Paper mills are bribing editors
A couple of recent articles, here and here, describe the discovery that paper mills are bribing editors to take part in paper mill activity. It brings to light something that publisher research integrity teams and anyone who has conducted an in depth investigation into a large scale paper mill will already know or suspect. When you read some published paper mill articles, it is impossible not to wonder how they got through the publication process without anybody noticing, and how far the editor was aware of what was going on. In the case of special issues with guest editors, that the guest editors themselves may be complicit in the fraud must always be a consideration. There is COPE guidance on best practices for guest edited collections to help prevent guest editor mediated paper mills.
Editor misconduct and the editor-publisher relationship
The involvement of editors in paper mill activity goes beyond guest editors and can involve a journal’s ‘regular’ editors as well. By regular editors, I mean academic editors who volunteer for the role as editor or editorial board member and are not paid employees of the publisher. The involvement in paper mill activity amongst regular editors is the extreme end of a spectrum of behaviours that can be described as editor misconduct.
The ambiguous editor-publisher relationship is a perfect vulnerability for paper mills to exploit.
Like researcher misconduct, editor misconduct can range from questionable practices such as the excessive publication of self authored articles in their own journal, to failing to act on an allegation of author misconduct, to deliberate fraud such as involvement in paper mills.
When researchers are suspected of research misconduct, the matter is referred to the researchers’ employers, their institution, to investigate. The institution has the authority to ask questions and impose sanctions if misconduct is confirmed.
Unlike the researcher-institution relationship, the editor-publisher relationship is ambiguous when it comes to expectations of accountability and oversight. This represents a perfect vulnerability for paper mills to target. It’s the knowledge that there will be no oversight or accountability for their activities that emboldens some editors to become ‘bad actors’ and exploit their editorial positions for personal gain.
With editor misconduct, the problem stays with the publisher and it can be a difficult and contentious issue to resolve. It is the volunteer nature of the editorial role that makes it difficult for publishers to talk about editor misconduct in general terms or investigate individual editors about suspected misconduct. It is even more difficult for publishers to address questionable editorial practices, especially if the practices have been in place for a long time. Publishers may fear causing offence or perceive that they are encroaching on ‘editorial freedom’. COPE guidance refers to the principle of editorial freedom and the avoidance of interference by publishers in editorial decisions. Because of this, to question an editor about their activities or openly broach the subject of editor misconduct is almost a taboo. However, in the wider context of research integrity and the threat that paper mills present to the publishing industry today, the concept of ‘editorial freedom’ needs to be more nuanced. There is a need for more collaboration between editors and publishers to tackle the common and serious problem of paper mills.
It’s the knowledge that there will be no oversight or accountability for their activities that emboldens some editors to become ‘bad actors’.
Re-defining the editor-publisher relationship
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of editors care deeply about the integrity of their journals and want to support and promote research integrity, now is the perfect time for editors and publishers to jointly review and revise the editor-publisher relationship, particularly to prevent targeting by paper mills.
Some publishers are working closely with their editors to identify signs of paper mill activity in their journals, and some have a code of conduct for their editors that specifies the standards the editor is expected to uphold, for example, around minimum requirements for peer review and the management of editor and publisher conflicts of interests. Such codes should also include what support the publisher will provide for the editors.
Specifying the roles and responsibilities of both editors and publishers in a formal code of conduct and ensuring that such a code is featured prominently in editor-publisher contracts and agreements is a good way to start re-defining the editor-publisher relationship. However, having a code of conduct in place alone is not enough to tackle paper mill activity. Adherence to the code needs to be monitored. This might be via journal audits or spot checks on journal activity. Equally important is to have a process in place for how editor misconduct, if found, will be dealt with.
The implementation of routine external scrutiny of editorial actions, and consequences for editorial misconduct may deter ‘bad actor’ editors from engaging with paper mills.
Given that most editors want to preserve the integrity of their journals, it should no longer be a taboo to openly talk about editor misconduct and how to manage it.
The implementation of routine external scrutiny of editorial actions, and consequences for editorial misconduct may deter ‘bad actor’ editors from engaging with paper mills.
This blog post was written without the use of generative AI writing tools.