Editors-in-Chief of psychiatry journals may have published more articles in their own journals during their tenure compared with before or after, according to an exploratory study comparing publication patterns between psychiatry and general medicine. Psychiatry Editors-in-Chief also may have self-published more often overall compared with their medicine counterparts.
Among 25 psychiatry Editors-in-Chief (EIC), the mean number of self-published articles per year was about 1.5 during tenure compared with less than 1 before and following tenure. Among 22 medicine EICs, the averages remained below 1 across all periods. Psychiatry EICs self-published nearly five times more compared with medicine EICs. The highest publication frequency occurred during tenure for both groups, but the increase was more pronounced in psychiatry.
The investigators analyzed publication records from 14 major journals. The psychiatry titles included Acta Neuropsychiatrica, the American Journal of Psychiatry, Biological Psychiatry, the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, and Neuropsychopharmacology. The general medicine journals were the American Journal of Medicine, the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine.
A total of 47 EICs—25 from psychiatry and 22 from general medicine—were evaluated. Publication data were obtained from PubMed for three time frames: 5 years prior to tenure, the years of tenure, and 5 years following tenure. Only peer-reviewed research and review articles were included; editorials, commentaries, and letters were excluded. Publication frequency was standardized to articles per year to account for differences in tenure length. Statistical analysis revealed statistically significant differences by journal type and tenure period.
The study was limited by its small sample size, uneven journal representation, and subjective selection of titles. Publisher policies on EIC submissions also varied across the 1990 to 2022 period. Because PubMed was the sole database used, some publications may not have been captured. The results may not be generalizable beyond psychiatry and medicine or to journals in other languages and regions.
The investigators stated that while psychiatry EICs published more often in their own journals during their tenure, the findings didn't demonstrate misconduct. Instead, the pattern highlighted the importance of maintaining impartial peer-review practices and transparency in editorial decision-making. The investigators noted that modern publishing standards increasingly require editors to recuse themselves from handling their own submissions and to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
The discussion also referenced past instances of self-publication misuse and evolving publisher safeguards, emphasizing how editorial oversight has strengthened across major journals since the 1990s. The investigators further noted that the rise of artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation demands heightened vigilance to preserve editorial integrity and prevent bias in peer review. They added that broader comparative studies across more medical specialties and editorial board roles are needed to better understand trends in editor-authorship and ensure the effectiveness of emerging transparency policies.
“As both gatekeepers and contributors to the literature, EICs must scrutinize the work of others while also self-policing their own contributions,” said senior study author Robert T. Rubin, MD, of the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.
The investigators noted that such safeguards, now standard among major publishers, are essential to sustaining trust and accountability in academic publishing.
The authors reported no funding and no conflicts of interest related to this study.
Source: Accountability in Research
