THE REPORTED TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE OF EDITORS-IN-CHIEF OF SPECIALIST CLINICAL MEDICAL JOURNALS

Context.-The majority of the peer-reviewed clinical literature is edit ed by editors whose training in editorial matters may be limited or no nexistent. We suspect that editors are selected for their clinical or academic rather than editorial ability. Objective.-To test the hypothe sis that editors of medical specialist clinical journals were recruite d from active clinicians rather than those with evident ability or tra ining as editors. Design, Setting, and Subjects.-Anonymous mail survey to editors of the 262 peer-reviewed clinical journals that had receiv ed at least 1000 citations in the 1994 Science Citation Index. Main Ou tcome Measures.-Training and editorial practices of editors. Results.- Replies were received from 191 editors (73%): in 1994 the journals the y edited had 6060 (27300/1000 [maximum/minimum]) citations, 234 (740/3 1) source items, and an impact factor of 2.10 (18.3/0.2); nonresponder s' journals had similar characteristics. Of the responding editors, 18 1 (95%) were part-time, 132 (69%) treated patients, and 164 (86%) were recruited by one of the following methods: election by a scientific s ociety (49 [30%]), nomination by the previous editor (41 [25%]), or re sponse to an advertisement (29 [18%]). There was no strong association between method of recruitment or formal editorial training and the st atus of the journal. Only 9% of editors in the United States send at l east half of the papers to reviewers outside their own country, compar ed with 41% of editors in the United Kingdom and 73% in other countrie s, and 69% do not feel bound to follow the advice they receive concern ing acceptance of papers. Conclusions.-Clinical journals are usually e dited by practicing clinicians who are self-taught part-time editors, but willing to accept further training. They usually consult 2 reviewe rs, but exercise independent judgment on the acceptability of papers.