Editorial board interlocking across the social sciences: Modelling the geographic, gender, and institutional representation within and between six academic fields.
Editorial board interlocking across the social sciences: Modelling the geographic, gender, and institutional representation within and between six academic fields.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0273552
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
编辑委员会在科学知识的生产、传播和推广方面发挥着关键作用。学者在不同期刊的交叉存在，被称为编委会联锁，映射了这些治理机构之间的联系。以前关于这一主题的研究通常局限于个别学科，没有考虑到相关但不同的学术领域之间潜在的互锁的相关性。此外，虽然现有的研究指出，编辑委员会的代表性严重缺乏多样性，但它们主要侧重于单一层面，如性别或地域。这项研究解决了这些知识差距，提供了一个复杂的跨学科的方法，编辑委员会的地理，性别和机构组成，特别强调内和领域之间的编辑委员会联锁。我们使用图形和社会网络分析来检查281个顶级期刊之间的编辑委员会连接（13，084名成员和17，092个连接）六个学科：传播学，心理学，政治学，社会学，经济学和管理学。我们发现，在领域联系方面存在重大差异，从社会学（42%）到管理学（11%）。心理学与其他五个学科的联系明显较少。研究结果还显示，在所有领域，美国院校和英语母语国家的学生人数明显偏多，哈佛、哥伦比亚、康奈尔、斯坦福大学、加州大学伯克利分校和纽约大学形成了一个联系紧密的中心集群。虽然女学者人数不足，但在网络定位方面没有显著差异。在心理学、社会学和管理学领域，女性学者甚至比男性学者担任更重要的职位。我们的研究结果扩展了文献上的编辑委员会的多样性，证明了显着的不平衡，在他们的性别，地域，机构代表性，和联锁编辑内部和之间的领域。
Editorial boards play a key role in the production, dissemination, and promotion of scientific knowledge. The cross-presence of scholars in different journals, known as editorial board interlocking, maps the connections between such bodies of governance. Former research on this topic is typically restricted to individual disciplines and has failed to consider the relevance of potential interlocking between related, but different academic fields. Further, although existing studies note a significant lack of diversity in editorial board representation, they mainly focus on a single dimension, such as gender or geography. This study addressed these knowledge gaps by offering a complex cross-disciplinary approach to the geographical, gender, and institutional compositions of editorial boards, with a specific emphasis on within- and between-fields editorial board interlocking. We used graph and social network analysis to examine editorial board connections between 281 top journals (13,084 members and 17,092 connections) of six disciplines: communication, psychology, political science, sociology, economics, and management. We found substantial differences in terms of field connections, ranging from sociology with 42% interlocking with other fields, to management with only 11%. Psychology is significantly less connected to the other five disciplines. The results also show a clear overrepresentation of American institutions and native English-speaking countries in all fields, with Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and New York University forming a well-connected central cluster. Although female scholars are underrepresented, there are no significant differences in terms of positioning in the network. Female scholars are even employed in more central positions than male scholars in psychology, sociology, and management. Our findings extend the literature on editorial board diversity by evidencing a significant imbalance in their gender, geographical, institutional representation, and interlocking editorship both within and between fields.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Goyanes, Manuel;Demeter, Marton
通讯作者：
Demeter, Marton
影响因子：
13.6
作者：
Clauset A;Arbesman S;Larremore DB
通讯作者：
Larremore DB
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
de Albuquerque, Afonso;de Oliveira, Thaiane Moreira;Firmo de Albuquerque, Sofia Oliveira
通讯作者：
Firmo de Albuquerque, Sofia Oliveira
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Csomós G;Lengyel B
通讯作者：
Lengyel B
影响因子：
6.2
作者：
Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia;Glynn, Carroll J.
通讯作者：
Glynn, Carroll J.