1 Introduction
National journals play a large role in academic promotion affairs in the Social Sciences, as the area has a more locally focused approach than the hard sciences (Nederhof, 2006; Nederhof et al., 1989; Winclawska, 1996). Their editors exercise immense power in the creation of national literature in countries such as Turkey, where attempts to develop a national science index are supported by official state policies. Despite the acute need for a qualified editorship, the national publishing space is unregulated, and there is no established procedure for editor selection. The lack of formal procedures could lead to arbitrary editor appointments and endanger the future of national research because editors with questionable qualifications may not be eligible to lead scientific journals. This study aimed to dispel the mystery of national journals and shed light on the qualifications of their chief editors. This question is important because national journals often fly under the radar, despite playing a large role in the creation of academic identities and local scientific literature. Chief editors determine journal policies, select associate editors, and often deliver a final verdict on submissions, thereby leading and guiding the scientific community (Hames, 2001; Sharma, 2016). As editors set the journal vision and benchmark for research excellence (Besancenot et al., 2012; Hardin et al., 2008), scholars need to be highly productive in qualifying as chief editors (Gasparyan, 2013; Kaufman, 1984), who are typically selected from respected scholars with a well-tracked record of publications in prestigious journals (Bedeian et al., 2009; Lowe & Van Fleet, 2009). Despite the acknowledgement of their high scientific achievements, direct inquiries into editorial productivity are rare. Few studies examined the editors of top journals in specific fields, such as accounting, finance, economics, and psychology (Bedeian et al., 2009; Hardin et al., 2008; Lindsey, 1976; Lowe & Van Fleet, 2009). Others examined editorial board diversity (Brinn & Jones, 2008; Csomós, 2024; Hodgson & Rothman, 1999; Petersen et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2020), networking and self-publication tendencies (Brogaard et al., 2014; Ductor & Visser, 2022; Luty et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2021).
Contemporary scholars recognize that science is universal (Merton, 1973), and academic titles should be granted to qualified individuals who have contributed to the scientific literature. Otherwise, the credibility and integrity of scientific inquiry would be threatened (Bedeian et al., 2009). In recognition of this reality, top universities in developed countries typically stipulate publishing in leading journals for permanent positions and promotions (Hicks, 2012; Korytkowski & Kulczycki, 2019; Lutter & Schröder, 2016; Pontika et al., 2022). Other countries, such as Czechia, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, and Kazakhstan, recently began to implement new promotion rules that require publication in international journals (Grancay et al., 2017; Hladchenko & Moed, 2021; Kuzhabekova & Ruby, 2018; Sasvari et al., 2022). On the other hand, Turkey does not stipulate international articles to promote and encourage national publications in Social Sciences. As a result, national journals play an oversized role in the academic careers of Turkish social scientists, who may obtain tenure and other leadership positions without publishing international articles. Turkish researchers overall have a notorious relationship with scientific publishing. Prior studies showed their inability to publish in high-impact journals (Karadag, 2021; Önder & Erdil, 2015), publishing in affiliated journals to gain speed advantage (Tutuncu, 2023a), and favouring predatory journals for rent-seeking and quick promotion (Akça & Akbulut, 2018; Demir, 2018). In a hierarchical structure where researchers initially target high quality journals and move down in the rankings as they get rejected (Scheidegger et al., 2023), national journals may represent the last choice and an escape route for Turkish academics who are unable to publish in well-regarded journals. If editors lack the necessary research experience and qualification to conduct a sound assessment of submissions, national journals could be at risk of becoming a dumping ground for defective articles with little scientific value.
Although the required skill set to assess academic qualifications may vary across fields, eventually it comes down to publishing in leading international journals, which is a voluntary choice and represents a quality indicator in the local setting. This study utilizes the number of Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus publications, citations, and the Hirsch index (2005) to gauge the scientific productivity of a sample of 573 chief editors managing 432 journals. The number of first-authored and corresponding authored articles is used to investigate whether editors are able to lead other scientists in research. While there is controversy over the usefulness of individual productivity metrics and co-author contributions regarding jointly authored papers (Bedeian et al., 2009; Floyd et al., 1994; Persson et al., 2004), utilization of multiple metrics enables a less biased evaluation of scientific qualifications. Moreover, Turkish academic promotion policies are structured in a way that officially recognizes the high status of WOS and Scopus journals (Tutuncu, 2023a). Finally, publications in affiliated journals (insider publications) provide a measure of disqualification, as editorial reviews of these submissions are likely to be biased and subverted to provide an unfair advantage to insider authors. Survey evidence suggests that academic managers view insider articles as an indicator of low qualifications (Koys, 2008). Moreover, there is extensive evidence on editor-insider relationships showing that editors publish their own research, treat their friends and acquaintances to a less rigorous review process (Luty et al., 2009; Sarigöl et al., 2017; Tutuncu, 2023a; Yoon, 2013), and facilitate publications of other insiders (Tutuncu, 2024). Further, Tutuncu (2023b) shows that editors publishing insider articles tend to conduct less selective editorial assessments. Along these lines, this study questions the choice of journal and adopts the view that inside connections are used to publish substandard articles to meet performance targets. This would imply that individuals publishing inside papers while lacking WOS and Scopus publications are underqualified for editor positions and leading the scientific community. Editors’ publication behaviour is quantified based on the insider-to-SSCI article ratio (ISRA) and national-to-SSCI article ratio (NASA), following Tutuncu (2023b;2024).
