Abstract
Behind every published article is a complex web of social interaction between editors, authors, reviewers and publishers which shapes how research is conceived, undertaken and disseminated. Some publishing decisions are straightforward, and clearly communicated, such as language, grammar, structure, publishing schedules and citations. Others are more subtle and open to interpretation, and may present ethical dilemmas for the author, reviewer, editor and publisher. Ethical issues can range from the use of AI and self-plagiarism, through to manipulating research findings and research bias. Editors-in-Chief may exert a bias, in their initial selection or rejection of manuscripts, and in their choice of reviewers, and this can be conscious or subconscious. Ethical issues are never far away in the publishing game.
Our experience of running Information Polity tells us that the publishing process involves considerable editorial judgement and that there are risks associated with censorship and ideological filtering. For example, it could be a temptation to desk reject an article written by authors from a country with a discredited political regime, an article based on an unpopular research process, or an article which is barely relevant to the readership of the journal. In academic publishing bias can show up when controversial topics are rejected for fear of reputational damage regardless of their academic quality. Such bias can lead to a distorted representation of research findings, inequitable opportunities for authors and a lack of diversity in the publication process. Allied to this has been the curtailing of academic freedom in recent years by national governments and employers, which in turn has exerted a bias in how research is presented and communicated in its written form.
Our approach at Information Polity has been to try and recognise any bias where it exists and to pursue an ethical approach to decision-making. For us, ethical publishing equates to editorial independence, freedom of expression and a need to have checks and balances in the publication process, so that we are alerted to any ethical issues as they arise. As Editors-in-Chief we have oversight of the editorial process and because there are two of us, we can easily cross-reference any ideas, concerns or issues – and, we have found having two of us in this role immensely useful, not so much in sharing the work effort, but in checking the validity of any challenging decisions we have to make. But, there is no room for complacency.
The traditional method for managing bias, and the process used for this journal, has been to use double-blind peer review with oversight by a senior editorial team. However, in recent years we have observed that some journals are starting to use bias detection tools and checklists, and/or creating an ethics committee to provide guidance and audit for ethical matters. At this stage, we have not wanted to create any mechanisms that are overly bureaucratic and time consuming for the ‘volunteers’ that provide editorial support to the journal, but we are open minded about how we approach these issues and how we can improve what we currently do. With this in mind, we are reaching out to the readership of the journal for ideas and suggestions about how we may go about this.