نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه مدیریت اطلاعات، مؤسسه استنادی پایش علم و فناوری جهان اسلام (ISC)، شیراز، ایران.
2 دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز
3 گروه پزشکی اجتماعی و خانواده. مرکز تحقیقات طب پیشگیری و سلامت جمعیت. پژوهشکده پیشگیری از آسیب های اجتماعی. دانشکده پزشکی. دانشگاه
4 گروه علم اطلاعات و دانششناسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران.
5 گروه مهندسی برق و کامپیوتر، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، کرج، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Purpose:
This study examines Editorial Board Interlocking (EBI) in primary healthcare journals. EBI refers to situations in which the same individuals simultaneously serve on the editorial boards of multiple academic journals. Such arrangements may influence editorial independence, peer-review processes, intellectual diversity, and the concentration of decision-making power within scholarly publishing. Editorial interlocking can also shape governance mechanisms by reinforcing institutional hierarchies and limiting the circulation of diverse perspectives. The main objective of this research is to analyze editors’ social networks, their interconnectedness, and emerging relational structures using scientometric indicators such as Impact Factor (IF) and journal Quartile (Q). By focusing on primary healthcare journals, this study addresses a gap in the literature regarding editorial governance and network-based power structures in this field.
Methodology:
This applied study employed Social Network Analysis (SNA) combined with scientometric methods. The research population consisted of English-language primary healthcare journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2022. Initially, nineteen journals were identified. After excluding the non-English journal Atención Primaria and accounting for the renaming of BMC Family Practice to BMC Primary Care, seventeen journals were included in the final sample. Data were collected on editors’ gender, academic rank, institutional affiliation, and editorial roles, including editor-in-chief, associate editor, and editorial board member. Information was obtained from official journal websites, university webpages, and academic databases such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Scopus. To identify EBI, individuals serving on multiple editorial boards were mapped across journals, with manual verification used to reduce name ambiguity. The editorial network was modeled as a bipartite graph consisting of individuals and journals as nodes. Degree, closeness, and betweenness centrality measures were calculated to assess structural positions and influence. Pajek was used for data preparation and matrix construction, UCINET for quantitative network analysis and statistical testing, and NetDraw for visualization. Scientometric indicators, including Impact Factor, five-year Impact Factor, total citations, total articles, Eigenfactor score, and article influence score, were extracted from the JCR database. Spearman’s rank correlation was applied to examine relationships between EBI and scientometric indicators, and the Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare journals with high and low EBI levels.
Findings:
Across the seventeen journals, 482 editorial positions were identified, held by 373 unique individuals. Of these, 196 were female (40.7%) and 286 were male (59.3%). Professors represented the largest academic group (31.3%), followed by researchers (21%), associate professors (17.6%), assistant professors (11.8%), instructors (5.8%), and retired professors (5.2%). Q3 journals accounted for the highest proportion of editorial positions (26.1%), followed by Q2 (25.1%), Q1 (16.8%), and Q4 journals (16.4%). Physician and Sports Medicine had the largest editorial network with 87 collaborators, reflecting comparatively large editorial boards in some Q3 journals. SNA revealed the presence of EBI across all seventeen journals. Nine individuals served on two or more editorial boards, forming 49 organizational connections. At the individual level, Jean K. Soler, Sarina Schrager, Christy J. W. Ledford, and Dean A. Seehusen showed the highest degree centrality. John Furler demonstrated the highest closeness centrality, followed by Joel J. Heidelbaugh, Peter Haastrup, and Filipe Prazeres. Mark H. Ebell and Dean A. Seehusen recorded the highest betweenness centrality, indicating their intermediary roles within the network. At the journal level, BMC Primary Care exhibited the highest degree centrality, while Family Practice and BMC Primary Care shared the highest betweenness centrality values. Seven journals had identical closeness centrality scores. Network visualization revealed a dense core of interconnected nodes surrounded by sparsely connected peripheral actors, consistent with a core–periphery structure. Spearman’s correlation analysis identified weak but statistically significant negative relationships between EBI and Impact Factor (ρ = −0.108, p = 0.031) and between EBI and journal quartile (ρ = −0.107, p = 0.042). No significant associations were found between EBI and total citations, H-index, or article output. The Mann–Whitney U test showed that journals with higher EBI levels had significantly lower median Impact Factor values (U = 45.5, p = 0.028).
Conclusion:
The findings indicate that Editorial Board Interlocking is a prevalent feature of primary healthcare journals, with only one journal outside the interlocking network. This pattern reflects a concentration of editorial influence in publication decision-making. The negative relationships observed between EBI and journal performance indicators, including Impact Factor and Quartile, contrast with results reported in other disciplines, suggesting that EBI does not necessarily enhance journal quality in primary healthcare. The absence of significant associations between EBI and individual scholarly metrics indicates that interlocking is shaped more by structural characteristics and a limited pool of experts than by research productivity. While EBI may facilitate the transfer of editorial experience and standardized practices, it also poses risks such as closed editorial networks, potential conflicts of interest, and reduced intellectual diversity. The study therefore recommends limiting editorial interlocking, promoting gender and geographic diversity, and requiring transparency through the disclosure of EBI-related information.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)