New Journal, New Risks: Avoiding Common Pitfalls

Becoming the Editor-in-Chief of a new journal is an exciting but potentially daunting task. Establishing a journal from scratch requires careful attention to numerous details, particularly concerning ethical practices and operational procedures. Drawing on guidance from sources like COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), this article outlines key pitfalls a new EiC should be aware of to ensure the journal is built on a solid, ethical foundation.

1. Lack of Clear Policies and Processes

A fundamental pitfall is failing to establish robust and well-described, publicly documented practices from the outset. Adherence to COPE’s Core Practices is essential. This includes developing and publishing clear policies and procedures for a range of journal activities and ethical concerns:

Authorship and Contributorship: Defining clear criteria, managing disputes, and ensuring transparency about contributions. A pitfall is assuming authors will adhere to standard guidelines like ICMJE criteria without explicit instruction or process. Policies should cover gift and ghost authorship.
Peer Review: Transparently describing the process, providing training for editors and reviewers, and having policies on managing conflicts of interest, appeals, and disputes within peer review. Editors should avoid reviewing manuscripts they handle without full transparency. Policies regarding reviewer copyright and the editing of reviews should also be clear.
Handling Allegations of Misconduct: Establishing a clear process for receiving and responding to allegations of research, publication, and review misconduct, whether pre- or post-publication. Allegations from whistleblowers should be handled seriously.
Conflicts of Interest (CoI): Clearly defining CoI and implementing processes for disclosure and handling conflicts involving authors, reviewers, editors, staff, and the journal/publisher. A potential pitfall for editors is having multiple editorial board positions on journals with similar scope, which could create conflicts or the perception thereof.
Data and Reproducibility: Developing policies on data availability, encouraging reporting guidelines, and clinical trial registration. Editors are not expected to double-check all data but should have systems for addressing concerns raised by readers.
Ethical Oversight: Implementing and publishing clear guidelines on ethical conduct of research, including informed consent (especially for identifiable cases like medical reports), research involving humans or animals, and handling confidential data. A process is needed for handling submissions that do not meet the journal’s normal requirements for ethical approval. Processes for preventing and detecting misconduct like plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification are essential.
Intellectual Property: Clearly describing policies on copyright, licensing, author fees, what constitutes prepublication, and defining plagiarism/redundant publication. Failure to clearly state author fees or making unexpected charges can be problematic.
Complaints and Appeals: Having a clearly described process for handling complaints against the journal or its personnel, and for authors appealing editorial decisions. Appointing an independent ombudsman can be beneficial.

2. Issues with Editorial Board Management

A strong and engaged editorial board is crucial. Potential pitfalls include:

Unclear Roles and Expectations: Not clearly defining the specific roles and responsibilities for all editors, including the EiC, Section Editors-in-Chief, and Editorial Board Members (EBMs). This extends to defining the length of appointments and conditions for termination.
Inadequate Vetting: Not properly vetting new board members before onboarding. This includes checking for suspicious affiliations with questionable journals using criteria like those inspired by Think.Check.Submit..
Failure to Monitor Activity: Not monitoring EBM activity or having processes for re-engaging or removing inactive members.
Lack of Communication: Poor communication between the EiC, the board, and journal staff.
Insufficient Training: Not providing appropriate training for editors.

3. Handling Submissions and Ethical Issues in Practice

Navigating the day-to-day editorial process presents several potential pitfalls:

Overturning Decisions Improperly: Reversing acceptance decisions made by the previous editor without identifying serious issues such as plagiarism or data fabrication.
Biased Decisions: Letting factors other than the paper's importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope influence acceptance or rejection decisions.
Ignoring Misconduct: Not taking seriously allegations of misconduct, even for submissions not intended for publication.
Reluctance to Correct the Literature: Being unwilling or slow to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. Legal concerns can make editors reluctant to retract, which is a pitfall. Prompt retraction of seriously flawed articles is considered a responsible action.
Editors Publishing in Their Own Journal: Publishing manuscripts authored by the editor or board members without a clear procedure for independent peer review to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Unclear Author Instructions: Failing to ensure the journal's Instructions to Authors are up-to-date, clear about expectations, and specify actions for suspected misconduct.
Inadequate Checks: Not performing adequate checks for plagiarism, data fabrication/manipulation, or ensuring figures and tables are correctly cited and of sufficient quality.
Mishandling Ethical Approvals: Failing to ensure authors obtained necessary ethical approvals and consent for their research, or not having a process for evaluating studies where local regulations differ.
Poor Complaint Handling: Not having a clear process or being unresponsive when dealing with complaints.
Inappropriate Information Sharing: Sharing information about suspected misconduct too broadly or without justification. Information should generally only be shared with other editors-in-chief if initial inquiries are unsatisfactory or if more than one journal is affected. Authors should be alerted to the potential for such sharing.
Failure to Cooperate: Not following through on requests for information or findings from institutional investigations related to published work.

4. Relationship with Publisher/Owner and Commercial Issues

The relationship between the editor and the publisher or journal owner can be complex but should uphold editorial independence. Pitfalls include:

Loss of Editorial Independence: Allowing financial, political, or personal influences to override decisions based on quality and suitability.
Lack of a Formal Agreement: Operating without a signed, written agreement outlining the terms of appointment and procedures for grievances.
Commercial Influence: Allowing commercial considerations like advertising or sponsored supplements to affect editorial decisions. This requires declared policies and accessible guidance.
Non-Transparent Business Practices: Not having fair and transparent processes for selecting commercial service providers or publishers. Individuals involved should declare and manage competing interests.
Target-Driven Decisions: Linking editorial decisions to internal targets or expediting decisions for metric purposes.
Misleading Information: Providing untruthful or misleading information in direct marketing activities.

5. Operational and Transparency Challenges

Setting up the operational infrastructure requires careful planning:

Ignoring Existing Systems: Not fully understanding or utilising the existing submission system and timelines.
Lack of Infrastructure: Not establishing a well-managed infrastructure with appropriate policies, processes, and software.
Insufficient Transparency: Not being sufficiently transparent about processes and business practices on the journal website.
Website Issues: Not ensuring the website is properly supported, maintained, and secure (e.g., using HTTPS).
Confusing Identity: Choosing a journal name that is not unique or could mislead potential authors and readers.
Unclear Schedule or Archiving: Not clearly stating the publishing frequency or a plan for electronic backup and long-term digital preservation.
Poor Communication Practices: Disclosing inappropriate information such as reviewer details, internal targets, or personal contact information.
Content Quality Control: Failing to confirm manuscripts fit the journal scope, meet language quality standards, and adhere to formatting requirements.
Citation Manipulation: Not checking for or preventing excessive author or journal self-citation.

6. Legal and Financial Risks

Editors must be aware that ethical issues can have serious consequences:

Legal Implications of Misconduct: Serious cases of misconduct can have significant legal and financial implications for the journal.
Sanctions Risks: Applying sanctions like banning authors carries a risk of legal challenges based on potential loss of earnings or reputational damage.

By being aware of these common pitfalls and implementing the necessary policies, processes, and training, a new Editor-in-Chief can navigate the challenges of launching a journal effectively and promote the integrity of scholarly publishing from the start.