Gender and Geographical Representation on Editorial Board Members of Medical Informatics Journals.

Previous work has suggested that gender and geographical distribution (affiliation) of Editors-in-Chief (EiC) and Editorial Board (EB) members are inequitable in representation of scientific communities, and could benefit from increasing diversity of representation. Specifically, previous studies suggest that male and ethnically white (or non-minoritized groups) are overrepresented. Such differences in representation may potentially influence the scientific and scholarly record. This paper aims to build on pre-existing literature by examining the diversity of representation among EiCs and EB members in the top (Q1) journals in the "Medicine-Health Informatics" category (ranked by SCImago Journal and Country Rank, or SJR) in terms of gender as assessed by genderize.io) and geographical distribution of affiliations. Preliminary findings are consistent with those of previous work on the topic: only 25% (8/32) of the EiCs in the selected journals are female, while females only represent 32.7% (426/1303) of the EB members across journals. Furthermore, the US is highly represented in EBs, with more than half of the members, i.e., 52.2% (698/1337), being US-affiliated. Present results suggest the need for an intentional approach to diversifying representation on editorial boards of medical informatics journals. Such intention can be seen as part of a call to action from important stakeholders, including medical informatics leaders and programs, journal management and publishers, and the medical informatics and scientific community more generally.

Unmasking the Process: Perils and Facilitators of Successful Publishing in Forum.

Now in my fifth year as editor, I have gained insights into the publishing process that I was not fully aware of as an author. I would like to share some of these insights and suggestions for prospective authors considering s.

Editorial: Open science and methods review for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

This editorial introduces the journal's new open data policy for original articles using quantitative data. It discusses key opportunities from data and code sharing. It further briefly sets out the new methods review that articles which use quantitative analysis will automatically undergo. With both changes we hope to strengthen our review process and contribute to a better evidence base in the field.

[Predatory journals: What are they and how to avoid them?] / Las revistas depredadoras: ¿qué son y cómo evitarlas?

Currently, a large number of predatory journals have proliferated. Their purpose is to obtain fraudulent profits by promising the rapid publication of scientific works, without fulfilling the services of quality review. These publishers have managed to copy the models of open access journals, which is why they are increasingly difficult to identify, coupled with the fact that many of them have opened spaces in the most important indexes of scientific journals, such as Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, among others. These publishers cheat not only the authors of the research they intend to publish but also the readers and general public with publications that have not been reviewed and evaluated properly by a system of peers or academic experts. Therefore, the aim of this work is to make known some of the most common practices of predatory journals, so that anyone interested in the editorial process, whether as an author, editor or reader, has the elements to identify these fraudulent journals, and this bad practice in the editorial process.

Actualmente han proliferado una gran cantidad de revistas depredadoras, cuyo fin es obtener ganancias fraudulentas mediante la promesa de la publicación rápida de trabajos científicos, sin cumplir con los servicios de una revisión de calidad. Estas editoriales han logrado copiar los modelos de las revistas con acceso abierto, por lo que cada vez son más difíciles de identificar, aunado a que muchas de ellas se han abierto espacios en los índices más importantes de las revistas científicas, como Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, entre otros. Estas editoriales defraudan no solo a los autores de las investigaciones que intentan publicar sino también a los lectores y al público en general con publicaciones que no han sido debidamente revisadas y evaluadas por un sistema de pares o expertos académicos. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de este trabajo es dar a conocer algunas de las prácticas más comunes de las revistas depredadoras para que toda persona interesada en el proceso editorial, ya sea como autor, editor o lector, tenga los elementos para identificar estas revistas fraudulentas y esta mala práctica en el proceso editorial.

Practical guide to writing cover letters and response letters for scientific journals.

Communicating with scientific journals is a central part of the publication process, yet sparsely covered in the medical literature. A cover letter to the editor(s) should always accompany new submissions, whereas response (or rebuttal) letters relate to revisions and replying to referees' comments following peer review. This review describes the two types of letters, focusing on content, style, and structure, and provides helpful tips for handling challenging reviewer scenarios.