Possible Bias in the Publication Trends of High Impact Factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology Journals -An Analysis of 5 Years' Data

Do Editorial Members of Otorhinolaryngology Journals Publish Their Own Work? An Analysis of Editorial Self-Publication Practices in Otorhinolaryngology Journals

Objective: To investigate the prevalence and other characteristics of editorial self-publication in general otorhinolaryngology journals. Methods: Among the otorhinolaryngology journals indexed in SCI-E in 2023, 12 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The editorial members of the journals were identified from the front matter of all issues published in 2023 and classified according to their editorial role. Original articles, review articles, and case reports were extracted from each journal's archives and the prevalence and other characteristics of articles published by editorial members were investigated independently by 2 authors. Results: A total of 795 editorial members were identified across 12 journals and 185 (23.3%) had at least 1 instance of editor-as-author (EAA), ranging from 11.3% to 41.5%, depending on the journal. Editorial members were listed as an EAA in 290 of the 2106 articles (13.8%), with a range of 5.7% to 54.5%. Original articles were the most common type of editorial self-publication, accounting for 71.7%, followed by review articles (17.6%) and case reports (10.7%). Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate editorial self-publishing practice in otorhinolaryngology journals and to demonstrate that the prevalence of being an EAA varies widely among otorhinolaryngology journals.

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Among Speakers, Moderators, Presenters, and Discussants at National Trauma Meetings

BACKGROUND

Official conference participants (OCPs) consisting of speakers, moderators, discussants, and presenters) with conflicts of interest (COI) could negatively influence the audience's ability to fairly evaluate information if their COI is not properly disclosed. We aim to examine the patterns of COI disclosures by OCPs and the nature and extent of financial compensation at 3 annual trauma conferences.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of COI disclosures of OCPs, in the EAST, WTA, and AAST Annual Meetings from 2016 to 2019. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was used to describe the nature and extent of financial compensation. Descriptive statistics and independent sample t-tests were performed with significance defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma: conflicts of interest ranged from 3.8 to 6.0% of OCPs. Moderators, discussants, and presenters comprised decreasing proportions disclosing COIs, whereas speakers comprised an increasing proportion. Western Trauma Association: conflicts of interest ranged from 1.3 to 6.8% of OCPs. Moderators comprised an increasing proportion whereas speakers comprised a decreasing proportion. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma: conflicts of interest ranged from 3.6 to 5.4% of OCPs. Speakers, moderators, and presenters comprised progressively decreasing proportions, whereas discussants comprised an increasing proportion. Participants who did not disclose a COI comprised the majority of payment recipients in the OPD.

CONCLUSION

Official conference participants who disclosed a COI varied between EAST, WTA, and AAST Annual Meetings from 2016 to 2019. Implementation of standardized COI disclosure policies with explicitly communicated definitions/categories can maximize the participants' understanding of the disclosure process, translate into improved COI reporting, and preserve an evidence-based environment that is free from commercial influence for physicians to teach and learn.

Higher Author Fees in Gastroenterology Journals Are Not Associated with Faster Processing Times or Higher Impact

BACKGROUND

Publications are an important component of academic careers.

AIMS

We investigated the financial costs to authors for submitting and publishing manuscripts in gastroenterology (GI) journals in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and elsewhere.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study carried out from 11/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. We used the SCImago Journal and Country Rankings site to compile a list of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to analyze. We gathered information on the journals' Hirsch indices (h indices), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Impact Factor (IF), and base countries as of 2019, processing and publication fees, open access fees, time to first decision, and time from acceptance to publication. We used t-testing and linear regression modeling to evaluate the effect of geography and journal quality metrics on processing fees and times.

RESULTS

We analyzed 97 GI journals, of which 51/97 (52.6%) were based in the US/UK while the other 46/97 (47.4%) were based elsewhere. The mean IF (5.67 vs 3.53, p = 0.08), h index (90.5 vs 41.8, p < 0.001), and SJR (1.82 vs 0.83, p < 0.001) for the US/UK journals were higher than those for non-US/UK journals. We also found that 11/51 (21.6%) of US/UK journals and 15/46 (32.6%) of non-US/UK journals had mandatory processing and publication fees. These tended to be significantly larger in the US/UK group than in the non-US/UK group (USD 2380 vs USD 1470, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Publication-related fees may preclude authors from smaller or socioeconomically disadvantaged institutions and countries from publishing and disseminating their work.

Characteristics associated with Publication of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: A 15-Year Analysis, 2004-2018

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide important data to guide clinical decisions. Publication bias may limit the applicability of RCTs because many clinical investigators prefer to submit and journals more selectively accept studies with positive results. The authors tested the hypothesis that positive RCTs published in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia were more likely to be associated with factors known to predict publication of positive versus negative RCTs in other journals. This observational study was an internet analysis of all issues of Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia from 2004-2018. Each issue was searched to identify human RCTs. The numbers of centers and enrolled patients in each RCT were tabulated. The corresponding author determined the country of origin (United States v international). A trial was "positive" or "negative" based on rejection or confirmation of the null hypothesis, respectively, for the primary outcome variable or the majority of measured outcomes if a primary outcome was not identified. The presence or absence of a hypothesis, randomization methodology, sample size calculation, and blinded research design was recorded. Registration in a public database, Consolidated Statements of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline compliance, and the source of funding also were determined. The number of citations for each RCT was determined by using Google Scholar; the citation rate was calculated as the ratio of the number of total citations and the duration in years since the trial's original publication. A total of 296 RCTs were identified, of which 58.8% reported positive results. Most RCTs were single center, relatively small, and international in origin. Total citations/RCT decreased over time, but citations/year did not. The percentage of RCTs that identified a randomization method, were registered, or followed CONSORT guidelines increased in a time-dependent manner. No differences in any factors associated with publication of RCTs were observed when positive and negative trials were compared. The Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia publishes more positive than negative RCTs, but factors that have been previously associated with RCT publication in other journals were similar between groups.