exploring the connection between ESM numbers and gross domestic product (p = 0.033, r = 0.517).

Conclusions

Major spinal journals exhibit a notable absence of international representation within their editorial boards, predominantly comprising members from HIE. This underscores a substantial underrepresentation of ESM originating from LAMIE within the sphere of spinal investigation.

Analyzing the composition of the editorial boards in high-impact medical ethics journals: a survey study

BACKGROUND

The underrepresentation of scholarly works from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in academic literature is a documented concern, attributed partly to editorial biases. This trend, prevalent across various disciplines, has been less explored in the context of medical ethics journals. This study aimed to examine the composition of editorial board members (EBM) in high-impact medical ethics journals and to evaluate the extent of international diversity within these editorial teams.

METHODS

This study incorporated an analysis of 16 high-impact medical ethics journals. Information regarding the EBM of these journals was systematically gathered and categorized based on the World Bank's country income classifications. An in-depth examination of the editorial board compositions was then conducted.

RESULTS

The study identified 669 EBM across the selected journals. A predominant 89.84% (601) of these members were from high-income countries (HICs), with upper-middle-income countries contributing 7.47% (50) and lower-middle-income countries 2.69% (18). No EBM were associated with low-income countries. A regional breakdown indicated that North America was the most represented area, accounting for 48.88% (327), followed by Europe & Central Asia (27.50%, 184), East Asia & Pacific (13.45%, 90), Latin America & Caribbean (4.63%, 31), Sub-Saharan Africa (4.19%, 28), Middle East & North Africa (0.75%, 5), and South Asia (0.60%, 4). In total, these EBMs hailed from 46 different countries, with the United States representing the largest proportion (43.80%, 293), followed by the United Kingdom (13.15%, 88), Australia (7.92%, 53), Germany (6.73%, 45), and Canada (5.08%, 34).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant lack of international representation within the EBM of high-impact medical ethics journals. The majority of editors in this field are affiliated with HICs, leading to a severe underrepresentation of LMICs within the editorial boards.

How international are the editorial boards in the field of hand research? A cross-sectional study of leading subspecialty hand journals

BACKGROUND

Although low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have great disease burden, but the lack of studies from LMIC have been shown in several fields. Multiple researchers from LMIC perceive editorial bias against their studies. Editorial board members (EBMs) from LMIC are under-represented across many medical journals. It is still unclear whether this phenomenon exists in the field of hand research. The purpose of this study was to investigate the composition of EBMs in leading subspecialty hand journals, and to reveal the international representation of EBMs in the field of hand research.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included seven leading subspecialty hand journals. The EBMs were obtained from the journals' websites. The country affiliations of EBMs were categorized based on their locations and economy status. The composition of EBMs was investigated.

RESULTS

There were 211 EBMs in the seven journals. A total of 185 EBMs (87.7%) were affiliated with high-income countries (HIC), 18 (8.5%) with upper middle-income countries, and 8 (3.8%) with lower middle-income countries. None EBMs were affiliated with low income countries. The EBMs were affiliated with 30 countries. The biggest number of EBMs were affiliated with the USA 74 (35.07%), followed by the United Kingdom (45, 21.33%), and France (13, 6.16%). Most of EBMs were based in Europe and Central Asia (86, 40.8%) and North America (81, 38.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The EBMs of leading subspecialty hand journals are dominated by HIC with a very low representation of LMIC. There is a need to make the editorial boards more international in the field of hand research.

How international are the editorial boards in the field of foot and ankle surgery?: A STROBE-compliant cross-sectional study

Very low proportions of publications from low- and middle-income countries (LAMIC) have been proved in multiple fields. Some researchers from these countries believe that there is a biased attitude of editors against their studies. Under-representation of editorial board members from LAMIC were revealed in many research fields. However, it has not been investigated in the field of foot and ankle surgery. The current study aimed to analyze the composition of the editorial board members in leading foot and ankle journals, and to provide the international representation of editorial boards in the field of foot and ankle surgery. Five leading journals in the field of foot and ankle surgery were included. The editorial board members were collected from the official websites of these journals. The countries of board members were classified based on World Bank. The board compositions of the journals were analyzed. In total, 229 editorial board members were identified. These editors were from 29 countries. The United States (29.69%) had the greatest number of editors, followed by the United Kingdom (20.52%), Australia (8.30%), Italy (6.11%), and Germany (5.68%). When the editors were classified by regions, 49.34% of board members were from Europe & Central Asia, followed by North America (31.44%), East Asia & Pacific (14.41%), Latin America & Caribbean (2.62%), and Middle East & North Africa (2.18%). No editors were from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. A total of 217 editors (94.76%) were from high-income countries, followed by upper-middle-income countries (3.06%), and lower-middle-income countries (2.18%). No members were from low-income countries. There is a lack of international representation on editorial boards of leading foot and ankle journals. Editorial board members in the field of foot and ankle surgery are largely composed by editors from high-income countries with sever under-representation of LAMIC.

Barriers to sustainable health research leadership in the Global South: Time for a Grand Bargain on localization of research leadership?

BACKGROUND

Strong Global South (GS) health research leadership, itself both dependent on and a requisite for strong health research systems, is essential to generate locally relevant research and ensure that evidence is translated into policy and practice. Strong GS health research systems and leadership are important for health development and in turn for strong health systems. However, many GS countries struggle to produce research and to improve performance on widely used research metrics measuring productivity and reflecting leadership. Drawing on literature from a rapid review, this viewpoint paper considers the barriers to GS health research leadership and proposes strategies to address these challenges.

FINDINGS

GS researchers and institutions face numerous barriers that undermine health research leadership potential. Barriers internal to the GS include researcher-level barriers such as insufficient mentorship, limited financial incentives and time constraints. Institutional barriers include limited availability of resources, restrictive and poorly developed research infrastructures, weak collaboration and obstructive policies and procedures. Structural barriers include political will, politicization of research and political instability. External barriers relate to the nature and extent of Global North (GN) activities and systems and include allocation and distribution of funding and resources, characteristics and focus of GN-GS research collaborations, and publication and information dissemination challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Strengthening GS health research leadership requires acknowledgement of the many barriers, and adoption of mitigating measures by a range of actors at the institutional, national, regional and global levels. Particularly important are leadership capacity development integrating researcher, institutional and systems initiatives; new GN-GS partnership models emphasizing capacity exchange and shared leadership; supporting GS research communities to set, own and drive their research agendas; addressing biases against GS researchers; ensuring that GS institutions address their internal challenges; enhancing South-South collaborations; diversifying research funding flow to the GS; and learning from models that work. The time has come for a firm commitment to improving localization of research leadership, supported by adequate funding flow, to ensure strong and sustainable research systems and leadership in and from the GS. Just as the humanitarian donor and aid community adopted the Grand Bargain commitment to improve funding flow through local and national responders in times of crisis, we strongly urge the global health research community to adopt a Grand Bargain for research leadership.

Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?

A scholarly peer review is the process whereby referees scrutinize research work or a manuscript within their field of expertise and decide on its acceptability for publication in a journal or scientific proceeding. Ideally, peer review is impartial. Among the many models of peer review, the single blind is currently the most adopted model in scientific journals. The double-blind model has been claimed to decrease bias, despite some difficulty in implementation.