To my knowledge, this study is the first attempt to investigate publication behaviour of national journal chief editors. The research covers all areas of Social Sciences and Humanities in a representative sample of 432 national journals. 64 of the journals are indexed in the Web of Science and/or Scopus, while six are indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) or Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). The remaining 368 journals are covered only by the national TR index. The contributions of this study are twofold. First, it is the first survey of chief editors’ scientific achievements on a national scale, and the results are representative of the population of Social Sciences journals in Turkey. Therefore, the research informs the scientific community about the publication behaviour of national journal editors. Second, the study informs the academic community on the scientific leadership ability of chief editors and provides guidance for selecting chief editor positions based on scientific merit.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the background and related literature. Section 3 describes the data, discusses quality indicators, and methodology. Section 4 presents the results, and Section 5 concludes with suggestions.
2 Background and the Turkish setting
Each science discipline has its own dynamics of research; thus, scientific publications cannot be directly compared across disciplines. For example, it is natural for a medical scientist to be more productive than a social scientist as there is less concern over originality, data collection, and technicalities (e.g. Smith, 2006a). The research and publication habits are also influenced by career regulations varying across disciplines and institutions (Önder & Erdil, 2015; Ünal, 2017). In Turkey, sub-disciplines within Social Sciences are subject to the same promotion regulations, with the exception of Art field where artistic performance is stipulated in addition. This enables comparison of scientific productivity within Social Sciences. Turkish career regulations differentiate between international and national publications. While academics are free to publish in any journal, SSCI and Scopus articles have historically been attributed a higher value than other publications. Despite the quality implications embedded with these articles, Turkish universities typically do not require publishing in international journals for promotion, even though they are authorized to do so (Ünal, 2017). It is only recently that established universities began to introduce international article and lead-authorship clauses to academic promotion provisions. The lack of quality emphasis may reflect the fact that many universities are teaching-focused institutions, and regulations do not sufficiently incorporate non-research activities. As teaching and service commitments negatively affect productivity (Taylor et al., 2006; Teodorescu, 2000), the promotion bar may be intentionally kept low to reflect this reality. Several researchers argue integration of “academic citizenship” into promotion regulations, a broad concept incorporating the entirety of academic responsibilities and service duties (Braxton & Del Favero, 2002; Macfarlane, 2007). Most prominently, Boyer (1990) argued that the full range of scholarly talent should be considered in promotion decisions, and it is unacceptable to make these decisions based solely on research, as it does not fully reflect academic responsibilities. However, as he duly noted, institutions assume that all faculty are capable of teaching, but only good researchers are promoted. In practice, formal qualifications and research are the most important factors (Dawson et al., 2022; Petzold & Netz, 2023), and other activities are likely to be ignored without a research portfolio (Long et al., 1993).
Organizations’ strategic choices about performance evaluation reflect the values of their powerful actors (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Weiser, 1997), and institutions may be unwilling to impose high standards of performance when the majority of their elements consist of mediocre individuals (Hermanowicz, 2013). Organisational theorists describe two competing sets of academic logic in performance appraisal, a universal scientific logic (Merton, 1973) that favours high-impact publications in prestigious journals, and an inward-looking local logic that underestimates the importance of international publications in favour of local ones (Ünal, 2017; Üsdiken & Wasti, 2009). The local conformist faction may not directly deny the universal rules of achievement and incorporate minor ceremonial universal rules into its structure to keep up the appearances (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Pache & Santos, 2010). Turkish career regulations have long been dominated by the local logic, as national publications are emphasized, and international articles are left to individual discretion (Önder & Erdil, 2015; Ünal, 2017). The local approach to research is supported by a large portion of academics who lack the skills to publish high-quality articles (Önder & Erdil, 2015) or embrace the institutional culture to maintain their legitimacy (Hewlin, 2003). These academics could be hostile to international journals if they are unable to publish articles in elite journals and identify with their high status (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Walker et al., 2019). When an organization is dominated by average individuals, high achievers are sidelined, and recruitment and reward systems are manipulated to cherish and promote unskilled and mediocre individuals (Hermanowicz, 2013). The lack of selective performance criteria enables recruitment and promotion of the unqualified on the basis of ideological views and personal relationships, leading to institutional isomorphism, rampant favouritism and politicization (Karadag, 2021). Eventually, this allows academic oligarchs (Horta, 2022; Macfarlane & Jefferson, 2022) to keep the system under their control (Tutuncu, 2023a). They would prefer continuation of the status quo at the expense of research quality to ensure that their scholarship (e.g. national articles) is well-regarded by their local peers and consequently well-rewarded by the system through promotions and other incentives, despite the risk of damaging the local scientific culture, misleading the public about their scientific credentials, and preventing overall scientific advancement (Marusic & Marusic, 2001).
