Skip to main content

Table 6 Editors and staff

From: Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison

  

Predatory, N = 93, n (%)

Open Access, N = 99, n (%)

Subscription-based, N = 100, n (%)

Named Editor-in-Chief

Yes

71 (76.34)

82 (82.83)

91 (91.00)

Formal editorial board named

Yes

60 (64.52)

92 (92.93)

72 (72.00)

If yes, number of members (median, IQR)

23 (14–37)

32.5 (22–50)

27.5 (16.5–62)

Composition of journal staff

Managing/handling editor

22 (23.66)

18 (18.18)

41 (41.00)

Associate editor

30 (32.26)

47 (47.47)

68 (68.00)

Academic editor

0 (0)

0 (0)

1(1.00)

Statistical editor

2 (2.15)

4 (4.04)

20 (20.00)

Editorial staff

8 (8.60)

7 (7.07)

19 (19.00)

Othera

43 (46.24)

45 (45.45)

75 (75.00)

None of the above

26 (27.96)

24 (24.24)

3 (3.00)

Validity checkb,c

Legitimate

24/90 (26.67)

95/98 (96.94)

97/97 (100.00)

False/made up

41/90 (45.56)

2/98 (2.04)

1/97 (1.03)

Used without permission

66/90 (73.33)

2/98 (2.04)

1/97 (1.03)

Institutional affiliation indicatedc

Editor-in-Chief

40/71 (56.33)

71/82 (86.59)

57/91 (62.64)

Editors/staff

42/67 (62.69)

56/75 (74.67)

48/97 (49.48)

Editorial board members

48/60 (80.00)

81/92 (88.04)

31/72 (43.06)

  1. a163 different terms were described, e.g., Editorial office, co-editors, editor(s), deputy editors, acting editor, acting deputy editor, assistant managing editor
  2. bAssessors were asked to perform a Google search of the Editor-in-Chief and two other randomly selected editors/staff/board members along with their affiliation (if provided) and make a subjective assessment of whether the names appear to be legitimate, false/made up, used without permission. Assessments were based on searches through online profiles (i.e., LinkedIn, faculty bio, etc.) for mention of journal affiliation; categories not distinct since judgments based on multiple editors
  3. cDenominator of fractions indicates the number of journals where the variable concerned was relevant