Ethics III: The ethics of editing

IF 6.5 2区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Robert M. Davison
{"title":"Ethics III: The ethics of editing","authors":"Robert M. Davison","doi":"10.1111/isj.12517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The editors of academic journals, and by editor I am referring to all people who serve in editorial roles, whether Editor in Chief, Senior or Associate Editor, have a duty of care for multiple stakeholders (Tarafdar &amp; Davison, <span>2021</span>). However, in enacting that duty, while they may refer to the ethical standards established for the specific journal and the professional society to which they belong, they will also be strongly influenced by their own, individual ethical sense. Ethics, in my view, are rarely absolute: what is appropriate in one context may not be appropriate in another, and so some nuanced reflection about the correct action to take is often warranted. However, more significant conflicts can arise between the various normative and personal influences and when this happens, editors may find themselves in a tricky situation that even mature reflection cannot easily address. Eckhardt and Breidbach (<span>2024</span>) offer a set of perspectives about ethical issues that editors may face. In this editorial, I offer a complementary set of thoughts that explore some more ethical issues that editors may encounter, and the consequences of these issues for different stakeholders. I recognise that ethics is, in its very nature, a complex topic. Any action taken by an editor might be seen as gross negligence by some yet only as a minor misdemeanour by others. Thus, in writing this editorial I have been mindful not to employ too many of my own values in evaluating these issues. I prefer to leave that to the readers. What I have done is to select examples, all of which are real (some disguised to preserve the modesty of the people involved) that cover a number of different situations.</p><p>Consider the example of an Associate Editor (AE) who is assigned a paper to handle. AEs typically know the identity of the author: this is necessary to ensure that authors are not inadvertently invited to review their own papers. AEs are also trusted to take care that the people they invite to be reviewers are not conflicted with the author in some way, for instance whether as recent colleagues, co-authors, or in some other role. Ascertaining the absence of a conflict of interest requires some care: it is not just a matter of finding the most suitable reviewers from a topic, method or epistemological perspective. A careful AE will not only shortlist a number of potential reviewers, but will also carefully check their suitability on ethical grounds. In practice, in a field as large as Information Systems, conflicts of interest don't happen that often since there are many potential reviewers for any given manuscript, but nevertheless when they do arise they can be spectacular. In a recent case, an AE invited (innocently, but perhaps carelessly) three reviewers, all of whom had a conflict of significant interest with an author: one was the spouse, one the supervisor and the last, a former student. Two of these worked in the same institution as the author, and thus had email addresses of the same @xxx.xxx format. All three invited reviewers had recently co-authored with the author, as well as with each other. The reviewers did not know the identity of each other or of the author: as it turned out, the supervisor declined to review, the former student recommended rejection and the spouse recommended major revisions. The AE in question claimed not to realise the existence of the conflicts of interest, having invited people to review purely based on their academic suitability.</p><p>In a more ominous case, however, an AE appeared to knowingly assign reviewers who, although not conflicted in the manner described above, had a less easily identifiable form of conflict: they had all been PhD students together on the same programme as the author over multiple years. At the time of the review, the author and the reviewers had all graduated for a number of years and were all working at different institutions, albeit in the same country. Here the outcome was quite different: all the reviewers recommended minor revisions on the first round of review, an opinion that was endorsed by the AE. The SE was troubled by this unusual situation and contacted me, in my capacity as Editor in Chief (EinC). My investigations revealed the conflicts of interest, which led to the need for a completely new review process, and the end of the AE's position at the journal.</p><p>The ethics of the above situations are of course open to interpretation: any AE, SE or EinC may behave in a way that is more or less similar to the behaviours described above. Moreover, any AE, SE and EinC may have a personal ethical basis for acting in a given manner.</p><p>These two examples were discovered internally, that is, without the author's knowledge. However, authors may also get involved, for instance when they raise a complaint about a review outcome. Such complaints are not common, I hope because even when a submission is given a decision that the authors did not expect or want, at least there is a compelling justification to support that decision. Indeed, at the ISJ we receive far more compliments about our constructive reviews (even in cases of rejection) than we do complaints.</p><p>Apart from conflicts of interest, a number of biases can readily be identified in the review process that can raise ethical concerns. While reviewers themselves can be biased for against topics, methods, epistemologies and research contexts (see Davison, <span>2013</span>, <span>2014</span>), editors too are not immune from biases. For instance, there are biases associated with which reviewers to invite, which papers to recommend that authors cite, and which (alternative) method or approach authors can be invited to take. Eckhardt and Breidbach (<span>2024</span>) helpfully deal with some of the issues and I will not repeat their arguments or suggestions.</p><p>However, what of the AE who assigns reviewers who either are unqualified (they may not be familiar with the method) or have a reputation (known to the AE) for rejecting each and every paper that crosses their desks? Alternatively, how should we feel about an SE who suggests that the authors will find an easier path to acceptance if they follow the SE's own preferred methodological approach (which implies new data collection/analysis), or the EinC who conditionally accepts a paper, with the one condition being that the authors should cite six specific articles (all authored by the EinC or his former PhD students), none of which are obviously related to the topic of the research? These latter examples are all real cases that have come to my attention (as author and as editor).</p><p>I suggest that each of these situations has an ethical aspect to it, though how seriously you regard it may vary. If you think that an SE or AE has acted unethically, you should probably approach the EinC first to explain the situation. Properly managed journals normally have robust procedures for handling complaints like these. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, or if you think that the EinC has acted unethically, then it is better to approach the publisher. Make sure that you keep all the evidence until a final resolution is achieved. The publisher can always be the focus of last resort, but in my own experience publishers are reluctant to intervene unless the situation is truly egregious. Unfortunately, you may just have to learn to avoid some journals, at least until the EinC changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/isj.12517","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Systems Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/isj.12517","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The editors of academic journals, and by editor I am referring to all people who serve in editorial roles, whether Editor in Chief, Senior or Associate Editor, have a duty of care for multiple stakeholders (Tarafdar & Davison, 2021). However, in enacting that duty, while they may refer to the ethical standards established for the specific journal and the professional society to which they belong, they will also be strongly influenced by their own, individual ethical sense. Ethics, in my view, are rarely absolute: what is appropriate in one context may not be appropriate in another, and so some nuanced reflection about the correct action to take is often warranted. However, more significant conflicts can arise between the various normative and personal influences and when this happens, editors may find themselves in a tricky situation that even mature reflection cannot easily address. Eckhardt and Breidbach (2024) offer a set of perspectives about ethical issues that editors may face. In this editorial, I offer a complementary set of thoughts that explore some more ethical issues that editors may encounter, and the consequences of these issues for different stakeholders. I recognise that ethics is, in its very nature, a complex topic. Any action taken by an editor might be seen as gross negligence by some yet only as a minor misdemeanour by others. Thus, in writing this editorial I have been mindful not to employ too many of my own values in evaluating these issues. I prefer to leave that to the readers. What I have done is to select examples, all of which are real (some disguised to preserve the modesty of the people involved) that cover a number of different situations.

