Editorial ethics

Since the 1970s an ethic of scholarly work and its publication has evolved to guide the conduct of research and the dissemination of scientific and scholarly information. Journal editors and many others have contributed to setting the ethical standards and editorial policies on which the prestige and standing of journal publications now depend.

Yet as Horton and Smith have recently stated “there is a huge gap between the strict, some might say astonishingly out of touch, criteria for authorship set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and what happens in the real world of research … It is time for editors to listen to researchers, not simply to impose their arbitrary and anachronistic rules” (Lancet 1996;347:780).

Dewey (BMJ 1993;306:318-20) has discussed several problems in the editorial process. Drawing on and adding to his work I should like to propose a set of guidelines for editors that may improve communication and relationships between authors and editors and enhance the integrity of the editorial process.

Editors, as responsible social agents and therefore accountable to society for their actions, should view authors both as their clients and as agents of society in pursuit of knowledge through scholarly endeavours. As such, editors should respect and be seen to respect authors as well as expecting high standards from them.

Information for aspiring authors should be as comprehensive as possible and should include details of editorial policy on the review process—for example, whether this is blinded, the time given for reviewers to respond, how long it may take to receive a decision, and the approximate time to publication following acceptance.

A brief annual report (as provided by Thorax) could provide authors with an updated review of these details as well as of acceptance rates, analyses of reviewers' compliance with editorial requirements, and the institutional affiliations of the authors of published (and perhaps even rejected) articles.

Given the high rejection rate by many journals, authors should not be required to meet highly individualistic journal styles for footnotes and references as a prerequisite for review. Clearly, for any manuscript that is accepted such specific requirements would subsequently have to be met. Insisting on specific requirements when rejection rates are high is burdensome and irritating for authors, who may have to wait many months for replies and then have to reformat the manuscript for submission elsewhere. All manuscripts received should be promptly acknowledged and a brief communication sent out at three monthly intervals to inform authors of progress.

Reviewers should be asked to be collegial and constructive in their criticisms (Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 October 1996). All reviewers' reports should be made available to authors, whether or not the article is accepted. Both supportive and critical comments can be helpful to authors. Even inaccurate comments, perhaps based on misunderstanding by the reviewer, may help to identify sections which could be clarified through revision of language. The review process is an arduous and responsible one for reviewers, and authors should have the opportunity to benefit maximally from such peer review. An editorial comment on reviewers' reports should be added whenever feasible.

Keeping appropriate records would help editors to track unreliable or obnoxious reviewers. Listing the proportion who act in this way in the annual report, would let authors and reviewers know of the journal's internal audit process and provide a perspective on attempts to effect constructive change. Inadequate reviews should be contestable by authors and the editor's weighting of reviewers' recommendations should be commensurate with the scholarly standard of the review.

Reviewers should sign personal responsibility for their reviews. Where the help of research fellows or others has been enlisted this should be declared. Reviewers and their assistants should also sign a commitment not to use material or ideas from manuscripts without permission. While clearly the editorial process must involve considerable trust, intermittent spot checks on reviewers' publications should be undertaken to deter and monitor plagiarism.

Any major changes to manuscripts by the editor should be accompanied by justifying reasons. It is unacceptable for editors to use the transparent excuse of space limitation to censor authors, especially at the galley proof stage. Editors who face the problem of insufficient space in their journal must at least use reference and footnote systems that do not waste space—for example, the Vancouver style. Requirements to meet space limitations should be uniform and authors should not be subjected to arbitrary editorial deletions, especially non-negotiated changes.

Authors should have the opportunity to review galley proofs to ensure their approval of the final publication. Reasonable deadlines should be given to review galley proofs as authors attend conferences, go on holiday, and may have other pressing commitments.

When editors receive several papers on a similar topic and decide to publish only one on the basis of merit the other authors should be told so that when the chosen article is published the rejected authors have no reason to believe that their work has been used. Editors should also be required to indicate that they have no conflicts of interest.

All copies of rejected manuscripts should either be returned to authors or destroyed and the authors informed.

There should be a mechanism for reviewing questionable editorial practices and for holding editors publicly accountable for their actions, without opening the flood gates for frivolous complaints. Editors should set ethical standards at least as high as they expect from authors. An authors' ombudsman (as recently appointed by the Lancet) could facilitate the evaluation of charges against editors and allow editorial discretion to be balanced by accountability.

These views are offered to encourage open debate on a contentious issue that has received insufficient public attention in an era when all professionals are being held to high standards of public accountability. The anticipated reply from editors that the amount of work involved would be great and costly can be pre-empted by pointing out this also applies to the procedures required of researchers in obtaining ethical approval of studies and to authors from editorial delays. As with all rules and guidelines the requirement for these is not directed at the many editors who do their job well but at those who do not.