This page includes responses from editorial board members to questions about their role in professional ethics.
You have to look at this issue in perspective. It is quite reasonable for the editor to expect the ERB members of a journal to be fully familiar with the journal contents. The best way to accomplish this is by way of subscribing to the journal. While it would be nice for the publisher to provide free subscriptions, it is not always economically viable especially for new and niche journals. In such a case, the ERB members are not doing justice if they continue to do reviews without receiving the journal on a regular basis. The only honorable thing then is to cease being on the board.
The answer to your second question is a clear NO; this would amount to buying an editorship which the community should clearly not encourage.
As for the first question, I should leave it to the market. No one is forced to join an editorial board if the conditions are not right. Many journals I am aware of do give electronic access or free personal copies to at least their senior editorial board members, including Information Systems (Elsevier) of which I am Editor-in-Chief, but there is no obligation and I think it would be a little extreme to make an ethical issue out of this.
In the case of some journals, the decision to provide ERB members with a complimentary copy of every issue is solely in the hands of the publishers. The availability of electronic versions is again the decision of the publishers. This is especially the case when the copyright to the articles are held by the publishers.
As Editor, I encourage all my board members to either recommend the Journal to their libraries or take out an individual subscription, so that they can remain up-to-date with what is being published. This will assist in their review efforts.
Here at the Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, we deeply appreciate the association we have with our editorial board and I think it's worth sending them a subscription in return for their efforts, although in our case, we don't have subscriptions, so it's easy to say! Nevertheless, we would certainly put their papers onto fast track reviewing as well as trying to "reward" them with opportunities for guest editing special editions. I like the offer I always get from Mehdi on JEUC who undertakes to write to my Dean acknowledging my reviewing activity, it's a simple but meaningful way of saying "thanks", and I intend to make the same offer for reviewers/editorial board members on EJISDC.
As a reviewer myself, and board member on a few journals, I think there is a danger that the commercial aspects of being involved with a journal can corrupt the professional merit. From time-to-time I'm told that my credentials are suitable to be invited to sit on a journal board, but I'm told that the offer is conditional on taking out a subscription to the journal. Living on a third-world income makes that prohibitive for me, but I know academics who sit on a dozen or more journal boards, and they might have to spend a month's salary or more to take out subscriptions to all of them!
I would say that a journal's financial security is better served by an editorial board that acts without reference to their willingness to pay for the privilege, but which focuses solely on the quality of the content.
In my opinion, the circulation for many research journals in the IS discipline (almost in every other discipline) is not as high as the circulation for professional publications. Therefore, many research journals will not be able to survive and contribute to our discipline without the support of everyone including the ERB members of the journal.
As editor I get a small expense reimbursement per issue, some travel reimbursement depending on the budget each year, and ten complimentary copies of each issue. I also have access to the web database and can use articles from my own journal in my classes free of charge. Editorial board members and AEs receive complimentary subscriptions, and authors receive copies of the issues their papers are in. Since the journal is expensive and has no individual rates, this is not an insignificant gratuity. I am not sure about board members' web access, but I will certainly ask now that you mention it. It shouldn't be a problem.
Regarding editorial board members' obligation to the journal, well, it is fulfilled by performing the duties. They should have no financial obligation whatsoever given the in-kind contribution they have made. The personal subscription ought not be necessary if they are receiving a complimentary one, as they should be. It is certainly helpful if editorial board members request that their department libraries subscribe to the journal whose board they sit on. This increases everyone's visibility. And it is good if they promote the journal by word of mouth or other mention, but this is more for the purpose of helping its reputation rather than its revenue.
If the publisher is commercial, then the journals start paying large returns after they meet certain minimum production costs. The added cost for additional copies goes steadily downwards per copy while the revenues increase greatly. The publishers pay professional costs to prepare the copy (one hopes) but the major editorial costs that would go with a magazine are completely absent. It's free labor by people whose rewards are recognition and service to the profession. However, if the publisher is non-profit or funded out of association dues, the "publisher" may not have the capital to get over the hump of the start-up costs and hence be stingy. I don't know anything about this model. But in any case, there ought to be a standard of how the free labor is treated, and being asked for money is certainly not part of it.
1) I believe that there are 2 types of Board member
1. Those whose name is on the list for "political" reasons and who play no other role
2. Those who actively review and edit papers even submit papers or edit special issues
Where I am involved at level 2 then I do expect to receive a free copy of the journal altho' I would be very happy to have access to an archived web-site instead of this.
2) I do not feel that editorial board members should also have to pay for the privilege - I believe it is a responsibility to try and ensure our own institution buys the journal but that is all.
