Abstract
Introduction
Editorial self-publication refers to the practice of editorial members publishing their research in the journals for which they serve on the editorial board.1,2 Although there are no specific restrictions against this practice, being an editor-as-author (EAA) poses several major concerns including conflicts of interest, the risk of bias, and favoritism. 3 Editorship offers numerous advantages for academic researchers, such as increasing visibility and expanding their professional network within the discipline, thereby enhancing their reputation.4,5 However, serving as an editor for a scientific journal also requires a substantial amount of time and resources, which can limit the time available for their research. 6
Since journal editors are generally active and prolific researchers, they may wish to publish their studies in their journals. For editors in the early stages of their academic careers, the opportunities offered by editorship to publish in their journals may be attractive by increasing their number of publications. 2 In addition, the extent of the editorial team can vary among journals, typically including positions such as editor-in-chief (EIC), associate editors, deputy editors, section editors, editorial board members (EBM), and international editorial board members (IEBM), each with different roles. Unlike the EIC and other editors who are actively involved in the editorial process, EBMs usually do not participate in editorial decisions, which may result in fewer opportunities or advantages when submitting their work to the affiliated journal. Therefore, the potential for editorial self-publishing should be evaluated while also taking into consideration the specific editorial roles.1,2
Although there are significant concerns and arguments regarding editorial self-publication, data regarding the self-publication practice of journal editors are limited in the literature. 2 Studies investigating the prevalence and other characteristics of being an EAA can be used to monitor the status of the current practice in scientific journals. The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence and other characteristics of editorial self-publication in otorhinolaryngology practice.
Methods
General otorhinolaryngology journals indexed in SCI-E with a Journal Impact Factor (JIF) ≥ 1 were identified from the 2023 release of the Journal Citation Reports™ by Clarivate. 7 Journals were excluded if they exclusively focused on a specific otorhinolaryngological field, published only invited articles, lacked a publicly accessible editorial list or front matter for each issue published in 2023, or had inadequate data regarding the full names or affiliations of editorial members. Among the 39 otorhinolaryngology journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) in 2023 with a JIF ≥ 1, 12 journals met the inclusion criteria (Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica, American Journal of Otolaryngology, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, Auris Nasus Larynx, Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology, Clinical Otolaryngology, Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases, Laryngoscope, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, ORL-Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Head and Neck Surgery, and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery). Twenty-seven journals were excluded from the study: 19 focused on a specific otorhinolaryngological field, 2 published only invited articles, and 6 had inadequate data regarding the full names or affiliations of editorial members or lacked a publicly accessible editorial list or front matter for each issue published in 2023.
The editorial members of the journals were identified from the front matter of all issues published in 2023 and classified into the following groups: I—EIC, II—Secondary Editor (Associate Editor, Deputy Editor, Section Editor, etc., if applicable), III—EBM (if applicable), and IV—IEBM or Scientific Board (SB) (if applicable). If there was a change in the editorial list in 2023, both the successor and predecessor were removed from the list, and only those who worked as editorial members throughout the entire year of 2023 were included in the study. Editorial members with multiple positions within a single journal were counted only once. However, those with editorial roles in multiple journals were counted as separate individuals, as each journal has its editorial policies and behaviors that could influence the editor’s motivations for self-publishing. Original articles, review articles, and case reports published in 2023 were extracted from each journal’s archives, while other publication types, such as editorial materials, letters to the editor, or invited reviews, were excluded from the study. Author order within the articles was also classified as follows: (1) First author, (2) Contributing author, and (3) Senior author. The prevalence and other characteristics of articles published by editorial members in their journals were investigated independently by 2 authors. The homepages of the journals, including their submission guidelines, were searched for the presence of any instructions or policies regarding editorial self-publishing. Microsoft Excel (version 16.0, Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) was used for data analysis. The present study does not involve human or animal subjects. It was conducted in compliance with ethical standards, reviewed by the Non-Interventional Research Ethics Committee of the Kayseri City Hospital, and deemed exempt.
Results
A total of 795 editorial members were identified across 12 journals. The total number of EICs, Secondary Editors, EBMs, and IEBM/SBs was 12, 141, 461, and 181, respectively. Among the editorial members, 185 (23.3%) had at least 1 instance of EAA, with a range of 11.3% to 41.5%, depending on the journal. Seventy-five editorial members (9.4%) had more than one publication. The distribution of the number of self-publications of editorial members according to their editorial role is shown in Table 1.
