All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

PLOS ONE  2008 

Relationship between Quality and Editorial Leadership of Biomedical Research Journals: A Comparative Study of Italian and UK Journals

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002512

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


Background The quality of biomedical reporting is guided by statements of several organizations. Although not all journals adhere to these guidelines, those that do demonstrate “editorial leadership” in their author community. To investigate a possible relationship between editorial leadership and journal quality, research journals from two European countries, one Anglophone and one non-Anglophone, were studied and compared. Quality was measured on a panel of bibliometric parameters while editorial leadership was evaluated from journals' instructions to authors. Methodology/Principal Findings The study considered all 76 Italian journals indexed in Medline and 76 randomly chosen UK journals; only journals both edited and published in these countries were studied. Compared to UK journals, Italian journals published fewer papers (median, 60 vs. 93; p = 0.006), less often had online archives (43 vs. 74; p<0.001) and had lower median values of impact factor (1.2 vs. 2.7, p<0.001) and SCImago journal rank (0.09 vs. 0.25, p<0.001). Regarding editorial leadership, Italian journals less frequently required manuscripts to specify competing interests (p<0.001), authors' contributions (p = 0.005), funding (p<0.001), informed consent (p<0.001), ethics committee review (p<0.001). No Italian journal adhered to COPE or the CONSORT and QUOROM statements nor required clinical trial registration, while these characteristics were observed in 15%–43% of UK journals (p<0.001). At multiple regression, editorial leadership predicted 37.1%–49.9% of the variance in journal quality defined by citation statistics (p<0.0001); confounding variables inherent to a cross-cultural comparison had a relatively small contribution, explaining an additional 6.2%–13.8% of the variance. Conclusions/Significance Journals from Italy scored worse for quality and editorial leadership than did their UK counterparts. Editorial leadership predicted quality for the entire set of journals. Greater appreciation of international initiatives to improve biomedical reporting may help low-quality journals achieve higher status.


[1]  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication, revised February 2006. Available: Accessed 2008 Jan 8.
[2]  Council of Science Editors. Editorial policy statements. Available: Accessed 2008 Jan 8.
[3]  Committee on Publication Ethics. Guidelines on good publication practice. Available: Accessed 2008 Jan 8.
[4]  Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG for the CONSORT Group (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357: 1191–1194.
[5]  Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, et al. (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354: 1896–1900.
[6]  De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, et al. (2004) Clinical trials registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 351: 1250–1251.
[7]  Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, et al. (2001) Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Ann Intern Med 135(6): 463–466.
[8]  Altman DG, Simera I, Hoey J, Moher D, Schulz K (2007) EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research. Lancet 371: 1149–1150.
[9]  Schriger DL, Arora S, Altman DG (2006) The content of medical journal instructions to authors. Ann Emerg Med 48(6): 743–749.
[10]  European Commission (2000) Towards a European research area. Science, technology and innovation key figures 2000. Office for Publications of the European Communities, Brussels, ISBN 92-828-9755-9. Available: Accessed 2008 Jan 8.
[11]  Wagner CS, Brahmakulam IT, Jackson BA, Wong A, Yoda T (2001) Science & technology collaboration: building capacity in developing countries? RAND, Santa Monica, document no. MR-1357.0-WB. Available: Accessed 2008 Jan 7.
[12]  Scuderi G, Guidoni L, Rosmini F, Petrini C (2004) La normativa sulla protezione dei soggetti partecipanti a studi clinici in Italia: dagli anni Novanta al 2004. Ann Ist Super Sanità 40(4): 495–507.
[13]  Soteriades ES, Falagas ME (2005) Comparison of the amount of biomedical research originating from the European Union and the United States. BMJ 331: 192–195.
[14]  European Commission (2007) Key figures 2007. Towards a European research area, science, technology and innovation. Office for Publications of the European Communities, Brussels, ISBN 92-79-03450-2. Available: Accessed 2008 Jan 8.
[15]  Abbott A (2006) Saving Italian science. Nature 440: 264–265.
[16]  Becker SO, Ichino A, Peri G (2003) How large is the “brain drain” from Italy? Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research (CESIFO), working paper, no. 839. Available: Accessed 2008 Jan 8.
[17]  Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE (2008) Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J. Apr 11 [Epub ahead of print].
[18]  Ancker JS, Flanagin A (2007) A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines. Sci Eng Ethics 13: 147–157.
[19]  Wager E (2007) Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? Med Gen Med 9(3): 16.
[20]  Ugolini D, Garrucciu R (2005) Low impact factor of Italian journals: another aspect of the poor research funding? Eur J Cancer 41: 485–488.
[21]  Ugolini D, Casilli C (2003) The visibility of Italian journals. Scientometrics 56(3): 345–355.
[22]  Habibzadeh F (2006) Impact of mandatory registration of clinical trials on small medical journals: scenario on emerging bias. Croat Med J 47: 181–182.
[23]  Marusic M, Misak A, Kljakovic-Gaspic M, Fister K, Hren D, Marusic A (2004) Producing a scientific journal in a small scientific community: an author-helpful policy. Int Microbiol 7(2): 143–147.
[24]  Schroter S, Plowman R, Hutchings A, Gonzalez A (2006) Reporting ethics committee approval and patient consent by study design in five general medical journals. J Med Ethics 32: 718–723.
[25]  King DA (2004) The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430: 311–316.
[26]  Falagas M, Michalopoulos AS, Bliziotis IA, Soteriadeso ES (2006) A bibliometric analysis by geographic area of published research in several biomedical fields, 1995–2003. CMAJ 175(11): 1389–1390.
[27]  Mela GS, Martinoli C, Poggi E, Derchi LE (2003) Radiological research in Europe: a bibliometric study. Eur Radiol 13: 657–662.
[28]  Horton R (2003) Medical journals: evidence of bias against the diseases of poverty. Lancet 361: 712–713.
[29]  Habibzadeh F (2005) Regional associations of medical journal editors: moving from rhetoric to reality. Bull World Health Org 83(6): 404–405.
[30]  Orofi-Adjei D, Antes G, Tharyan P, Slade E, Tamber PS (2006) Have online international medical journals made local journals obsolete? PLoS Med 3(8): e359.
[31]  Marusic A, Misak A, Kljakovic-Gaspic M, Marusic M (2002) Educatione ad excelentiam–ten years of the Croatian Medical Journal. Croat Med J 43(1): 1–7.
[32]  Pescatori M (2000) About the societies. Tech Coloproctol 4: 127.
[33]  Negrini S (2007) Europa Medicophysica, the European and Mediterranean evidence-based clinical journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine. Eura Medicophys 43: 299–301.
[34]  Marusic A, Marusic M (1999) Small scientific journals from small countries: breaking from a vicious circle of inadequacy. Croat Med J 40(4): 508–514.
[35]  Marusic M, Marusic A (2001) Good editorial practice: editors as educators. Croat Med J 42(2): 113–120.


comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us


微信:OALib Journal