Who Rules the Ruler? On the Misconduct of Journal Editors

Abstract

There are very few (published) accounts of editorial misconduct, and those that do exist are almost exclusively focused on medicine-related areas. In the present article we detail a case of editorial misconduct in a rather underexplored domain, the social sciences. This case demonstrates that although legal systems provide different instruments of protection to avoid, compensate for, and punish misconduct on the part of journal editors, the social and economic power unbalance between authors and publishers suggests the importance of alternative solutions before or instead of bringing a lawsuit to court. It puts forward strong arguments in favour of the need for effective regulatory bodies so as to achieve and maintain a culture of research integrity by all involved in the process.

Establishing Rules for Ethicists and Ethics Organizations in Academic Publishing to Avoid Conflicts of Interest, Favoritism, Cronyism and Nepotism

“…One major strategy to dispel such incriminations, which are often not only directed against a single scientist or a single theory, but generalized against science per se, is to establish codes of ethical rules for all parties involved in the scientific and publishing process. Ethics bodies, including local clinical ethics boards overseeing medical trials (Savulescu et al, 1996), thus have a great responsibility to maintain the reliability of science. Monitoring the validity and verified existence of such ethics bodies is essential (Zoccatelli et al, 2018).…”

Should multiple submissions become the norm in journals?

“…This requires express consent of the authors and if done without such consent, it amounts to an unethical editorial practice. 7 The alternative journals offered by the editors may not be satisfactory to the authors in terms of desired readership and impact.…”

Boon, bias or bane? The potential influence of reviewer recommendations on editorial decision-making

“…Questions arise such as what if recommendations are flatly ignored, or if they are misused by editors, who blindly rely on them to make decisions as opposed to using them as an aid to reach their own informed decision? 6,7,8 On the other hand, reviewer recommendations could be viewed as too harsh, out of scope, or contrary to journal requirements, and therefore editors might have a good reason to 'ignore' them. In other cases, reviewer reports might include a recommendation, despite there being no formal requirement for them.…”