IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v32y2023i2p228-243..html

Open Editors: A dataset of scholarly journals’ editorial board positions

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher
  • Tamara Heck
  • Kerstin Schoch

Abstract

Editormetrics analyses the role of editors of academic journals and their impact on the scientific publication system. Such analyses would best rely on open, structured, and machine-readable data about editors and editorial boards, which still remains rare. To address this shortcoming, the project Open Editors collects data about academic journal editors on a large scale and structures them into a single dataset. It does so by scraping the websites of 7,352 journals from 26 publishers (including predatory ones), thereby structuring publicly available information (names, affiliations, editorial roles, ORCID etc.) about 594,580 researchers. The dataset shows that journals and publishers are immensely heterogeneous in terms of editorial board sizes, regional diversity, and editorial role labels. All codes and data are made available at Zenodo, while the result is browsable at a dedicated website (https://openeditors.ooir.org). This dataset carries implications for both practical purposes of research evaluation and for meta-scientific investigations into the landscape of scholarly publications, and allows for critical inquiries regarding the representation of diversity and inclusivity across academia.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher & Tamara Heck & Kerstin Schoch, 2023. "Open Editors: A dataset of scholarly journals’ editorial board positions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 228-243.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:2:p:228-243.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvac037
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2009. "Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 262-272, October.
    2. Jessica Petersen & Fabian Hattke & Rick Vogel, 2017. "Editorial governance and journal impact: a study of management and business journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1593-1614, September.
    3. Laband, David N & Piette, Michael J, 1994. "Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(1), pages 194-203, February.
    4. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2020. "What Do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Economics Journals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(1), pages 195-217, March.
    5. Thomas Klebel & Stefan Reichmann & Jessica Polka & Gary McDowell & Naomi Penfold & Samantha Hindle & Tony Ross-Hellauer, 2020. "Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mingye Niu & Lingyun Situ & Jin Shi, 2026. "Collaborating with program committee members: effects on publications in leading security conferences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 131(3), pages 1827-1845, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:228-243. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    3. Lawson, Nicholas, 2023. "What citation tests really tell us about bias in academic publishing," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Ann Mari May & Mary G. McGarvey & Yana Rodgers & Mark Killingsworth, 2021. "Critiques, Ethics, Prestige and Status: A Survey of Editors in Economics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 295-318, April.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0013345 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2021. "Editorial favoritism in the field of laboratory experimental economics (RM/20/014-revised-)," Research Memorandum 005, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    7. Siganos, Antonios, 2021. "Guest editor networking in special issues," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    8. Ductor, Lorenzo & Visser, Bauke, 2022. "When a coauthor joins an editorial board," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 576-595.
    9. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 851-862, June.
    10. Shamima Yesmin & Sabiha Tasmim, 2025. "A study of editorial boards composition: a review of Q1 journals in the field of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(11), pages 6227-6251, November.
    11. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2023. "Editorial favoritism in the field of laboratory experimental economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    12. Kyle Siler & Philippe Vincent-Lamarre & Cassidy R Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2022. "Cumulative advantage and citation performance of repeat authors in scholarly journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.
    13. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Huyen Thanh T. Nguyen & Thanh-Hang Pham & Manh-Toan Ho & Minh-Hoang Nguyen, 2021. "Assessing the ideological homogeneity in entrepreneurial finance research by highly cited publications," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    14. Yen H. T. Nguyen & Tuyen Q. Tran & Dung T. Hoang & Thu M. T. Tran & Trung T. Nguyen, 2023. "Land quality, income, and poverty among rural households in the North Central Region, Vietnam," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 150-172, June.
    15. Pat Pataranutaporn & Nattavudh Powdthavee & Chayapatr Achiwaranguprok & Pattie Maes, 2025. "Can AI Solve the Peer Review Crisis? A Large Scale Cross Model Experiment of LLMs' Performance and Biases in Evaluating over 1000 Economics Papers," Papers 2502.00070, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2025.
    16. Paul W. Grimes & Charles A. Register, 1997. "Career Publications and Academic Job Rank: Evidence from the Class of 1968," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 82-92, March.
    17. Li, Sherry Xin & Wang, Shengzhe & Yang, Shuo, 2023. "What is in Local Dialects? A Field Experiment on Social Distance and Human Capital Development in Job Training," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    18. Jishnu Das & Quy-Toan Do, 2020. "US and them - The geography of academic research," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 111-114, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    19. Costanza Naguib, 2025. "Does single-blind review encourage or discourage p-hacking?," Diskussionsschriften dp2504, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    20. Joshua Aizenman & Kenneth Kletzer, 2020. "Networking, citations of academic research, and premature death," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 51-55, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    21. Basile, Vincenzo & Sorooshian, Shahryar & Pizzichini, Lucia, 2024. "A scientometrics-based journal Management framework: A strategic move," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    22. João Faria & Rajeev Goel, 2010. "Returns to networking in academia," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 103-117, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:2:p:228-243.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.