I should add that I only receive 3 free copies of journals where I play an active editing role (one European, one US and the other Australian) out of a total of 6 editorial positions (the remaining 3 are US) - so possibly this is a culture based thing?
Excellent questions!!
I was asked to serve as not just an editorial board member but an associate editor for a recently created journal (about 3 years ago). When I inquired about a complimentary copy, the editor suggested that I pay for a subscription - not only that, he INSISTED that I arrange that my school library take out a subscription also - otherwise (the implication was) "my services would not be needed." I thought that just about took the cake for gall.
When I emailed the entire editorial board about the fact that I felt that the entire board should be receiving complimentary subscriptions in return for their service, the editor just about had a heart attack.
Personally, I feel that a free subscription is the LEAST a journal should do in return for whatever level of service they are expecting. Strangely, I have found that some journals which really ask nothing of you except your name on the masthead and very occasional (e.g. 1 a year or less) reviews, DO provide complimentary subscriptions, while others, including some of the best known (ISR, MISQ) do not provide anything tangible.
An alternative model is payment for service rendered (e.g., reviews), which some other journals do, but has not become a practice in our field. Maybe it should.
I have no problem with the notion that a journal should encourage its editorial board members to promote the journal, including gentle arm twisting to get local libraries to subscribe if possible. But I think that making that a condition of being on the journal's board (or even implying such) is reprehensible. As is insisting that ed. board members purchase their own subscriptions.
The vast amount of free labor that we academics pour into journals is incredible. The actual cost to the publisher of providing a free subscription for a year is probably less than a decent bottle of wine, something that I freely give to guest speakers in my classes, who put in probably 2 hours' work at the outside. A decent article review probably takes three to four times that long, sometimes much longer, and most of us get absolutely nothing for it.
Something is strangely out of whack in the academic publishing game in IS. In a way I'm surprised someone hasn't figured that out and attempted to build a business out of it.
1) Not in my opinion. If the journal's financial situation will support it, I think it's a good PRACTICAL idea, since it increases the probability that those making the decisions about the journal have a better sense of it's editorial position. It might be a PRACTICAL idea if it gives the journal access to better editors than they would be able to engage otherwise (for new journals, for example). But it's not always financially feasible, especially where the size of the editorial board is driven by the breadth of topic coverage for the journal, or the volume of submissions it receives. I like your implied suggestion that the journal give editors electronic access to archives. That's a good idea.
I don't think journals have an obligation to "thank" or "reward" editors. The job is intrinsically motivated or rewarded via other channels. I think it's a reward for having established a reputation for being able to add value to manuscripts, something I enjoy doing.
2) I think that someone taking on an editorial obligation would have an ethical obligation to make damn sure they understood the journal's mission, standards and norms, and to stay abreast of those during the course of their tenure in an editorial position. One way of doing this is by subscribing to the journal. And in fact I realize that I do have subscriptions for all the journals for which I hold editorial positions. But the fact is that I had those subscriptions long before taking on the editorial positions. I suppose both my subscription and my editorial position are both a consequence of my interest in the journal's mission. And certainly it is possible to keep up with a journal through a department or library subscription. So I don't think that editors have an ethical obligation to subscribe, just to be well informed about the journal. I don't think the editors have an ethical obligation to support the journal financially. Actually, a better way to support the journal financially would be to lobby your institution's library to subscribe -- libraries pay higher subscription rates, and library subscriptions stimulate readership and citations to the journal, both of which are critical to the journal's ranking and its survival.
(Experienced reviewer and member of Editorial Boards)
We write for free, we review for free, we edit for free .... The publishers create huge profits, due to our voluntary professional services.
I know of one IS journal of a major scientific publisher which annual revenue is about 1 M US$, and the total costs are 0.5 M US$. Where stakeholders create value for shareholders!
In my view a journal should provide all reviewers with a complimentary annual subscription based on an contribution of, say 3-6 reviews per year. Associate editors should govern the reviewer selection process. It would be an idea to have the reviewers elected by the scientific community.
1) YES. Some journals actually do send complimentary copies to editorial board members. All journals should do the same.
2) I would say NO to this question. Some of the journals are quite expensive and I would not pay a large sum for a subscription. I do have our school library purchase the journals with which I am affiliated.
1) I don't think there is any obligation whatsoever unless it is stated in its policy or contract. Free journal is a great way to thank or reward editors, but each journal has its own unique situation. I would understand if a journal can't afford to give free subscription. I believe it is also mostly the supply and demand issue. When a journal can find enough volunteer, there is no "need" for rewards other than recognizing the contribution and efforts. Although I don't see any "obligation" in this issue, I do think free subscription to editorial board members is a good thing if it is possible financially. After all, they do need to read their own journal, don't they?
