Editorial Misconduct

Likelihood and safeguards

There are chronic questions in the mind of some authors: Can an editor pick referees aiming at a pre-defined outcome? What tools are available to an ill-poised editor that tries to impose an unreasonable decision?

Let me start by stating the obvious. Typically, an editor will, and should, have an opinion about submitted papers; however, it must be based on scientific or other well-endorsed facts. The editors will then act according to this initial judgment to select referees that can answer a set of pertinent questions. The interaction between editor and referee will, by construction, influence the outcome of the review process. But isn’t exactly for this reason that a journal has an editor?

A completely different scenario is steering the review process according to prejudice or bias, which is unethical and classified as editorial misconduct. As I explain below, this is unlikely to happen, and there are mechanisms to protect the authors.

1. Journal reputation:
   Publishing papers that are unquestionably substandard to favor a colleague or rejecting high-quality ones because of personal preferences will surely damage the reputation of the journal. The stakes are high, and such unprofessional behavior is intolerable. It is common practice to have a manager (or similar figure) that will oversee the work of other editors and, therefore, add one more layer of protection. There is, of course, another form of misconduct that is more subtle and concealed: unconscious bias. Some publishers may provide training in this area to prevent it. In addition to that, one may ask editors to work collaboratively, thus having to discuss with their colleagues and bring forward the reasons for a decision. Unconscious bias is considerably reduced with simple measures.
2. Playing with the database:
   The sheer number of papers submitted to a journal is typically large. It is, therefore, unreasonable to expect multiple editors working together on every one of them. Since some papers may be restricted to the attention of a single editor, chances for the mischievous editorial plot appear to be nonzero. I frequently hear authors saying that we have access to a database, and we could use it in daring ways. One may indeed collect statistical data about the recommendations of a referee and, in doing so, build a probability distribution. However, such statistics give only a rough representation of reality. The constructed distribution depends on the number of trials, the prior probabilities of the papers sent to the referee — ideally, one would want an equal representation of all quality levels — and several other random effects related to human behavior. While statistical data may indicate a tendency of the referee, such as being harsh, appropriately critic, or lenient, it is naive to assume that statistics alone will command the fate of the peer-review process.
3. Vicious process:
   The role of the editor is not to passively accept advice, but be attentive, responsible, and critically judge considering all the information available; this includes asking questions to the referees. At the same time that this interaction is reasonable and necessary, it also establishes a level of influence. Again, one may argue that here the mischievous editor would have an opportunity to act by planting ideas on the referee’s mind. Apart from insulting the intelligence of referees, the above premise disregards that editorial decisions are not based on fiction but rather on reports that are substantiated and grounded on factual and logical considerations. In addition, if we know that a referee has certain peculiarities, consulting this particular person becomes questionable by anyone looking at the file. The point is, a professional editor is conscious that there are several variables at play, and ignoring them would raise a visible red flag. Carrying out a vicious peer-review process in a silent and undetectable way would require tremendous will and energy.
4. Appeal:
   Finally, keep in mind that any respectable publisher will keep a record of every single action in the file of a manuscript. If unprofessional behavior happens, penalties follow, permanently spotting the editor’s career. While one does not frequently verify the files, they are readily available. Like in the black box of an airplane, as soon as the authors push the collision button and initiate a process of appeal, the box is opened, and procedural violation becomes evident. The Editor in Chief, who will decide on the appeal, is the final line ensuring professional integrity and ethical behavior.

Originally published on October 30, 2020 (Inactive personal blog)