Ethics II: Editorial conduct

Research misconduct remains a controversial topic and the numbers are staggering. Retractionwatch.com 1 reported that, in 2002, 119 papers were retracted by scientific journals. Some 20 years later, this figure has grown to almost 5000. Put differently, about 8 in 10 000 published papers are retracted from the scientific literature today. The case of Francesca Gino at Harvard University is yet another example. At the time of writing this Editorial, she stands accused of fabricating results across multiple studies, including at least one purporting to show how to elicit honest behaviour (Scheiber, 2023). Of course, all this comes at a time when the Information Systems discipline discusses the implications of generative AI in the research process (Davison et al., 2023).

Against this backdrop, we note that our discipline has a solid track-record of addressing ethical research conduct, with Davison and Chatterjee (2024) describing some concerns we should be aware of in a recent Editorial for the Information Systems Journal. In contrast, the debate pertaining to potential misconduct by editors or reviewers is significantly less developed, with just a few examples aimed at mitigating the shortcomings of the peer review process more generally (including, for example, Iivari, 2016, Petter, 2018, Ralph, 2016).

We here acknowledge that the journey towards publication of any manuscript in any journal does not only involve authors who may act unethically, but also editors and reviewers. While the responsibility for fraudulent studies undoubtedly rests with dishonest authors, editors and reviewers alike share the responsibility for allowing such studies to pass through the peer-review process, for a long time seen as the ‘gold standard’ in preventing such instances from taking place. We therefore firmly believe that the ethical aspects of editorial (mis)conduct should be equally discussed, a task we set out in this Editorial, the second in a series focusing on ethics in IS research in the Information Systems Journal.

In what follows, we outline key areas where we, in our role as authors, reviewers, and editors, have personally observed behaviour and actions of others we deem questionable. We further augmented our own experiences with anecdotal evidence gathered through conversations with colleagues from within the IS discipline who are distributed around the world. The common denominator across all situations that we outline here is that they took place within the realms of a double-blind peer-review process, meaning reviewers are unaware of the authors' identities, and vice versa, yet that is single-blind for senior editors (SEs) and associate editors (AEs) (editors know the authors' identities, but authors do not know the editors' identities). Nevertheless, it is fair to point out that at some journals, SEs are permitted or required to reveal their identities. Ultimately, we do not claim to provide an exhaustive overview, but intend to shed light on this issue, increase awareness, and encourage open discourse.

The responsibility of Editors is to ensure the quality and integrity of the manuscripts they manage. However, as gatekeepers of the knowledge publication process, they are not immune to the human temptations that may fuel ethical misconduct. In this section, we examine situations where the often complex decisions and actions editors have to take affect academic integrity.

Within the realm of academic publishing, the role of editors is indispensable, as they play a critical part in ensuring the quality and fairness of the peer review process. However, the existence of ethical challenges within editorial practices can introduce significant hurdles for authors seeking to navigate the complex landscape of academic publishing. Correspondingly, the gatekeeper role of journal editors needs to be critically reexamined. This group of researchers, who wield significant power and responsibility over the content published in journals, is not only small and exclusive but also marked by the fact that many of these editors simultaneously serve on the editorial boards of multiple journals in the IS field. These multiple affiliations provide a straightforward explanation for editorial misconduct often resulting from time constraints. Time constraints naturally necessitate prioritisation in terms of allocating time to a specific outlet. Consequently, authors of papers submitted to journals that are less prioritised by editors with multiple editorial board memberships are at a disadvantage.

In light of this, we call for action, emphasising the need for more comprehensive research that involves authors, reviewers, and editors across all 11 AIS List of Premier Journals.2 The exemplary vignettes presented in this work are drawn solely from anecdotal evidence based on our own experiences and conversations with colleagues, indicating the necessity for further research to develop a more robust framework for ethical editorial conduct in the IS field. This may represent the initial step towards establishing a global code of conduct for ethical and sustainable editorial behaviour in the IS community, complementing the AIS Code of Research Conduct.