» Articles » PMID: 21545706

Representation of Less-developed Countries in Pharmacology Journals: an Online Survey of Corresponding Authors

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2011 May 7
PMID 21545706
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Scientists from less-developed countries (LDC) perceive that it is difficult to publish in international journals from their countries. This online survey was conducted with the primary aim of determining the opinion of corresponding authors of published papers in international Pharmacology journals regarding the difficulties in publications and their possible solutions.

Methods: The titles of all Pharmacology journals were retrieved from Pubmed. 131 journals were included in study. The latest issue of all journals was reviewed thoroughly. An online survey was conducted from the corresponding authors of the published papers who belonged to LDC.

Results: 584 out 1919 papers (30.4%) originated from the LDC. 332 responses (response rate; 64.5%) were received from the authors. Approximately 50% the papers from LDC were published in journals with impact factor of less than 2. A weak negative correlation (r = -0.236) was observed between journal impact factor and the percentage of publications emanating from LDC. A significant majority of the corresponding authors (n = 254; 76.5%) perceived that it is difficult to publish in good quality journals from their countries. According to their opinion, biased attitude of editors and reviewers (64.8%) is the most important reason followed by the poor writing skills of the scientists from LDC (52.8%). The authors thought that well-written manuscript (76.1%), improvement in the quality of research (69.9%) and multidisciplinary research (42.9%) are important determinants that may improve the chances of publications.

Conclusions: The LDC are underrepresented in publications in Pharmacology journals. The corresponding authors of the published articles think that biased attitude of the editors as well as the reviewers of international journals and the poor writing skills of scientists are the major factors underlying the non-acceptance of their results. They also think that the improvement in the writing skills and quality of research will increase the chances of acceptance of their works in international journals.

Citing Articles

Composition of the editorial staff of major spinal journals based on geo-economic background: A survey analysis.

Jia Z, Liu D, Li X, Wen T, Zhao X, Li W Heliyon. 2024; 10(7):e28541.

PMID: 38689993 PMC: 11059504. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28541.


Analyzing the composition of the editorial boards in high-impact medical ethics journals: a survey study.

Jia Z, Liu D, Li X, Wen T, Zhao X, Li W BMC Med Ethics. 2024; 25(1):13.

PMID: 38311761 PMC: 10840243. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-024-01006-2.


Underrepresentation of Low- and Middle-Income Nations in Ophthalmology Journals: A Critical Analysis on Diversity, Equity, and Global Representation.

Ramos-Davila E, Dominguez-Varela I, Ruiz-Lozano R, Villagomez-Valdez L, Lopez-Zuniga D, Lopez-Cabrera M Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2023; 12(10):9.

PMID: 37831444 PMC: 10587850. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.12.10.9.


Poor Representation of Developing Countries in Editorial Boards of Leading Obstetrics and Gynaecology Journals.

Rawat S, Mathe P, Unnithan V, Kumar P, Abhishek K, Praveen N Asian Bioeth Rev. 2023; 15(3):241-258.

PMID: 37399006 PMC: 9902818. DOI: 10.1007/s41649-023-00241-w.


International representation of authors, editors and research in neurology journals.

Bojanic T, Tan A BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21(1):57.

PMID: 33752585 PMC: 7983200. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01250-9.


References
1.
Yousefi-Nooraie R, Shakiba B, Mortaz-Hejri S . Country development and manuscript selection bias: a review of published studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6:37. PMC: 1550721. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-37. View

2.
Bould M, Boet S, Riem N, Kasanda C, Sossou A, Bruppacher H . National representation in the anaesthesia literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited anaesthesia journals. Anaesthesia. 2010; 65(8):799-804. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06424.x. View

3.
Garfield E . Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science. 1972; 178(4060):471-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.178.4060.471. View

4.
Mendis S, Yach D, Bengoa R, Narvaez D, Zhang X . Research gap in cardiovascular disease in developing countries. Lancet. 2003; 361(9376):2246-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13753-1. View

5.
Garfield E . The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006; 295(1):90-3. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.1.90. View