Consider the example of an Associate Editor (AE) who is assigned a paper to handle. AEs typically know the identity of the author: this is necessary to ensure that authors are not inadvertently invited to review their own papers. AEs are also trusted to take care that the people they invite to be reviewers are not conflicted with the author in some way, for instance whether as recent colleagues, co-authors, or in some other role. Ascertaining the absence of a conflict of interest requires some care: it is not just a matter of finding the most suitable reviewers from a topic, method or epistemological perspective. A careful AE will not only shortlist a number of potential reviewers, but will also carefully check their suitability on ethical grounds. In practice, in a field as large as Information Systems, conflicts of interest don't happen that often since there are many potential reviewers for any given manuscript, but nevertheless when they do arise they can be spectacular. In a recent case, an AE invited (innocently, but perhaps carelessly) three reviewers, all of whom had a conflict of significant interest with an author: one was the spouse, one the supervisor and the last, a former student. Two of these worked in the same institution as the author, and thus had email addresses of the same @xxx.xxx format. All three invited reviewers had recently co-authored with the author, as well as with each other. The reviewers did not know the identity of each other or of the author: as it turned out, the supervisor declined to review, the former student recommended rejection and the spouse recommended major revisions. The AE in question claimed not to realise the existence of the conflicts of interest, having invited people to review purely based on their academic suitability.

In a more ominous case, however, an AE appeared to knowingly assign reviewers who, although not conflicted in the manner described above, had a less easily identifiable form of conflict: they had all been PhD students together on the same programme as the author over multiple years. At the time of the review, the author and the reviewers had all graduated for a number of years and were all working at different institutions, albeit in the same country. Here the outcome was quite different: all the reviewers recommended minor revisions on the first round of review, an opinion that was endorsed by the AE. The SE was troubled by this unusual situation and contacted me, in my capacity as Editor in Chief (EinC). My investigations revealed the conflicts of interest, which led to the need for a completely new review process, and the end of the AE's position at the journal.

The ethics of the above situations are of course open to interpretation: any AE, SE or EinC may behave in a way that is more or less similar to the behaviours described above. Moreover, any AE, SE and EinC may have a personal ethical basis for acting in a given manner.

