Theory and practice of journal editorship: on editorial ethics

Abstract

This issue of Research in Engineering Design is a special issue on Design Theory. For any discipline, theory and practice play complementary roles. We study practice, trying to understand it by forming theories, in order to improve practice. Or, we form theories, try to implement them in practice, and following such implementations/ experimentations, we revise our theories. Irrespective where you start the loop, it is productive if done well. The purpose of this editorial is not to discuss this issue or the subject of design theory that is introduced meticulously in the guest editorial followed by six high-quality papers. The purpose of this editorial is to briefly discuss the theory and practice of journal editorship using these concepts rather loosely. The ‘‘theory’’ consists of the journal’s review procedure outlined in a previous editorial (V21, no. 2). While there is constant effort to approach the targets set in the review procedure, we are not there yet as seen in the statistics of the process. In the professional engineering world, such a gap would not be acceptable. The journal review process—a contract between the editor, editorial board, and the authors—must be kept. However, in the academic world, where all parties volunteer, the situation transforms from a legal to a social contract governed by an ethos. Of course there are familiar issues of ethics related to authors such as no plagiarism, no redundant publications, etc. Journals often make sure to ask authors to declare that they have not breached these rules. In contrast, journals do not usually declare the opposite side—the ethics of editors, which is therefore the subject of this editorial. This ethics is critical due to the blindness of review processes, making, the relationship between editors and authors asymmetric and prone to mistakes as well as misconduct. Only the ethical codes followed by the community ensure that the process is honest and is executed well. Editorial ethics is not a redundant topic; there have been editors of journals who did not handle papers submitted for review for years, compromising the careers of their peers; there have been editors who wrote letters to the editor using a fraudulent name to offend a colleague; others accepted papers to gain personal benefits. What then should we expect of the editor and what measures do authors have to defend their interests? Here are some rules an editor must follow: