Irrational numbers of journal editors and of editorial positions: a threat to society

Journal editors are commonly considered as gate keepers who guarantee the quality of articles published in their journal. The numerous predatory, mostly medical, journals that have been initiated in the past two decades tend to have less interest in quality. As this threatens the trustworthiness of science, we investigated what developments take place regarding the most relevant editorial aspects of the numerous journals that approached us in the past twelve months with the request to submit or review a manuscript. These aspects include the presence of an Editor-in-Chief, the availability of the Editor-in-Chief for his editorial work, the size of the Editorial Board, and the country where the members of the Editorial Board live. The study shows that a large proportion of the journals are not led by an Editor-in-Chief. It also seems that the journals involved try to hide this by establishing editorial boards with irrational numbers (occasionally hundreds) of editors (invited by the journal without any check of their competence), who cannot be presumed to carry out any real editorial activities. A side effect of this development is that some scientists collect as many editorships as possible, resulting in an irrational number of editorial positions (several dozens, with additionally several positions as Editor-in-Chief), preventing proper editorial behavior. The tasks of such editors are commonly vague. It must be deduced that both irrationally large editorial boards and an irrationally large number of editorial positions are not only a threat to the scientific reliability of the pertinent editors and journals, but also a threat to healthcare. This implies that good scientists and practitioners, particularly in the medical sector, should refrain from becoming involved as an editor in such journals, and that submission of a manuscript to such journals should be discouraged.