Global disparities and data transparency in editorial boards of prominent Internal medicine journals including allied super specialities: A wake-up call.

Jasmeet Singh, Pratyush Kumar, Abhishek Kumar
{"title":"Global disparities and data transparency in editorial boards of prominent Internal medicine journals including allied super specialities: A wake-up call.","authors":"Jasmeet Singh, Pratyush Kumar, Abhishek Kumar","doi":"10.20529/IJME.2025.045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Global healthcare research suffers from inequalities, favouring high-income countries, which hampers fair healthcare access. Low and lower-middle-income nations face limited participation and editorial bias, posing concerns for research integrity. Potential reasons for this pattern might be the overrepresentation of researchers from the Global North on editorial boards, disparities in the quality of scientific research, lack of support for local research initiatives, and challenges posed by language barriers. The aim of this study was to assess data transparency and representation patterns of low- and lower-middle-income nations on Editorial Boards of prominent Internal Medicine journals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The top 50 journals in the \"Internal medicine including allied super specialities\" subject category were selected based on SCImago journal ranking, journal impact factor, literature research and journal citation report. We examined the editorial boards of these journals using the World Bank Income Criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 2406 editorial board members of leading journals, only 5(0.21%) were from low-income countries (LICs), while lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) and upper-middle- income countries (UMICs) constituted 64(2.67%) and 176(7.31%), respectively. High-income countries (HICs) dominated editorial boards, with 2161(89.8%) representation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Editorial boards of top Internal Medicine and allied super-specialty journals lack adequate representation from low and lower-middle-income countries. This deficiency has significant implications, affecting knowledge production, policy development, and the overall progress of science and research on a global scale. Urgent measures are required to establish a fair and inclusive scholarly publishing system that caters to researchers from all regions.</p>","PeriodicalId":517372,"journal":{"name":"Indian journal of medical ethics","volume":"X 4","pages":"278-287"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian journal of medical ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2025.045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Global healthcare research suffers from inequalities, favouring high-income countries, which hampers fair healthcare access. Low and lower-middle-income nations face limited participation and editorial bias, posing concerns for research integrity. Potential reasons for this pattern might be the overrepresentation of researchers from the Global North on editorial boards, disparities in the quality of scientific research, lack of support for local research initiatives, and challenges posed by language barriers. The aim of this study was to assess data transparency and representation patterns of low- and lower-middle-income nations on Editorial Boards of prominent Internal Medicine journals.

Methods: The top 50 journals in the "Internal medicine including allied super specialities" subject category were selected based on SCImago journal ranking, journal impact factor, literature research and journal citation report. We examined the editorial boards of these journals using the World Bank Income Criteria.

Results: Out of 2406 editorial board members of leading journals, only 5(0.21%) were from low-income countries (LICs), while lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) and upper-middle- income countries (UMICs) constituted 64(2.67%) and 176(7.31%), respectively. High-income countries (HICs) dominated editorial boards, with 2161(89.8%) representation.

Conclusion: Editorial boards of top Internal Medicine and allied super-specialty journals lack adequate representation from low and lower-middle-income countries. This deficiency has significant implications, affecting knowledge production, policy development, and the overall progress of science and research on a global scale. Urgent measures are required to establish a fair and inclusive scholarly publishing system that caters to researchers from all regions.

包括联合超级专业在内的著名内科期刊编委会的全球差异和数据透明度:一个警钟。
背景:全球医疗保健研究存在不平等现象,有利于高收入国家,这阻碍了公平获得医疗保健。低收入和中低收入国家面临有限的参与和编辑偏见,这对研究的完整性提出了担忧。这种模式的潜在原因可能是来自全球北方的研究人员在编辑委员会中的比例过高、科学研究质量的差异、缺乏对当地研究计划的支持以及语言障碍带来的挑战。本研究的目的是评估中低收入国家在著名内科期刊编委会的数据透明度和代表性模式。方法:根据SCImago期刊排名、期刊影响因子、文献研究和期刊被引报告等指标,评选出“内科及相关超级专业”学科类别排名前50位的期刊。我们使用世界银行收入标准检查了这些期刊的编辑委员会。结果:2406名主要期刊编委会成员中,低收入国家仅有5人(0.21%),中低收入国家64人(2.67%),中高收入国家176人(7.31%)。高收入国家(HICs)在编辑委员会中占主导地位,有2161个(89.8%)代表。结论:顶级内科和相关超级专业期刊的编辑委员会缺乏来自低收入和中低收入国家的足够代表。这一缺陷具有重大意义,影响了全球范围内的知识生产、政策制定和科学研究的总体进展。迫切需要采取措施,建立一个公平和包容的学术出版体系,以满足所有地区的研究人员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书