Behind the scenes: exploring neurological journal editors' work habits, decisions, and potential sources of conflict of interest.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Editors of scientific journals play a key role in the health-related research process. Our study aims to characterize the demographics, work habits, decision-making processes, and ethical challenges faced by editors of neurological journals and to evaluate associations between editor or journal characteristics and editorial decisions, as well as sources of conflict of interest.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study involving editors from neurological journals that fell above the 50th percentile in the Scimago rankings. Editors were invited to complete a 16-item anonymous online survey. Data on demographics, editorial processes, decision-making, and ethical issues were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

64 editors completed the survey (35.94% were aged 55-65 years, 68.75% had over 7 years of experience); journals' impact factors(IF) ranged from 1 to 10 (mean 3.412 ± 0.260). When reviewers were blinded to authors, editors relied more on reviewers' decisions (p = < 0.007). Editors with more years of experience relied less on reviewers' decisions (p = 0.009). Higher IF journals were associated with more frequent conflicts of interest between authors (p = 0.019) and reviewers (p = 0.033). Younger editors faced more ethical dilemmas related to scientific conduct and plagiarism (p = 0.008 and p = 0.016). Younger editors and those working for journals with higher IF were more likely to face ethical dilemmas related to editorial decisions (p = 0.016 and p = 0.042).

DISCUSSION

The study highlights relevant aspects of the editorial process in neurological journals, emphasizing the influence of blinding procedures and the inconsistent handling of decision-making and ethical challenges. Addressing these issues through collaboration and standardized guidelines can promote the integrity of the process, ensuring high-quality and trustworthy scientific research.