These two examples were discovered internally, that is, without the author's knowledge. However, authors may also get involved, for instance when they raise a complaint about a review outcome. Such complaints are not common, I hope because even when a submission is given a decision that the authors did not expect or want, at least there is a compelling justification to support that decision. Indeed, at the ISJ we receive far more compliments about our constructive reviews (even in cases of rejection) than we do complaints.

Apart from conflicts of interest, a number of biases can readily be identified in the review process that can raise ethical concerns. While reviewers themselves can be biased for against topics, methods, epistemologies and research contexts (see Davison, 2013, 2014), editors too are not immune from biases. For instance, there are biases associated with which reviewers to invite, which papers to recommend that authors cite, and which (alternative) method or approach authors can be invited to take. Eckhardt and Breidbach (2024) helpfully deal with some of the issues and I will not repeat their arguments or suggestions.

However, what of the AE who assigns reviewers who either are unqualified (they may not be familiar with the method) or have a reputation (known to the AE) for rejecting each and every paper that crosses their desks? Alternatively, how should we feel about an SE who suggests that the authors will find an easier path to acceptance if they follow the SE's own preferred methodological approach (which implies new data collection/analysis), or the EinC who conditionally accepts a paper, with the one condition being that the authors should cite six specific articles (all authored by the EinC or his former PhD students), none of which are obviously related to the topic of the research? These latter examples are all real cases that have come to my attention (as author and as editor).

I suggest that each of these situations has an ethical aspect to it, though how seriously you regard it may vary. If you think that an SE or AE has acted unethically, you should probably approach the EinC first to explain the situation. Properly managed journals normally have robust procedures for handling complaints like these. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, or if you think that the EinC has acted unethically, then it is better to approach the publisher. Make sure that you keep all the evidence until a final resolution is achieved. The publisher can always be the focus of last resort, but in my own experience publishers are reluctant to intervene unless the situation is truly egregious. Unfortunately, you may just have to learn to avoid some journals, at least until the EinC changes.

伦理 III:编辑伦理
我希望这样的投诉并不常见,因为即使投稿得到的决定是作者不期望或不想要的,至少也有令人信服的理由来支持这一决定。事实上,在 ISJ,我们收到的对我们建设性审稿的赞扬(即使是在拒稿的情况下)要比收到的投诉多得多。除了利益冲突之外,在审稿过程中还很容易发现一些偏见,这些偏见会引起道德方面的关注。审稿人本身可能会对主题、方法、认识论和研究背景持有偏见(见 Davison, 2013, 2014),编辑也难免会有偏见。例如,在邀请哪些审稿人、建议作者引用哪些论文以及邀请作者采用哪些(替代)方法或途径等方面,都会存在偏见。Eckhardt 和 Breidbach(2024 年)对其中一些问题进行了有益的探讨,我就不再重复他们的论点或建议了。然而,AE 指定的审稿人要么不合格(他们可能不熟悉方法),要么声名狼藉(AE 知道),拒绝每一篇经过他们办公桌的论文。或者,我们应该如何看待 SE 建议作者如果采用 SE 自己喜欢的方法(这意味着要收集/分析新的数据),就会更容易被接受;或者 EinC 有条件地接受一篇论文,但条件之一是作者必须引用六篇特定的文章(均由 EinC 或他以前的博士生撰写),而这些文章显然都与研究课题无关?后面这些例子都是我注意到的真实案例(作为作者和编辑)。我认为,每种情况都有其道德方面的问题,尽管你对它的重视程度可能不同。如果您认为某位SE或AE的行为不道德,您可能应该先找EinC解释情况。管理完善的期刊通常都有健全的程序来处理此类投诉。如果您对处理结果不满意,或认为EinC的行为不道德,最好与出版商联系。确保保留所有证据,直到最终解决问题。出版商可能是最后的解决办法,但根据我的经验,除非情况确实非常严重,否则出版商是不愿意介入的。不幸的是,您可能不得不学会回避某些期刊,至少在EinC改变之前是这样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Information Systems Journal
Information Systems Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.80%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Information Systems Journal (ISJ) is an international journal promoting the study of, and interest in, information systems. Articles are welcome on research, practice, experience, current issues and debates. The ISJ encourages submissions that reflect the wide and interdisciplinary nature of the subject and articles that integrate technological disciplines with social, contextual and management issues, based on research using appropriate research methods.The ISJ has particularly built its reputation by publishing qualitative research and it continues to welcome such papers. Quantitative research papers are also welcome but they need to emphasise the context of the research and the theoretical and practical implications of their findings.The ISJ does not publish purely technical papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信