2) People on the board should support their own journal, but not necessarily through subscription. I hate to think any board member who is there just for the fame of it instead of the work or the love of the journal. But again, subscription should not be the obligation.
I believe that being on the editorial board is a privilege. The editorial board member receives a great deal of value at his/her institution. Some schools require, and most schools look very favorably upon such membership for promotion cases. Thus, the "great deal of time" you mention is supported by our schools. It's looked upon as part of our jobs.
The picture I painted above is like a satisfied contract, where value flows in both directions. The journal receives value from the editorial board members, and the editorial board members receive value as outlined above. Therefore, your ethical questions are centered more around economic issues as well as social norms and expectations.
1. I would say that the journals do not have an ethical obligation to give board members free issues. The journals do not tend to have deep pockets that would support complementary subscriptions. Where would you stop? Senior editors? All editorial board members? All reviewers? The journals have limited target markets, and cannot expect to break even if they give away large numbers of issues. Of particular concern would be the journals that categorize all reviewers as "editorial board members," and therefore have a large number of these roles. The journal is giving you plenty of value by naming you to the Board, so they do not "owe" you anything else.
2. The board member should indeed subscribe, but the ethical reasoning seems complex here. I would think that the editorial board member should value the journal on whose board he/she sits enough to be a subscriber anyway. If you are an editorial board member and you do not value the journal enough to subscribe, then you have made a foolish choice in accepting the appointment. How would you perform your task objectively? What articles would you reject if you do not respect the journal? You would likely not fulfil your role seriously, and you would therefore not be acting ethically.
Thanks for raising an excellent question about research journals. Here are my responses.
1. Reward for writers. I think this is critical--my experience in academia has shown that there is little other reward from my institution, other than being allowed to keep my job. I think the access to web archives is an excellent reward.
2. Most journals should be on the web, or intending to do so, in the next year. Paper based articles and journals are simply not accessible to enough people/libraries/countries. If the point of publishing is to disseminate knowledge, put it in a form that the most people can access. My experience with paper based media is that they are expensive to subscribe, easily stolen, and difficult to physically access especially when more than one person wants the sole copy your library of choice is lucky to have.
3. Relationship between editorial board and journal: I am not comfortable with a financial arrangement at all. The board should be free of obligation to the editor and publisher, and not be vested in financial remuneration. I am on the board of several journals because I enjoy reading the submissions and often get ideas to use in my own research.
An interesting question. For the one journal for which I'm on the editorial board, my answer is (2) - perhaps because my assessments are always so tardy that I feel guilt rather than anything else over my refereeing of articles.
A more responsible or higher-profile person might feel (1). Some privileges, such as Web access as you suggest, would be good. It will be interesting to see the results you get - I could quite understand someone else feeling exactly the opposite to me.
1) No
2) Yes you should have a personal subscription ... not only to help the journal's financial security but also because you believe in the quality of the journal, assume that it is contributing to the field, and want to keep current with important contributions to the field.
In addition,…
The editorial/review board members should point out to the editors breaches of ethics (i.e., overmilking data sets....a paper under review that has for the most part been published elsewhere, etc.)
What interesting questions. Here are my opinions:
1) "obligation"? I would say no. It sure would be nice, but it's probably too unwieldy, given the shift in time periods and so on. It seems unlikely that we would sit on a board and not already be a subscriber, but that does happen.
2) YES, definitely so. We should "believe" in that journal to the extent that we support it financially as well.
While I believe that a 'price' of membership in any professional community depends on, indeed even requires, that its members must commit to service to that community. For us editing, program committee and conference sponsorship and mentoring are part of that price. But having so declared that belief, acknowledgement of that activity, as a thanks is a minimum return. The free subscription or electronic access is a reasonable cost of business, but really needs to take into account the economics of a given journal. Many, particularly the more esoteric ones, are marginal operations and may not be in a position to offer such gratuities.
As to journal support.....I can only say: if not us then who? Library subscriptions are a must to be sure. but if the purpose of journal publication if dissemination of the work....we need to be part of that distribution process too.
1) In most cases they do this if you sit on the editorial board. With reviews- none of the journals I have worked with do that. I guess here the issue is that many times people benefit more from doing the reviews by having access to recent material, and by given access to others' reviews (this teaches a lot) and by exercizing power so they are willing to do it. And journals are not money making machines so the potential to do more is very limited. Many journal recognizes good reviews by giving awards.
2) Sometimes people do this but it is not expected.
Those were not the major ethical issues. Larger ones are review policies and who can review what- issues of decision making and how visible it is, and "author" rights in reviews i.e. how seriously and professionally they are done and how long they take. But hey, we ourselves are doing this so the improvement comes by improving ourselves.
Last updated by Robert Davison on May 9th, 2000.