Editors of medical journals: Who and from where
- 208 Downloads
The representation of scientists from different countries in the editorial boards of the most influential journals from 48 fields of biomedical and clinical research was studied. Scientists from the USA were best represented, followed by scientists from the UK, FRG, Switzerland, Japan, Sweden, Canada, The Netherlands and Italy. The scientifically most productive countries provided most of the editors. For Dutch editors a strong correlation was found between the number of editorships held and the number of papers authored or measures of scientific eminence. Conceivably, scientific productivity and eminence may be important reasons for being asked as an editor. However, national biases play a role too in the composition of editorial boards.
KeywordsJapan Strong Correlation Clinical Research Medical Journal Scientific Productivity
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.S. ZSINDELY, A. SCHUBERT, T. BRAUN, Editorial gatekeeping patterns in international science journals, A new science indicator,Scientometrics, 4 (1983) 57–68.Google Scholar
- 2.S. ZSINDELY, A. SCHUBERT, T. BRAUN, Citation patterns of editorial gatekeepers in international chemistry journals,Scientometrics, 4 (1983) 69–76.Google Scholar
- 3.T. BRAUN, E. BUJDOSO, Gatekeeping patterns in the publication of analytical chemistry research,Talanta, 20 (1983) 161–167.Google Scholar
- 4.E. GARFIELD,Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1979.Google Scholar
- 5.P. R. Mc ALLISTER R. C. ANDERSON, F. NARIN, Comparison of peer and citation assessment of the influence of scientific journals,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 31 (1980) 147–152.Google Scholar
- 6.J. D. FRAME, F. NARIN, The international distribution of biomedical publications,Federation Proceedings, 36 (1977) 1790–1795.Google Scholar
- 7.E. GARFIELD, The 1000 contemporary scientist most-cited 1965–1978 Part I. The basic list and introduction,Current Contents, No. 41 (1981) 5–14.Google Scholar
- 8.R. CRANDALL, How qualified are editors?American Psychologist, (1977) 578–579.Google Scholar