IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v73y2022i7p913-928.html

A contextualization of editorial misconduct in the library and information science academic information ecosystem

Author

Listed:
  • Lucy Santos Green
  • Melissa P. Johnston

Abstract

In the last decade, one of the most effective tools applied in combating the erosion of public trust in academic research has been an increased level of transparency in the peer review and editorial process. Publicly available publication ethics guidelines and policies are vital in creating a transparent process that prevents unethical research, publication misconduct, manipulation of the communication of research to practitioners, and the erosion of public trust. This study investigated how these unethical practices, specifically those coded as editorial misconduct, bring the authenticity and integrity of the library and information science academic research digital record into question. Employing a multi‐layered approach, including key informant interviews, researchers determined the frequency and the content of ethical publishing policies and procedures in library and information science journals; exploring the ways the lack of, or nonadherence to these policies and procedures impacted library and information science researchers in instances of editorial misconduct.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucy Santos Green & Melissa P. Johnston, 2022. "A contextualization of editorial misconduct in the library and information science academic information ecosystem," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(7), pages 913-928, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:73:y:2022:i:7:p:913-928
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.24593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24593
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.24593?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Sheble, 2016. "Research synthesis methods and library and information science: Shared problems, limited diffusion," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(8), pages 1990-2008, August.
    2. Aguinis, Herman & Vaschetto, Sofia J., 2011. "Editorial Responsibility: Managing the Publishing Process to Do Good and Do Well," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 407-422, November.
    3. Aurora A.C. Teixeira & Mariana Fontes da Costa, 2010. "Who rules the ruler? On the misconduct of Journal Editors," OBEGEF Working Papers 005, OBEGEF - Observatório de Economia e Gestão de Fraude;OBEGEF Working Papers on Fraud and Corruption.
    4. Misha Teplitskiy & Grace Lu & Eamon Duede, 2017. "Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(9), pages 2116-2127, September.
    5. Emre Sarigöl & David Garcia & Ingo Scholtes & Frank Schweitzer, 2017. "Quantifying the effect of editor–author relations on manuscript handling times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 609-631, October.
    6. Motta, Matthew & Callaghan, Timothy & Sylvester, Steven, 2018. "Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 274-281.
    7. Matan Shelomi, 2014. "Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-10, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bravo, Giangiacomo & Farjam, Mike & Grimaldo Moreno, Francisco & Birukou, Aliaksandr & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2018. "Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 101-112.
    2. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Casey A. Klofstad & Joseph E. Uscinski & Jennifer M. Connolly & Jonathan P. West, 2019. "What drives people to believe in Zika conspiracy theories?," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Lokman Tutuncu, 2023. "All-pervading insider bias alters review time in Turkish university journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3743-3791, June.
    5. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    6. Herman Aguinis & Estelle E. Archibold & Darryl B. Rice, 2022. "Let’s Fix our Own Problem: Quelling the Irresponsible Research Perfect Storm," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(6), pages 1628-1642, September.
    7. Argyris, Young Anna & Kim, Yongsuk & Roscizewski, Alexa & Song, Won, 2021. "The mediating role of vaccine hesitancy between maternal engagement with anti- and pro-vaccine social media posts and adolescent HPV-vaccine uptake rates in the US: The perspective of loss aversion in emotion-laden decision circumstances," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    8. Petersen, Alexander M., 2019. "Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    9. Kovacs, Roxanne J. & Lagarde, Mylene & Cairns, John, 2020. "Overconfident health workers provide lower quality healthcare," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    10. Jane Cho, 2021. "Altmetrics analysis of highly cited academic papers in the field of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7623-7635, September.
    11. Rossen, Isabel & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Dunlop, Patrick D. & Lawrence, Carmen, 2019. "Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 23-27.
    12. Michael Taylor, 2020. "An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2523-2543, December.
    13. Vincenzo Carrieri & Raffele Lagravinese & Giuliano Resce, 2021. "Predicting vaccine hesitancy from area‐level indicators: A machine learning approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(12), pages 3248-3256, December.
    14. Laura Bowering Mullen, 2024. "Open Access, Scholarly Communication, and Open Science in Psychology: An Overview for Researchers," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1_suppl), pages 21582440231, April.
    15. Nilufer Cetik & Carola Grebitus & Lauren Chenarides, 2026. "Relationship Between Knowledge and Compliance With Safety Measures: Evidence From COVID‐19," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 487-504, May.
    16. Lokman Tutuncu, 2024. "Gatekeepers or gatecrashers? The inside connection in editorial board publications of Turkish national journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(2), pages 957-984, February.
    17. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "The open access citation premium may depend on the openness and inclusiveness of the indexing database, but the relationship is controversial because it is ambiguous where the open access boundary lies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 995-1018, November.
    18. ederico Bianchi & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [Reviewing Peer Review]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 791-800.
    19. Wenceslao Arroyo‐Machado & Adrián A. Díaz‐Faes & Enrique Herrera‐Viedma & Rodrigo Costas, 2024. "From academic to media capital: To what extent does the scientific reputation of universities translate into Wikipedia attention?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(4), pages 423-437, April.
    20. Lisa Singh & Leticia Bode & Ceren Budak & Kornraphop Kawintiranon & Colton Padden & Emily Vraga, 2020. "Understanding high- and low-quality URL Sharing on COVID-19 Twitter streams," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 343-366, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:73:y:2022:i:7:p:913-928. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.