Dealing with editorial misconduct

Editor—I would like to add another category of editorial responsibilities to the list considered for a code of conduct in Godlee's article¹: the relationship with reviewers and authors.

In my experience, editors of even the most prestigious journals exchange emails and phone calls with friends and other associates regarding accepting submissions and “invited” articles and editorials. This is within the rightful purview of their role. The problem arrives when this network (unintentionally) serves to promote a particular group or way of thinking in favour of a competing group or an alternative approach to an issue.

I have experienced situations where acceptance was facilitated by a quick call or message from a supervisor to a friendly editor, where reviewers rejected material that would have beaten their work into press (other reviewers should have been selected), where reviewing was passed on to the graduate assistant rather than done by the professor, and where liberal courtesies have been extended to authors and reviewers because of their positions rather than their contributions.

Academic, clinical, legal, and administrative bodies foist an authoritative role on peer reviewed professional journals. Much of this is driven by the perception that the journals are “impartial.” If a journal wishes to reject this role then the editors should decline loudly. If the editor and publisher wish to capitalise on the presumption of anonymous impartiality, then they should be honourable about it and move beyond the “old mates network” approach to the job.