Search

Females remain under-represented in surgery in the United Kingdom and around the globe. Gender representation on journal editorial boards is one of the key metrics of gender representation within academic surgery. The aim of this study was to quantify gender representation within the editorial leadership of journals affiliated with UK surgical specialties. A web-based search for each of the UK surgical specialty associations was conducted, followed by identification of the endorsed journals for each one. As of August 2022, data on the gender of the editor-in-chief and other journal leadership positions, including associate, section, and deputy editors, were collated. Gender classification was completed using first-name recognition, verified by a web search using the name and institution provided. Managing editors without clinical backgrounds were excluded. Ten journals were identified for the following surgical specialties: General Surgery, Trauma and Orthopaedics, Neurosurgery, Cardiothoracic, Urology, Paediatric Surgery, Ear Nose and Throat, Oral and Maxillofacial, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and Vascular Surgery. In total, 242 editorial positions were identified: 207 were held by males (82.8%) and 35 by females (17.2%). There were no female editors-in-chief. The average female proportion of editorial leadership per journal was 18.8%. One journal had no female editorial leadership representation. Overall, the number of females in editorial leadership positions is comparable to the current proportion of UK female consultant surgeons (13.7%). Journals with an under-representation of females in senior editorial leadership positions compared with the parent specialty should consider initiatives that will encourage diversity, promote greater gender parity, and champion female representation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None., (Copyright © 2022 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Females are under-represented in surgery, and in leadership roles within academia. The Royal College of Surgeons of England and British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) have both initiated programmes that aim to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion in gender representation. This article quantifies the gender representation among editorial boards of oral and maxillofacial journals, and further reinforces the fact that more work is needed to promote gender parity., (Copyright © 2021 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This review summarises all orthognathic and related papers published between January 2011 and December 2012 in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS). A total of 36 articles were published, a high proportion of which (78%) were full-length papers. The remainder consisted of short communications and technical notes. The topics included operative planning and postoperative outcomes, and there was a strong focus on distraction osteogenesis. There were fewer orthognathic articles published in BJOMS than articles on other subspecialties such as trauma or head and neck oncology. Only 8 (29%) of the full-length articles were prospective studies or randomised trials, which highlights a need for well-designed clinical studies in orthognathic research., (Copyright © 2013 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This review summarises the articles relating to the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) that were published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) between January 2011 and December 2012. In total 24 papers were published. Of these, 16 (67%) were full-length articles, which included prospective, retrospective, and laboratory-based studies as well as reviews. The remaining 8 papers were short communications, technical notes, and letters to the editor, which report on, amongst other things, unusual cases, rare complications, and novel surgical techniques., (Copyright © 2013 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This paper is a synopsis of all articles relating to oral surgery that were published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) between January 2011 and December 2012. Of the 57 published, 40 (70%) were full-length articles that predominantly focused on implantology, dentoalveolar surgery, and bisphosphonate osteonecrosis of the jaws (BONJs). In addition, a number of short communications, technical notes, and letters to the editor described rare cases, unusual complications, and novel surgical techniques., (Copyright © 2013 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This review summarises all trauma and related papers published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) from January 2010 to December 2011. In total 45 articles were published, of which 42% (19) were full-length articles. These articles primarily focused on the management of mandibular condyle and orbital fractures, with several papers discussing maxillofacial surgery by the British military. There were no articles discussing midfacial fractures or massive facial trauma. The remaining papers included short communications, technical notes, and letters; and provided discussion of interesting cases, new surgical techniques and fracture classifications. The number of trauma papers published in BJOMS appears to be less than other sub-specialties such as head and neck oncology. The number of prospective and randomised studies remains low, highlighting a need to foster further research within maxillofacial trauma., (Copyright © 2012 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Full length articles such as prospective and retrospective studies, case series, laboratory-based research and reviews form the majority of papers published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS). We were