A recent controversy surrounding the International Journal of Tourism Research has reignited a long-standing concern in academic publishing: what happens when editors appear to benefit disproportionately from the journals they oversee?
According to reporting by Retraction Watch, more than half of the papers published in IJTR since 2024 cite the work of its current editor-in-chief, Timothy J. Lee. In 2024 alone, nearly three-quarters of the journal’s articles referenced his research, often multiple times. Even when excluding self-citations, 55% of published papers still cited him.
There is, at present, no public evidence that authors were directly pressured to cite the editor. But that is not the only issue. The deeper problem is structural. When an editor’s work is cited at such extraordinary rates in the very journal they control, the integrity of the editorial process inevitably comes into question.
Why this matters
Editors hold enormous power. They decide which manuscripts are sent to review, which reviewers are chosen, how revisions are evaluated, and ultimately what gets published. That authority exists to protect quality and fairness. It is not meant to advance personal citation metrics.
Even the perception that citing the editor improves acceptance odds can distort behavior. Authors may add unnecessary references “just in case.” Junior scholars, especially those from systems where journal metrics carry heavy weight, may believe citation is a strategic requirement. Over time, this creates a self-reinforcing loop: more citations inflate the editor’s profile, which strengthens their authority, which increases perceived pressure to cite.
That is not scholarship. That is metric engineering.
If editors wish to publish in their own journals, strict firewalls must be in place. If they are cited, those citations must be clearly justified and editorially independent. Otherwise, the journal risks becoming a vehicle for personal brand amplification rather than a platform for advancing knowledge.
The broader cultural problem
This case is not happening in isolation. The obsession with impact factors and citation counts has reshaped academic incentives. Editors are increasingly evaluated not just on quality control but on how high they can push journal metrics. Universities reward citation counts. Publishers reward growth. The system nudges behavior toward visibility, not necessarily rigor.
When editorial boards start functioning like metric acceleration units rather than community stewards, trust erodes.
Once trust erodes, everything erodes.
The uncomfortable reality
There are other editors in other disciplines whose citation patterns raise eyebrows. Not always as extreme. Not always as visible. But similar dynamics exist.
Some encourage extensive citation of “journal-relevant literature” that conveniently overlaps with their own portfolio. Some cultivate networks where mutual citation becomes normalized. Some build citation clusters centered around institutional colleagues.
And here is the key point: absence of proof is not proof of absence. Peer review is confidential. Decisions are opaque. Unless authors speak out, patterns remain hidden.
But patterns are now being tracked.
Independent analysts and watchdog groups are examining citation distributions more carefully than ever. Tools like Web of Science and citation mapping software make irregular concentration easier to detect. When over half of a journal’s articles cite the editor-in-chief, people notice. And when similar patterns emerge elsewhere, they will notice too.
Watchdogs are watching.
What should happen
Clear standards are needed:
Editors should not benefit disproportionately from their own journals.
Editorial decisions involving their work must be fully delegated and independently handled.
Citation audits should be routine, not reactive.
Publishers must intervene early when abnormal patterns emerge.
Most importantly, editors must remember their role. They are custodians of a scholarly community, not architects of their own citation empire.
Academic publishing runs on trust. Once that trust becomes negotiable, the credibility of the entire system is at stake.
Editors should be raising standards. Not their own h-index.
No comments:
Post a Comment