Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 7, 2025

Author Spotlight: Biological Standardization to Ensure Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research
Published on: August 4, 2023
Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their
Brendon Sen-Crowe1, Mason Sutherland1, Adam Shir1
1Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Kendall Regional Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA.
Background:
Physician scientists who are also Editorial Board members or Associate Editors may prefer publishing in their own journal and therefore create an environment for conflicts of interest to arise.
Objectives:
To assess the relationship between the number of peer-reviewed publications in surgical journals in which authors serve as Editorial Board Members and Associate Editors and their total number of annual publications.
Materials And Methods:
A cross-sectional study utilizing PubMed was performed regarding the total annual number of peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and the number published in their respective affiliated journals from 2016 to 2019. Significance defined as p < 0.05.
Results:
80 Associate Editors and 721 Editorial Board Members (n = 801 total) were analyzed from 10 surgical journals. The mean number of total annual peer-reviewed publications varied from 5.19 to 17.18. The mean number of annual peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals varied from 0.06 to 2.53. Multiple significant associations were discovered between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications and number of peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals for all authors/surgical journals evaluated, except for the International Journal of Surgery (p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
We found significant associations between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and number of annual peer-reviewed publications by their affiliated surgical journals. The implementation and enforcement of a standardized double-blind review process and mandatory reporting of any potential conflicts of interest can reduce possible bias and promote a fair and high-quality peer-review process.
More Related Videos
05:41Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Ligation for Ischemia-Reperfusion Research: Model Improvement via Technical Modifications and Quality Control
Published on: December 16, 2022
07:57Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Related Concept Videos
The Scientific Method
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...
Types of Selection
Tissues
Proofreading
Cross-reactivity
Altruism