Editor-in-Chief Characteristics of Dermatology Journals

Dear Editor,

Editors-in-chief (EICs) hold respected leadership positions that help shape the publication landscape of their fields.A diverse editorial board can enrich the quality and diversity of the scientific literature.Investigating the factors that may influence the appointments of EICs can uncover ways for prospective editors to advance in their career.Editorial experience(65%),election by a scientific society or college (30%), and recommendations by previous editors (25%) were shown to be characteristics of EICs in medical journals and may play a role in their selection.1However, data on the demographics and research merit of the EICs among the top dermatology journals are limited.In the present study,we examined the demographics and research merit [h-index, number of publications,and total National Institutes of Health(NIH)funding) of the EICs among the top 50 dermatology journals and analyzed patterns in sex, degree, and geographic location.

In June 2020, the top 50 dermatology journals were identified using the SCImago Journal Ranking indicator.Only general and topic-specific dermatology journals were included;journals unrelated to dermatology, such as alternate specialty journals and immunology-specific journals,were excluded.The names of EICs were accessed through each journal’s editorial pages.Journal websites,institutional profile pages,and the World Wide Web were used to collect data on the EICs’ degree, academic rank,and geographic location.The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools(RePORT)and Scopus databases were used to determine NIH funding, publication numbers, and scientific impact (h-index).

The top 50 journals that met the inclusion criteria are listed in Supplementary Table 1, http://links.lww.com/JD9/A21.Among 64 EICs including 52 (81.3%) male,12(18.8%)female,42 had an MD or DO degree(35 male,7 female),15 had an MD/PhD(13 male,2 female),6 had a PhD (4 male, 2 female), and 1 had another degree(1 female).A total of 56 EICs (48 male,8 female) had an academic affiliation.Forty-nine EICs were full professors(42 male,7 female),5 were associate professors(4 male,1 female), 1 was an assistant professor (1 male), and 1 was an instructor (one male) (Table 1).Among all EICs, 32(50.0%) were from the United States (US) and 6 (9.4%)were from the United Kingdom(UK).A total of 53% of the EICs lived in the same country in which their journal was based.The US state with the most US EICs was California(n=6, 9.4%) (Table 2).

Table 1Academic background analysis among 64 Editors-in-Chief from 50 top journals in dermatology.

Table 2Geographical distribution among 64 Editors-in-Chief from 50 top journals in dermatology, n(%).

The mean h-index among all EICs was 36.5 (range, 1–96;39.0 among males,25.8 among females).The mean hindex was 37.2(37.8 among males, 34.1 among females)for EICs with an MD or DO, 38.3 (40.2 among males,26.0 among females)for those with an MD/PhD,and 30.7(45.3 among males, 1.5 among females) for those with a PhD.The mean h-index was 40.8 (41.2 among males,38.0 among females)for full professors,32.2(36.0 among males, 17.0 among females) for associate professors, and 17.6 (28.5 among males, 6.8 among females) for EICs without a current academic affiliation.

The overall mean number of publications was 310(range, 3–1,501;339.5 among males, 182.3 among females).The mean number of publications was 334.4(347.1 among males,271.0 among females)for EICs with an MD or DO,345.1(378.0 among males,131.5 among females) for those with an MD/PhD, 99.8 (147.8 among males, 4.0 among females) for those with a PhD, and 19(19.0 for a female)for those with other degrees.The mean number of publications was 362.5 (374.5 among males,290.4 among females) for full professors, 211 (242 for males, 87 for females) for associate professors, 150 (150 for a male)for assistant professors,96(96 for a male)for instructors, and 97.1 (177.5 among males, 16.8 among females) for EICs without a current academic affiliation.

The mean NIH funding amount awarded to an EIC was$2.0 million (m) (range, $0–$62.8 m;$2.2 m among males, $0.8 m among females).The mean NIH funding was $0.3 m ($0.09m among males, $1.3 m among females) for EICs with an MD or DO, $4.8 m ($5.5m among males, $0.0 m among females) for those with an MD/PhD, $7.3 m ($10.9m among males, $0.0 among females) for those with a PhD, and $0.1 m ($0.1m for a female) for those with other degrees.The mean NIH funding was$2.5 m($2.7m among males,$1.3 m among females)for full professors,$0.6 m($0.8m among males,$0.0 m among females)for associate professors,and$0.01m ($0.0 among males, $0.03 m among females) for EICs without a current academic affiliation.

The position of an EIC is an esteemed role that allows the editor to be a visionary for the journal, influence the research topics emphasized, and develop policies for an equitable peer-review process.The research metrics found among EICs included a mean h-index of 36, publication count of 310,and NIH funding of$2.0 m.We found that women comprised less than 19% of the EICs among the top 50 dermatology journals despite comprising 48.7% of the dermatology workforce and 51.0% of academic dermatologists.2-3Furthermore, we found that women had a lower h-index,number of publications,and total NIH funding than their male counterparts.

These findings suggest that there is still a gender gap in the upward leadership path, particularly within the editorial board.This corroborates prior studies that have found women to be under-represented in editorial positions while also highlighting the academic qualifications that may play a role in EIC appointment to one of the top 50 dermatology journals.4-5Previous studies have also shown that women attain fewer chair/chief departmentalpositions,receive less NIH funding,and publish as senior authors less frequently than their male counterparts.6–8Collectively, this suggests that a gender gap regarding research achievements may translate into a shortage of opportunities such as academic leadership positions and editorial board appointments for women.

A geographical disparity was also found,with about 60% of the EICs being from the US or the UK.A greater gender disparity was noted among journals based in non-US/UK countries,with only 8% of those EICs being female.

Notably, consideration for EIC appointment should go beyond objective metrics and encompass other qualitative factors such as editorial experience,leadership, vision for the journal’s content,and area of expertise aligned with the journal’s mission.Further investigations are needed to explore the factors that shape these appointments and potential strategies to reduce disparities in this process.

Limitations of this study include the reliance on editorial and institutional websites for demographic and merit information as well as restriction of the NIH funding data to only post-1985 fiscal years.

In summary,this study highlights gender and geographical disparities that are present in the EIC position among top dermatology journals.Awareness of the potential factors considered for EIC appointment can help underrepresented groups, including women and non-US/UK editors, advance in leadership roles so that these roles become more reflective of the general workforce.Appointing editorial members from diverse backgrounds, disciplines, and countries can also offer new perspectives within the field and provide additional role models for emerging researchers.