# Risk of Editorial Bias: A Case Study of Factors Contributing to Review Time in a Leading Journal in Dentistry

## TL;DR

This study finds that RCTs with editorial co-authorship in dentistry have significantly shorter review times, suggesting potential editorial bias.

## Contribution

The study identifies editorial co-authorship as a factor significantly associated with shorter peer-review times in dental RCTs.

## Key findings

- RCTs with editorial co-authorship had a mean review time of 91.75 days versus 239.00 days for others.
- 57.5% of RCTs were compliant with the CONSORT statement.
- 55% of RCTs exceeded the 120-day review time threshold.

## Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of editorial bias in the field of Dentistry by examining surrogate measures which can be readily extracted from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a journal of high impact factor.

RCTs published between January 2019 and March 2023 were manually downloaded. Data related to author affiliation, dates of submission and first publication, study location, review time, compliance with Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, ethics approval number, clinical trial registration time, reported outcomes, and eligibility criteria in registries and sample size calculation were extracted.

A total of 40 RCTs were included in this cross‐sectional study. The mean review time was 165.38 ± 91.40 days with 55% of RCTs exceeding 120‐day review time. A total of 23 RCTs (57.5%) were compliant with the CONSORT statement. The review time of RCTs with editorial co‐authorship was significantly shorter than the review time of RCTs that had no authors from the editorial team (91.75 ± 42.03 vs. 239.00 ± 63.00 days; p < 0.001).

RCTs with editorial co‐authorship in the field of Dentistry were statistically favored in the initial screening or peer‐review process having significantly short review time.

Scientific journals should adopt a double‐blind peer‐review process that is thorough, fair, and transparent to improve the quality of published research. To address any concerns related to editorial co‐authorship, editors should explicitly explain the peer‐review process in a commentary added to the published paper.