Introduction
What is new?
Key finding- •
Most editors have training in medical editing topics and see publication ethics issues regularly, but their knowledge of common publication topics appears to be poor.
What this adds to what was known?- •
Prior studies have profiled medical editors on varying measures, such as scientific eminence and expertise, practices and policies, editorial training and experience, and editorial needs. This study provides the first update about medical editors since 1998, surveying their demographics, training, experience, industry ties, views on publication ethics, and involvement with scientific publication organizations.
What is the implication, what should change now?- •
Further study is needed to determine the role and efficacy of formal training for medical editors. In addition, a clearer single set of uniform guidelines for scientific publication ethics may be needed.
The advancement of medical knowledge occurs by means of original research, which is evaluated for publication by medical journals. The key figures in this process are the medical editors and the peer reviewers who judge the relevance and merit of the research findings. The editor in chief heads this process, making the final decisions about manuscript publication, and also sets the journal policies. Because editors in chief influence medical science through their decisions, it is important that we know who they are, how they have been trained, their potential sources of conflict of interest (COI), and their level of expertise in scientific publication.
To our knowledge (based on a PubMed search using combinations of keywords “editors,” “medical,” and “journals,” as well as exploration of PubMed’s suggested related citations and the references of relevant articles), there have not been any similar studies done since Garrow et al. [1] characterized medical editors in chief in 1998. Much has changed in the medical literature since 1998. There has been remarkable growth of the number of MEDLINE citations from 434,000 in 1999 [2] to 671,904 in 2008 [3]. Open access journals have become more prevalent. The use of the Internet has expanded medical journals in terms of journal accessibility, providing supplemental data, and presenting research in new formats, as well as increasing the number of international journals and making publication possible with fewer resources than in the past. Data presentation and publication ethics standards have progressed. Biomedical science is advancing. Because of all these changes, the role of the medical editor is changing as well.
This goal in this study was to characterize the current editors of the medical journals that have the largest influence on the medical literature based on citation rates. We chose to focus on clinical medical journals because they change the practice of medicine and directly impact millions of patients. Also, potential conflicts of interest may be more frequent in clinical journals because of the study of commercial products, such as pharmaceuticals and devices. Additionally, we attempted to replicate the Garrow et al. [1] study because it also examined the demographics, training, and experience of similar editors in chief. Our hope was to compare changes over time and to address additional topics such as editors’ industry ties, their knowledge of publication ethics issues, and their involvement with scientific publication organizations.
