Just wanted to provide the community with an update regarding the EditorEthics initiative (
http://editorethics.uncc.edu/). Nearly 200 journal editors (please note the list of supporting journals on the website) have affirmed their commitment to the following:
I. Refraining from coercive citation practices. Namely, in both public submission guidelines, and well as within the peer review process, authors will be encouraged to omit citations that are irrelevant to a paper's main thesis. Specifically, I will refrain from encouraging authors to cite my journal, or those of my colleagues, unless the papers suggested are pertinent to specific issues raised within the context of the review. I acknowledge that any blanket request to cite a particular journal, as well as the suggestion of citations without a clear explanation of how the additions address a specific gap in the paper, is coercive and unethical.
II. Encouraging my journal, its staff, and its sponsors and publishers to keep marketing strategies separate from the peer review process (if applicable). This could include but is not limited to using author or reviewer databases for mass marketing purposes; allowing publishers to use the peer review systems to market online access or subscription information; and allowing publishers' financial motives to drive strategy that has a non-science-based bearing on the peer review process.
III. In recognizing the global dialog regarding data fraud, research integrity, and implicit pressures on authors to manipulate findings, hide results, etc., I will, whenever possible and appropriate given the scope of my journal, to encourage: a) data transparency including identifying potential conflicts of interest, b) citing of archival data sources properly, and for one-off data collections, describing the full set of variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under review; c) to consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-relevant null results; d) to support substantive and important replication efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and atheoretical post-hoc hypothesizing.
IV. Communicating these and other relevant ethical standards to my associate editors and board members, and to conveying these principles within appropriate public forums (e.g., editors' panels at professional conferences). Authors who feel that these practices have been violated should be encouraged to bring their questions, with reference to this Code, to the attention of the Editor whose actions (or whose publisher's/sponsor's actions) may be in question.
This is a great start. The response from the Editors has been incredibly supportive. It is gratifying to see so many dedicated to the advancement of our science, with integrity. The next step in the process is for the scholarly community to hold us editors accountable. If you have a questionable/concerning journal experience that violates the above standards, please don't hesitate to reach out to Deb Rupp (ruppd@purdue.edu) or myself (sgrogelb@uncc.edu) for suggestions and/or seek feedback in the comment forum on the website: http://editorethics.uncc.edu/Comments.aspx.