interested to evaluate the breakdown of these types of articles both by sub-specialty and the type of study as well as the proportion that are written by UK colleagues compared to overseas authors over a 2 year period (2010-11). A total of 191 full length articles across all sub-specialties of our discipline were published, with 107 papers (56%) coming from UK authors. There were proportionately more oncology papers arising from the UK than overseas (60 and 30% of total respectively) while the opposite was found for cleft/deformity studies (10% and 22%). There was only one laboratory-based study published from the UK compared with 27 papers from overseas. The number of quality papers being submitted to the Journal continues to increase, and the type of article being published between UK and overseas probably reflects different practices and case-loads amongst colleagues. The relatively few UK laboratory based studies published in BJOMS compared to overseas authors are most likely due to authors seeking the most prestigious journals possible for their work., (Copyright © 2012 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We aimed to evaluate the number of articles in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) written by consultants and trainees within deaneries in the UK. We reviewed the authorship of articles published between January 2010 and July 2011, and subdivided them by deanery and first author. In total, 76 full length articles were published (30 written by consultants and 46 by trainees), and half came from the London, Wessex, and Mersey deaneries. Technical notes were mostly written by trainees; 5 of the 22 published came from London. A total of 38 short communications were published; most were from the Wessex (21%), Yorkshire and Humber (29%), and Mersey (13%) deaneries, and in 32% a consultant was first author. A league table of all publications showed that most came from Wessex (n=25), Mersey (n=23), and Yorkshire and Humber (n=23). Most publications by trainees came from Wessex (n=20), followed by Yorkshire (n=18) and London (n=11). The study shows that the amount of published material varies considerably between oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) units in the UK. To realise their ambitions, potential trainees with an interest in research and publications may consequently find the best support in these deaneries., (Copyright © 2012 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) publishes many types of papers including original articles, review articles, and short communications. Many of the latter are isolated case reports of rare or interesting diseases or of difficult or unexpected complications. While case reports are sometimes considered to be of little educational or clinical value, and as such do little to advance medical knowledge, they do have an important role, and many trainees begin their publishing careers writing such papers. There is increasing pressure for space in paper medical journals and, for this reason, some journals either limit or do not publish short publications in print copy but instead put them online. Using established criteria, we previously evaluated all 142 short communications published in the BJOMS during 2008-2009 and found that 48% of them had little or no educational value. As a result, the editorial board of BJOMS took the decision to publish most short communications online only. We have now analysed 48 short communications that were published online only during 2010-2011. Most (80%) were single case reports that covered virtually the whole remit of the specialty, and over half (56%) were published by authors based in the UK. While many of these papers did not add important new information to existing knowledge, these types of article are clearly of value both for trainees and for experienced surgeons. We think that these should continue to be supported as, in addition to their educational value, they are an excellent way for trainees to start to write., (Copyright © 2012 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Technical notes form an important part of the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS). Many ideas are novel and some change practice. During 2009-2010, 39 technical notes were published in the journal, and they covered the whole remit of the specialty. In this article we briefly review and summarise these articles, and highlight the salient points., (Copyright © 2011 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A large number of papers related to oral and maxillofacial surgery are published in many specialist journals. With the ever-increasing use of the internet it is easy to download them as part of a journal subscription on a fee per paper basis, or in some cases for free. Online access to the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) is free to British Association (BAOMS) members with a $30 fee per paper download for non-members. Many colleagues use the online version of the journal, and this provides valuable information about downloading trends. Other data on articles that have been cited in subsequent publications are also readily available, and they form the basis for the calculation of a journal's impact factor. We evaluated the top 50 downloaded papers from the BJOMS website in 2010 to ascertain which articles were being read online. We also obtained data on the number of citations for papers published in 2009-2010 to see whether these papers were similar to the articles being downloaded. In 2010 there were over 360000 downloaded articles. The most popular papers were leading articles, reviews, and full length articles; only one short communication featured in the top 50 downloads. The papers most cited in subsequent publications were full length articles and leading articles or reviews, which represent 80% of the