Distribution of the Number of EAAs With At Least One Publication and the Number of EAAs With More Than One Publication, Categorized by Editorial Role.
Sec. Ed., secondary editor; EAA, editor-as-author; EIC, editor-in-chief; EBM, editorial board member; IEBM, international editorial board member; n, total number of editorial members; SB, scientific board.
The total number of editorial members listed as an EAA in at least 1 publication. Ratios were calculated by dividing the number of EAAs by the total number of individuals, categorized by editorial role.
The total number of editorial members listed as an editor-as-author in multiple publications. Ratios were calculated by dividing the number of EAAs by the total number of individuals, categorized by editorial role.
In 2023, a total of 2106 articles were published in these journals. At least 1 editorial member was listed as an EAA in 290 of the 2106 articles (13.8%), with a range of 5.7% to 54.5%, depending on the journal. In 37 articles (1.5%), multiple EAAs appeared in the author list. Self-published review articles had the highest ratio within their category, accounting for 22.2% of all review articles published in 2023 (Table 2). Table 3 demonstrates the distribution of the number of self-publications according to article type and editorial role. Editorial members were listed as an EAA in their journals a total of 353 times: 40 times as the first author (11.3%), 147 times as a contributing author (41.7%), and 166 times as the senior author (47%). The distribution of the number of self-publications according to author order and editorial role is shown in Table 4.
Distribution of the Total Number of Publications in 2023, the Number of Publications With At Least One EAA, and the Number of Publications With Multiple EAAs, Categorized by Article Type.
EAA, editor-as-author; n, number of publications.
The distribution of publication type with at least 1 editor-as-author according to article type. Ratios were calculated by dividing the number of self-publications by the total number of publications, categorized by article type.
The distribution of publication type with multiple editor-as-authors according to article type. Ratios were calculated by dividing the number of self-publications by the total number of publications, categorized by article type.
The Distribution of the Number of Self-Publications According to Article Type and Editorial Role.
Sec. Ed., secondary editor; EIC, editor-in-chief; EBM, editorial board member; IEBM, international editorial board member; n, number of publications; SB, scientific board.
The Distribution of the Number of Self-Publications According to Author Order and Editorial Role.
A., author; EIC, editor-in-chief; EBM, editorial board member; IEBM, international editorial board member; n, number of publications; SB, scientific board; Sec. Ed., secondary editor.
All journals stated that they followed the publication ethics guidelines provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Eight journals provided information on editorial self-publishing in their author guidelines or similar sections on their websites. The remaining journals referred to publication ethics guidelines, which include recommendations on editorial self-publishing for addressing any ethical issues.
Discussion
In a systematic review investigating the prevalence of editors publishing in their journals, Helgesson et al. 2 found that although some settings demonstrate high levels of self-publication, the results of studies on editorial self-publishing vary widely in the literature. The variability among studies is primarily due to differences in the types of publications included in the analyses and disregarding the exact timing of when the editorial members assumed their roles in the journal. 2 In addition, studies in the literature investigating the prevalence of editor self-publishing generally did not analyze differences among the various editorial positions within a journal.1,2,8-10 However, since the EICs and associate editors are primarily involved in the editorial and decision-making processes, these editorial positions should be evaluated distinctly in terms of self-publishing. By contrast, EBMs or IEBMs typically serve in advisory and peer-reviewing processes rather than in decision-making roles. 1 To overcome these methodological issues, we investigated the editorial roles and publication types separately in terms of editorial self-publications and excluded any editorial members from the study if they had not served for the entire year of 2023. The present study demonstrates that the prevalence of editorial self-publication among the otorhinolaryngology journals is highly variable, which is consistent with the literature.1,2,8-10 Among the total number of editorial members investigated, 23.3% had at least 1 instance of EAA, with percentages ranging from 11.3% to 41.5% depending on the journal. More than half of the EICs had at least 1 instance of EAA (58.3%), whereas the ratio was 55.3% for associate editors and similar positions. We also found that less active editorial positions, such as EBMs and IEBMs, had fewer incidences of self-publication, with a rate of 18.2% for EBMs and 8.8% for IEBMs. Hence, the rate of being an EAA differed according to the editorial position, with a decreasing trend from EIC to other editorial positions. This result may indicate that more powerful editorial positions have a higher likelihood of self-publishing in otorhinolaryngology journals.
