Researchers Call Out 'Nepotistic Behavior' at Biomedical Journals

Some biomedical journals may be practicing "nepotistic behavior," a new study suggested.

In a random sample of 98 journals with a disproportionate amount of publications by one author, that author was on the editorial board in 61% of cases, reported Clara Locher, PharmD, PhD, of the University of Rennes in France, and colleagues. In 26% of cases, the most prolific author was also the editor-in-chief of the journal.

"Our results underscore possible problematic relationships between authors who sit on editorial boards and decision-making editors," Locher and colleagues wrote in PLOS Biology. "Typically, publishers promote independence between authors and journals. Hyperpublished authors may see such relationships as a way to more easily reach publication thresholds for hiring, promotion, and tenure."

The researchers analyzed 5,468 biomedical journals that were active from 2015 to 2019 to identify cases of potential editorial bias. They used two metrics: percentage of papers by the most prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini Index, which measures inequality in distribution of authorship in journals.

Based on all articles published during this period, the median PPMP was 2.88% (interquartile range [IQR] 1.71-4.9%), while 5% of journals had a PPMP of 10.6% or more. The median Gini index was 0.183 (IQR 0.131-0.246), and was 0.355 for the 95th percentile.

Using the 95th percentile value, a subset of 480 journals were identified as publishing one author disproportionately. Of these journals, a random subset of 100 journals were selected for further analysis, none of which had an open peer review policy. Of these 100, 98 were reported in English.

Barely half of the more than 5,000 journals examined reported submission and acceptance dates. In journals that did report dates, papers from the most prolific authors were published with less lag time (85 days vs 107 days) from submission to publication.

"Although our findings are based solely on a subsample of journals, they provide crucial evidence that editorial decisions were not only unusually, but also selectively, fast for the favored subset of prolific authors," Locher and colleagues wrote.

In one recent high-profile case that Locher and co-authors dissected in a different study, Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, published a study on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19 in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, whose editor-in-chief, Jean-Marc Rolain, PhD, works for Raoult. The peer review process for this study took 1 day.

While the benefits of using hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID were later debunked, Raoult's study led French President Emmanuel Macron to personally visit the microbiologist.

Raoult's team also published a meta-analysis on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in New Microbes and New Infections (NMNI), whose editor-in-chief and six of the associate editors all worked for Raoult. Of 728 papers published in NMNI, Raoult co-authored 32%, while the editors who worked for Raoult co-authored 44%.

Not all prolific authors are engaging in questionable publishing practices, Locher and team noted. Some authors may just be highly productive, or may be participating in or overseeing multiple projects, they pointed out.

They called for more transparent editorial practices and endorsed reporting of nonfinancial conflicts of interest, such as editor-author relationships.

"Manipulation of individual metrics by resorting to a dedicated 'nepotistic' journal appears to be a little studied way of exploiting the system," they wrote.

Due to the quantitative nature of this study, Locher and colleagues were unable to examine the "finer points," such as the quality of articles published by prolific authors, they acknowledged.

Comment