total citations of the 50 papers. Ten papers were in both the top 50 downloaded and most cited lists. We discuss the implications of this study for the journal and our readers., (Copyright © 2011 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This review summarises all head and neck oncology and related papers published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) during the period 2009-2010. A similar review, covering the years 2007-2008 was published in the Journal in 2009 and was well received by readers, as evidenced by the high number of downloads from the BJOMS website. In this article, we include all head and neck oncology-related articles published in the print version of the journal during 2009/10 and concentrate on summarising the full length article papers. Compared to the previous 2-year period, there has been a 25% increase in number of articles published in this sub-specialty., (Copyright © 2011 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This review summarises the 81 papers relating to oral surgery and to the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) January 2008-December 2009. They include full length articles on distraction osteogenesis, imaging, extraction techniques, implants, and the management of facial pain and disorders of the TMJ including joint replacement. Many short communications were also published, but an editorial decision was taken in August 2009 to publish most of these in future in the online journal only. As BJOMS encompasses the whole remit of the specialty, and other specialist journals on oral surgery are available, it was encouraging to see that authors still choose submit their work to our journal., (Copyright © 2010 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This paper provides a summary of the 49 trauma and related papers published in British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery during the period January 2008 to December 2009. 16/49 (32%) of these publications were full length articles, which covered areas such as epidemiology, service provision, materials and operative surgery. In addition there were other articles including short communications, technical notes, letters to the editor and interesting cases. Whilst fewer full length articles were published compared to the other sub-specialties, it was reassuring to see that the studies represent all aspects of trauma. More basic science and randomized control studies relating to trauma need to be encouraged., (Copyright 2010 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This paper provides a review of articles relating to deformity, orthognathic surgery, and distraction osteogenesis published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery during 2008 and 2009. A total of 42 papers (26 full length articles, 5 technical notes, and 11 short communications or letters to the editor) were published. It was pleasing that 62% were full length articles; this is encouraging as such papers have a high educational value and are likely to be cited in future publications., (Copyright 2010 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) accepts many types of papers that include leading articles, reviews, full length articles, and short communications. Many of the latter are isolated case reports of rare or interesting pathology, or personal experience of a difficult or unexpected complication. Case reports are considered to have a relatively low value in the advancement of medical knowledge, and with increasing pressure for space in paper publications, many journals now limit them to online publication only. We evaluated all 142 short communications published in BJOMS during 2008/2009. Most (87%) were single case reports, and they covered virtually the whole remit of the specialty. There were also 14 formal studies that included two laboratory-based research projects; these were excluded from the analysis. We used established criteria to assess the possible educational value of each publication, and found that 61/128 papers (48%), while interesting and informative, probably added little to existing knowledge. The remaining papers described new or unreported cases, rare or unexpected outcomes, and adverse effects or complications of treatment. We discuss the possible implications of this study for readers of BJOMS and for the journal itself., (2010 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Between January 2007 and December 2008, 44 technical notes or related publications (such as letters) were published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS). These covered most of the remit of the specialty and ranged from operative surgical techniques to the use of digital photographs to orientate surgical specimens. However, there would seem to be very little feedback on the value of these articles in everyday practice. We reviewed these technical notes and assessed readability, the value and use of illustrations, the possible expense and/or equipment required in their use, and finally the frequency that the techniques could be used. The anonymised publications were read and scored by a minimum of two dentally qualified senior house officers, two doubly qualified specialist registrars, an SAS grade and two consultants in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The six techniques that gained the highest mean average score are briefly discussed. Although we used a relatively small number of assessors who might not be representative of the whole BJOMS readership, this study would suggest that some sort of change in the way that these technical notes are published should be considered. Options might include inviting a commentary from the reviewers who have tried the technique and also encouraging colleagues to report their experiences of these techniques in the 'letters to the editor' section.