One of the major methodological issues that causes variable results among studies investigating editorial self-publishing is the selection of publication types. 2 In some studies, all types of articles were analyzed, including editorials.11,12 However, editorials are typically written by editorial members as part of their duties for the journal and are published without undergoing a peer-review process. 13 Bias in the peer-review process is a significant concern for editorial members who wish to publish their work in their journal. 2 In addition, since research papers typically hold more value for academic promotion and reputation than other types of articles, studies that include all types of articles may not accurately reflect the exact tendency or trend for editorial self-publishing. In the present study, major publication types that typically undergo the peer-review process were included (original articles, review articles, and case reports). We also investigated the frequencies of publication types and the order of authorship in publications according to different editorial roles. There were 290 articles (13.8%) that included at least 1 editorial member, with a range of 5.7% to 54.5%, depending on the journal. This high variability may be due to each journal’s editorial policy, which can make them more prone or resistant to editorial self-publishing. Hamilton et al. 14 surveyed 322 journal editors across fields including ecology, economics, medicine, physics, and psychology to investigate their perspectives on publishing in their journals. A majority (79%) of the journal editors stated that it would be acceptable for any editor to do so with prerequisites such as independent editing and reviewing, while 8% and 13% of the editors stated that it would be unacceptable for the lead editor and any editor, respectively. Although there are ongoing debates in the literature both against and in favor of being an EAA,1,13-16 it is important to note that, according to publication ethics guidelines, there are no major restrictions on self-publishing by journal editors as long as transparency is maintained and a meticulous submission and peer-review process is followed.17-19 In the present study, original articles were the most common type of editorial self-publication, accounting for 71.7%, followed by review articles (17.6%) and case reports (10.7%). Self-published review articles had the highest proportion within their category, accounting for nearly a quarter of all review articles published in 2023. This result may be attributed to the high academic positions, experience, and research activity of the journal editors, which make them ideal candidates for authoring review articles. Original articles were the most common article type of editorial self-publication for all editorial positions, followed by review articles and case reports, respectively. EAAs were commonly senior or contributing authors, whereas editorial self-publishing as a first author was the least common type of authorship across all editorial positions.
Editorial self-publishing has been addressed by several leading international publication ethics guidelines, including those provided by COPE, ICMJE, and WAME.17-19 These well-established guidelines outline the general framework and precautions associated with being an EAA. However, adherence to these recommendations in journal editorial policies remains a topic of debate in the literature. Bošnjak et al. 3 investigated the publication practices of Croatian editors in their journals. The authors reported that only 8.6% of the journals with instructions for authors referred to guidelines of either an editorial or professional organization and guidance on self-publishing was not consistently endorsed by all editors. While Bošnjak et al.’s 3 study focused on a small scientific community, other studies have shown that editorial policies are not always strictly followed by journals, regardless of their size.20,21 By contrast, the present study found that the otorhinolaryngology journals included in the analysis clearly stated their adherence to internationally recognized publication ethics guidelines including COPE, ICMJE, or WAME. In addition, all the otorhinolaryngology journals included in this study either provided direct instructions on editorial self-publishing in their submission guidelines or indirectly referenced well-established ethical guidelines addressing this issue.
The present study has several limitations. First, the final publication date was used for analyses, so it should be noted that some studies may have been submitted before the editorial members assumed their roles in the journals. Second, given the cross-sectional nature of the study and the relatively short publication period of the journals examined, no trend analysis was possible regarding the overall publishing patterns of the journals or authors. The present study included general otolaryngology journals rather than those focused on specific subfields or substantive topics. Therefore, the data retrieved from this study cannot be generalized to editors or journals specialized in a particular otorhinolaryngologic field. Given that specific otorhinolaryngological journals focus on specialized areas and target a more unique group of researchers, the practice of editorial self-publishing may differ from that in general otorhinolaryngology journals. Investigating the prevalence of editorial self-publishing in specialized otorhinolaryngology journals should be the subject of further studies. In addition, we only included journals indexed in SCI-E with a JIF ≥ 1, as journals included in well-known indexes with higher JIF measures may motivate editorial members to self-publish. However, the behaviors of journal editors serving in less visible journals regarding self-publishing should also be investigated in further studies.
Conclusion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the prevalence and other characteristics of editorial self-publishing in otorhinolaryngology practice. The prevalence of being an EAA was found to be highly variable among otorhinolaryngology journals. Further studies investigating the editorial self-publication practice of otorhinolaryngology journals will enhance transparency and promote mechanisms for self-regulation to address ethical considerations.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iD
