Abstract
Introduction While some medical specialties have examined the effect of editorial board membership on the likelihood of manuscript publication, this has been minimally studied in dermatology. We investigated the publication patterns of 67 editorial board members at three leading dermatology journals to identify any discernible patterns between editorial board membership and publication rates. Materials and methods Using Scopus, Elsevier’s author search tool, we identified editorial board members who served continuously over a three-year period between January 2019 and December 2021 at JAMA Dermatology (JAMA Derm), the British Journal of Dermatology (BJD), and the Journal of the Academy of Dermatology (JAAD). All data are from publicly available sources. Results The mean difference in the number of publications within a member’s own journal compared to those published in the other top two journals was significantly higher for JAAD (8.6 [95% CI 2.0 to 15.2]; P = 0.013) and BJD (4.3 [95% CI, 2.3 to 6.2]; P = 1.4E-05), but not for JAMA Derm (-3.8 [95% CI, -1.53 to 9.0]; P= 0.07). The mean difference in the percent of total publications appearing in a member’s own journal compared to the percent appearing in the other top two journals was significantly higher for JAAD (30.5% [95% CI, 17% to 44%]; P = 0.00016) and BJD (17.0% [95% CI, 9.2% to 24.7%]; P = 6.7E-05), but not for JAMA Derm (-6.3% [95% CI, -15.7% to 3.1%]; P = 0.18). Discussion Although we make no claims about irregular practices, the role of editorial board members as “gatekeepers” of publication can lead to allegations of potential bias, favoritism, and conflicts of interest. The high proportion of in-journal publications for editorial board members of JAAD and BJD is, therefore, worth further consideration. Conclusion These results may indicate that reflection on the manuscript review and publication process is warranted to ensure equity and inclusivity. Some limitations of this study include the short time interval of three years, the inclusion of only three journals, and the lack of established causation. Further examination of editorial review and publication practices should be undertaken.