Editorial Responsibilities: Both Sides of the Coin

Judit Dobránszki,Jaime A Teixeira Da Silva

doi:10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p9

Judit Dobránszki, Jaime A Teixeira Da Silva

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p9

Copy DOI

Abstract

In traditional publishing, authors are usually held accountable by editors. Rarely, however, are editors held accountable by authors, except for extreme cases of misconduct or editorial abuse. This letter seeks to fortify the notion that editors and authors should be held equally accountable for their publishing records and ethical positions, and that editors with tainted publishing records should be removed from their editorial positions. Failure to do so would negatively affect the journal and publisher’s image. DOI: 10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p9

Highlights

Editors have a tremendous responsibility in ensuring the accuracy of the scientific record that they release to the public and in holding the authorship accountable
Editorial responsibilities include (Kleinert and Wager, 2011): responsibility for all that is published; fair and unbiased decision-making, and policies that are clear to the authorship and public; transparency and honesty; safe-guarding the literature’s integrity by pursuing cases of alleged misconduct and correcting the literature using errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern and retractions; clear conflict of interest policies
The responsibilities of editors are fairly well explored in the literature, what is not well explored is what should happen to editors should they fail to meet these responsibilities, or show an imperfect academic or publishing track record

Summary

Editor’s Responsibilities

Editors have a tremendous responsibility in ensuring the accuracy of the scientific record that they release to the public and in holding the authorship accountable. Editors are expected, according to editorial codes of conduct (COCs), to hold themselves to the highest levels of scrutiny, no different to authors (ESF, 2011; Teixeira da Silva, 2013). Spier (2002) argues that authors and editors are unable to function without bias but that scientists can in effect hold editors accountable by adopting “a healthy scepticism and to check wherever possible by collateral evidence (source of publication, ...), papers in the literature, or by directly testing the reliability of each publication.”. Spier (2002) argues that authors and editors are unable to function without bias but that scientists can in effect hold editors accountable by adopting “a healthy scepticism and to check wherever possible by collateral evidence (source of publication, ...), papers in the literature, or by directly testing the reliability of each publication.” the intrinsic and inherent presence of bias in publishing should serve as the premise to always be alert and skeptical of what has been published

Editors’ Ethical or Professional Infractions under the Microscope

Conclusions