Impact,integrity and editorial independence

Introduction

The success of medical journals can be driven by various factors such as popularity, readership, submission rates, impact factor and download rates, but arguably the pursuit of academic excellence and the progression of science are the key end goals. There are also factors that can motivate editorial decisions that rely on threat and aversion such as fears of complaints, risk to reputation, legal threats and even risks to safety. This Editorial aims to provide an overview of the factors that threaten Editorial autonomy and to illustrate how politics can sometimes influence decisions rather than science.

Impact

Annually, the impact factor for academic journals is released. It is a statistic based on citations and the number of articles published in a particular journal. It has been used broadly to rank journals and it is used as a shorthand for impact in academia as a whole. As a narrow statistic, the impact factor has come under criticism and although many efforts have been made to develop alternatives, none have stuck or managed to supplant it. Should an Editor be motivated by impact factor as their Key Performance Indicator, selection bias may develop as the Editor is likely to focus their efforts on publishing highly cited papers.

A key concern is that Impact factor alone fails to capture other indicators of a journal’s success. This shortcoming is especially evident in journals that have a broad remit such as those affiliated with societies or other organisations. Australasian Psychiatry and ANZJP are the official journals of the Royal Australian New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP), and Bipolar Disorders The Journal is the official journal of the International Society for Bipolar Disorders. These journals may be held in higher esteem if they publish articles of significance to the members of the organisations that they are affiliated with. Examples of articles that would be well received by members of an organisation include articles that present viewpoints on topics of relevance to the organisation.

Other professional bodies and organisations also have journals that are affiliated with them and to some extent represent their interests. For example, most society journals will publish the abstracts from a conference organised by the parent body. Some journals will publish proceedings from meetings and other materials related to the functioning of the affiliated organisation. In this way, colleges, societies, professional bodies and other types of organisations have strong links with various academic journals. In some instances, the publication of the journal is made possible by the society or organisation, providing, for example, direct funding, which may enable administrative support. However, in most cases, a separate publisher manages the journal and usually the parent body will have a contract with the publisher.

In the case of ANZJP, for example, the publisher is Sage, and the publisher manages the processing of articles through an online platform and negotiates with the College the broad requirements such as number of issues to be published and whether these are online or hardcopy. The publisher also usually manages the business end of the journal, such as advertising and the relationships the journal has with hosts such as libraries, institutions and individual subscribers.

In general, the content of the journal, namely, the kinds of articles and what is published and what is not, is determined by the editor, who is often assisted by an editorial team of their choosing. This whole process is maintained at arm’s length both from the parent body (e.g. the RANZCP) and the publisher – that is to say, it is independent. The editor is entrusted with the responsibility for the content of the journal and is expected to ensure that the journal does not pose any unnecessary financial or reputational risk. Thus, for the College Journals, there are three parties involved and there are three reciprocal relationships between them. Naturally, this arrangement is even simpler for journals where there is no parent body or additional organisation such as the College.

Integrity

Academic integrity is critical and perhaps especially so in medicine. Integrity is essential in clinical psychiatric practice, where trust, confidentiality and the knowledge that professionals have the best interest of patients in mind, is of paramount importance. It is therefore a core value, and not surprising that most organisations, professional bodies and institutions cite integrity as a core principle of their mission. Similarly, for journals, it is vital that those that read an article under the banner of the journal can trust the information they are consuming. This is why editorial teams and publishers are expected to adhere to a code of ethics, not too dissimilar to the professional ethical codes embodied within organisations such as the College. The majority of journals and publishers have codes of their own and the most frequently cited guidelines are found on the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE, 1999).

However, academic journals and especially those affiliated with various societies have the added responsibility of shining a light on the integrity of their parent body. Predictably, this can sometimes be problematic. For example, authors of articles (who may be members of a society or organisation linked to the journal) may not agree with the stance adopted by the parent body. In fact, they may directly criticise the parent body including its policies and functioning. In such instances, the role of the editorial team is to referee the matter as impartially as possible. Ideally, they should not censor what is being said or limit it in any way, other than to ensure what is being communicated is done so in a suitably respectful manner. They should also ensure that the messages meaningfully contribute to any ongoing discussion or debate. However, this can be difficult, especially as the editorial team may be regarded as an extension of the parent body or the publisher. This creates conflicts of interest and some Editors have resigned due to such conflicts between their decisions and the parent organisations of journals, for example, Leeder (2015).

In a similar vein, publishers may also come under attack and once again the editorial team has to be able to maintain an independent stance. But it is interesting to note that the editorial team itself is also not immune to such criticism, and in fact the editor is often the subject of direct critique. This is why it is essential to have processes that allow concerns and complaints to be handled independently. This ensures the matter is dealt with fairly and in confidence but at the same time with sufficient swiftness in order to limit any potential damage – reputational or otherwise. These issues are inherently complex and often situation-specific and in psychiatry, there is certainly no shortage of topics that can lend themselves to such controversy, for example, articles questioning the validity of diagnoses and the efficacy of various treatments.

Institutional independence

While in general the parent body of a journal such as the College acts to facilitate the relationship between the publisher and the editorial team and clearly benefits from having a highly functioning publication, there are instances in which its own interests may well be threatened and even be compromised. In such cases, the parent body may be tempted to interfere or direct the content of the affiliated journal. This rarely happens and is seldom direct. For example, a publisher (who manages the business side of publication) may suggest that articles with certain content should be favoured or may be of value because particular commercial entities are interested in advertising in the journal. For instance, a company that manufactures or sells certain treatments may be more likely to advertise in the journal if it publishes articles reporting favourable findings for that particular therapy. Even if the approach is not as direct as this and occurs only once the contents of the journal are made available, publishers can still try to juxtapose advertisements alongside relevant articles. Again, these matters need to be appraised on a case-by-case basis, and they are, but a failure to recognise potential problems can undermine the integrity and independence of the publication.

In a similar vein, a professional body is unlikely to take kindly to criticism being published within its own journal. It may, therefore, take it upon itself to remind the editorial team that it supports the journal (financially) and that ultimately without its assistance the publication would not exist. Such direct attempts to interfere in editorial processes are thankfully rare, and of course, in normal circumstances, all parties agree that publication and editorial decision-making should remain at arm’s length from any influence from all other parties involved. In fact, there should be no interference whatsoever especially from the parent body or publisher. However, it is only when a difficulty arises that these positions are actually tested.

Influential authors may also complain to the parent body of the journal, in an attempt to influence the Editor’s decision. And indeed, simply raising such as concern may influence decision-making. Ideally, such approaches should not be entertained, and complainants ought to be redirected to the journal. However, should such complaints be handled by the parent body, the fate of articles within the journal risks being determined by factors other than scientific merit such as political views and arguments. This is a considerable and growing risk.

Conclusion

It is therefore important that Editors, authors and readers are aware of the factors that can influence Editorial decisions and that all groups involved strive to work together to uphold scientific principles. This is best achieved by maintaining absolute Editorial independence.

And so, while impact factor has some importance it is of far less significance than journal integrity. Indeed, we argue that a journal’s true impact can only be realised when it is genuinely independent (Storeng et al., 2019).