Hom - a good question. The answer, to me, relates to several factors. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, what is the individuals motivation for wanting to serve on journal Editorial Boards? If it is to help better the journal and engage with it - then that is commendable. If the motivation is just for personal gain and minimum effort - then that is not so useful for anyone. Secondly, relates to the issue of 'new' journals as you highlight.  The issue of 'predatory journals' is a well known phenomenon nowadays and mainly relates to new, publishing fee-paying journals. They will often recruit anyone who has 'half a name' to their boards. They are often not interested in quality and longevity - just short-term financial gain. That said, there will be 'honest' journals out there that have to 'start small and build' and compete with the established journals. I belong to a few of those - as I think it is commendable to support them. At the same time, I belong to several established boards. 

There are no hard rules as to how many journals a scholar can be associated with on boards. In many cases, journals will approach internationally renowned scholars (who may not have to contribute too much) on the basis that their name attached to the journal provides added kudos. It is up to those individuals as to how many they choose - and of what quality. 

In my mind, a handful of editorial board memberships (especially if it involves quite a lot of work) is appropriate. I would argue that any more than this, especially when the quality and scope of them is evaluated, might be seen as 'collecting rather than contributing'. 

Interesting question!

There are a number of point to consider:

1.  How long as the discipline/science been in existence?  A newly developing field may have more opportunities than a field with a long history.  On the other hand, should long-standing journals seek out young blood to become members of their editorial board?

2.  Does the journal make an internal decision about who they invite to join the board, or does the journal accept offers from journal members who want to become active in the journal?

3.  How long does a junior scientist have to work to establish himself or herself to be worthy of being an editorial board member?

4.  What credentials does a junior scientist have to have to be an editorial board member?

5.  Can some editorial board memberships be bought???

6.  Can higher ranking scientists condition who will be considered as editorial board members???

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

7.  How do factors such as:

7.1  family ties,

7.2  colleague-based ties,

7.3  new heavy-weighted discovery within the field,

7.4  an individual's personality/flair/ability to communicate

enter the editorial board membership decision making process.

8.  How do the above factors enter into the question of how many journal editorial board membership should one individual hold?

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Dear Prof Dr Dean and Prof Dr Dennis,

Thank you so much for your complements in my queries. I belong to an Editorial Board Members of 5-6 Journals of my field. I regularly get request to be an editorial board members of Journal related to my field of study. Some times I feel do not have any my contribution as an Editorial Board Member besides just publishing at least one article and reviewing article of my interest. If I accept to be an editorial board member of all the new Journals as I get request from them, its not difficult to reach more than dozen within a year. Is this ethical to be a part of editorial board member of many journals?

Just as you read a question, an email arrives in your in-box (see attached).

• I don't work in an area remotely connected to the field
• They don't hide that your job is to solicit paid articles & a special themed issue
• You also peer-review for them 2-3 times per year

... all to be an 'Advisory Board member  (non-paid of course)  :-P

I don't mind a bit of notification spam, but I have had at least 4 'invitations' this month that cite my 'illustrious standing in the field' or even a specific recent publication .... but they are merely cons to get you to either pay their attendance fees or work for them to increase their revenue.  Beall has gone, but I would like to see a website or FB group where we simply forward all of this spam so the generators are publicly on view (I'd even start it if people had some ideas).  I bet their clients would not agree that this sort of spamming is something they want to be associated with.

Hi Hom - thanks for the clarification. I would argue that it is not unethical but, especially, if they were time-consuming roles, I would prioritise them along the lines of Dennis's first list and my initial suggestion. In my mind, a dozen would be too many. Half that amount in established journals would be a reasonable figure and workload. Bear in in mind that many established journals adopt a system of 'rotation' - usually between the 5-10 year mark - to keep membership 'fresh' and allow emerging members an opportunity. I've recently passed this mark with two journals and this has happened. I've yet to replace them - but I'm not in a hurry to - and it usually occurs through invitation anyway.  

Hi all 

Interesting question and I have some interesting experiences too. I got associated with one of the journals which just started and was new in the field. OK I associated with them as it was from my field. Within few years the journal earned some sort of reputation and got indexed in some good agencies. After some time, I happened to visit the site of the journal and to my surprise, they changed the editorial board without informing any of the editorial board members (of course I know some of my fellow editors with whom this happened). Bottomline is the journal wanted us to associate with them and use our name for initial start and when it was in good condition (and started making money too), they found some new names of some professors in their editorial board and deleted the old ones using whom the journal gained reputation. I reviewed for the journal many times in a year too (for free :) 

Whenever I submit to any journal, I would see the editorial board once. This is what the journal taken advantage of. I think most of the people visit journal website and see the people associated.  Not to say all journals are bad, but most of them have the tendency to get people associated and then they wont bother about it. So just see the reputation of the journal and get associated. If you are already member of some journals, let it be and keep a regular check what the journal is doing. Is it coming to you regularly for renewal of editorial board membership (I am on board some journals which yearly seek an approval from me to continue or not). I feel this is at least some honesty on part of the journal. 

I feel it is a good practice to get people with experience in the field on board of the journal. But their should be some sort of honesty in this practice. Should give proper respect (as you are not paying them anything in return) and should give them proper credit of the work they do in making the reputation of an otherwise predatory journal

... and another one today (citing a published work, but coming from a field I am not involved with). In case you're out there, I don't do obesity, pharmacology, veterinary science,  Asian education, etc. ... Take your clue from the topic of the paper you're spamming we with !

Good morning every one !

Have a nice day!

Thank you Dr Alok sharing the interesting and serious concern related to Editorial Board Members. Yes, this is an example how they kick out once their aim is fulfilled. Is there any law if they kick out without without informing me. In my case, one journal put some conditions to me that I should publish at least one paper or review two articles for them for the renewal. Second time they extended me for another two years and After that they are not putting any conditions. My article is one of the most downloaded and good cited article in that journal. No idea when they will kick out. 

Thank you Prof Dean for your complements again. Thank you Dr Nicholas.