ABSTRACT
A study of 66 biomedical scientists showed that few (four) maintained a level research output after being appointed to journal editorial boards. They were much more likely to have demonstrated a significant drop (− 31% average) or rise (+ 70% average) in the number of papers when three-year and pre- and post-appointment periods were compared. Yet it is argued that these fluctuations do not justify either precipitous journal cancellations or freewheeling additions to the collection. In the 32 cases of declining output, editors maintained much (73%) of their original journal assortment even if this meant fewer repeat appearances in some journals. In the 30 cases of increasing output, the tendency to add new journals (+ 37%) with each new paper was tempered somewhat by repeat appearances in their original assortment. Nonetheless, for those times when the budget either demands or allows, most adjustments can be made involving two types of journals identified as swing outlets for these editor/authors.
