Ethics II: Editorial conduct
这篇社论讨论了信息系统领域编辑和审稿人在同行评审过程中可能出现的伦理问题，如偏袒、拖延、利益冲突等，旨在提高认识并鼓励公开讨论。
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. In this scenario, an editor is handling a manuscript that is strikingly similar to their own work, which may currently be under review at the same or a competing journal. The editor, aware of their competition, fears that the publication of a similar paper might undermine the uniqueness and significance of their own research. Consequently, they artificially delay the review process, introduce unnecessary revisions, or even reject the manuscript, preventing it from being published. Academic communities are relatively small. Editors therefore likely have good or bad in-person relationships with one or more of the authors of a submitted manuscript. This relationship may involve being popular or less popular colleagues, friends or enemies, or even memories of a pleasant or unpleasant mentor–student relationship. The editor, motivated by interpersonal biases or conflict, may overwhelmingly foster the publication of the manuscript to help known or befriended colleagues, or intentionally obstruct it to prevent the author(s) from gaining academic recognition or prestige. They might manipulate the peer review process by selecting biased reviewers, by either making far too low, or unreasonable demands during the revision process. At the same time, the conduct of editors can be called into question due to favouritism towards well-known authors. For example, editors may favour authors with renowned names in the field, hail from prestigious universities, or are affiliated with prominent research institutions. Additionally, authors from specific geographical regions might find their submissions subjected to a higher (or lower) level of scrutiny and scepticism, limiting or, respectively, enhancing their chances of publication. This results in an uneven playing field, where authors with under-developed reputations and a lack of ‘insider’ connections have a significant disadvantage in the peer review process. Most submissions involve a SE and an AE, with the former usually more senior than the latter. We can envision a number of potential scenarios may arise from here, but one stands out. An AE is assigned to manage the review process and assess a paper that they previously evaluated as reviewer for another journal. The AE had rejected the manuscript at the previous journal, based on valid concerns. However, the SE overseeing the review process at the current journal disregards this history (perhaps due to interpersonal biases with the submitting authors) and insists that the AE handles the paper. Predictably, the AE's subsequent review reflects their prior judgement, leading to the paper's rejection, denying the authors a fair and unbiased review process. Sometimes editors also refuse to handle a manuscript due to personal restrictions, so that sometimes editors are recruited to edit a paper for which they do not have the relevant expertise. For example, a less experienced AE may find it difficult to refuse the request from a senior SE to handle a manuscript. Accordingly, this can also lead to unsuitable reviewers being invited to review the manuscript in question. Editors sometimes choose reviewers based on personal relationships, or other inappropriate criteria rather than their expertise in the subject matter. This informal and biased approach can lead to a compromised review process where reviewers are influenced by their relationship with the editor, affecting the fairness and objectivity of the evaluation. This practice can lead to inadequate, unhelpful, or biased reviews that hinder the authors' ability to improve their work. In this case, editors are deliberately extending the review process well beyond acceptable time limits (see, e.g., Davison, 2018). They may give reviewers an excessive amount of time to provide feedback, or they may take an unusually long time to provide their own editorial assessments. As a result, authors experience significant delays in receiving feedback and decisions on their manuscripts. These delays can last for months or even years, rendering the paper's findings obsolete in a rapidly evolving environment such as the IS field. These delays be particularly problematic for tenure-track researchers, who have limited time to meet the publication requirements for tenure, and also face the daunting challenge of keeping their work current while their manuscript remains in limbo, jeopardising their contributions to the field. In certain instances, the necessity to overrule reviewers' (and/or the AE's) recommendations may unfortunately arise in the review process. A scenario may unfold where the AE deliberately engages reviewers having conflicts of interest with the authors, compelling the SE to take these considerations into account and making an overruling decision. However, ethical challenges also emerge when the editor receives impartial and unbiased reviews from anonymous reviewers without conflicts of interest. These reviewers may recommend a positive outcome for a manuscript, suggesting a revise-and-resubmit or acceptance decision. Regrettably, there are situations in which the editor, despite receiving favourable and unbiased assessments, opts to disregard the collective advice of the reviewers (and/or the AE). Instead of aligning with the recommendations, the editor may choose to ignore them, potentially resulting in the unjust rejection of the paper. This unilateral action has the potential to compromise the integrity of the peer review process. In this scenario, editors fail to facilitate constructive dialogues between authors and reviewers. They may provide feedback that is unclear, overly complex, or lacking in guidance, leaving authors uncertain about how to address reviewer comments. Or they may abstain from providing their own feedback by simply repeating the reviewers' concerns. As a result, authors may make revisions that do not align with the expectations of the reviewers and editors, ultimately resulting in manuscript rejection. Also, some editors may hide behind a cloak of anonymity and are difficult or impossible to reach for author inquiries or exchange requests. An editor from a prestigious journal, renowned for its swift review process, encounters difficulty in securing a reviewer committed to adhering to the self-imposed implicit timeline. Consequently, an AE takes matters into their own hands and undertakes the review themselves, asserting they have assumed both roles. The SE refrains from intervening in this unconventional process even though the journal in question explicitly proscribes it. Consequently, the authors receive a succinct review accompanied by a rejection decision that may lack both helpful insights and completeness. This confusing experience leaves the authors in the dark about whether they would have received an R&R decision for their manuscript if a comprehensive review panel involving two to three reviewers, the AE, and the SE had been recruited. 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.