I argue that chief editors cannot be selected from mediocre individuals. They should be leading scholars who are able to make conscious decisions to give strategic priority to publishing in reputable journals. Their qualifications will set a good example for the Turkish academic community and consolidate their leadership. A lack of qualification, on the other hand, would cast a shadow on their eligibility, whereas journals published under their management could lead to academic corrosion and degeneration. Their publication behaviour reflects their priorities, and their qualifications can be assessed based on their publication history.
3 Data
The national TR index currently covers 1,131 journals. This study utilized 432 journals that met the following selection criteria: i) The journal must be in the Social Sciences. This filter is required because of career regulations in Social Sciences that prioritize national articles for promotion. This leaves 670 journals in the sample. ii) The journal must be hosted in the open-access Dergipark platform to ensure access to journal information. Several private publishers do not disclose editor information and Dergipark adds a transparency filter. iii) The chief editor must be an academic in the Social Sciences. This is required to obtain a homogenous sample of academics who are subject to similar career regulations. The final sample consisted of 432 journals and 573 chief editors. Editor names were collected from journal websites and from the latest available issues. Information on their background, place of education, date of Ph.D., and published national articles were collected from the YÖK Akademik database (https://akademik.yok.gov.tr/AkademikArama). Data on international articles were collected from WOS and Scopus. Only original peer-reviewed articles were included in the data. Book reviews, book chapters, editorial materials, letters to editor, and conference proceedings were excluded.
Table 1. Number of journals and chief editors by area. |
| Area | Journal | WOS Journal | Scopus Journal | Public U. Journal | Editor | Foreign Ph.D. Ed. | Non-mobile | Female Editor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 51 | 7 | 2 | 33 | 65 | 7 | 20 | 26 |
| BUS&ECON | 93 | 11 | 3 | 50 | 123 | 17 | 46 | 22 |
| GSS | 62 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 94 | 8 | 29 | 18 |
| SCIL | 115 | 23 | 11 | 57 | 154 | 17 | 64 | 39 |
| Theology | 55 | 7 | 4 | 37 | 65 | 6 | 19 | 8 |
| Law | 28 | 2 | 0 | 19 | 39 | 4 | 17 | 11 |
| Comm | 13 | 3 | 0 | 11 | 17 | 1 | 6 | 9 |
| Art | 15 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 16 | 0 | 6 | 5 |
| Total | 432 | 55 | 21 | 260 | 573 | 60 | 207 | 138 |
GSS: General Social Sciences, BUS&ECON: Business and Economics, SCIL: Science and Literature, Comm.: Communication. WOS: Web of Science. 64 journals are indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus. Country of education for 61 foreign doctorate holders: 18 UK-educated, 21 US-educated, 7 France, 4 Austria, 3 Germany, and 1 Bosnia, Canada, Japan, Netherland, Russia, Switzerland, Iran-educated. |
3.1 Insider definition
There is an extensive precedent on editorial nepotism, self-publishing, and insider publishing practices (Laband & Piette, 1994; Tutuncu, 2023a; 2024; Zdenek, 2018). In this paper, a publication is classified as an insider article if it is published in a national journal edited by the author or owned by the university the author is employed at. This definition encompasses self-publishing practice as well as publishing through institutional connections, which can be very useful careerwise, as Turkish universities and faculties often publish their own journals. A caveat in this definition is that insider articles are considered a subset of the national literature; however, insider behaviour may also occur in international journals. A few dozen national journals are indexed in the WOS and/or Scopus, equivalent to 15% of all journals in the sample. Publications in these journals are counted towards both insider and international articles. In rare circumstances, editors may also hold editorial positions in international journals and publish them. These insider publications, if they exist, are unobservable, as editor positions in international journals are not known. Finally, co-authors are not investigated for secondary inside connections, and the insider definition rests solely on the editors themselves. It is not possible to identify all insider publications, and insider article counts in this research are likely to be understated.
3.2 Measures of quality and publication behaviour
This study employed Web of Science and Scopus metrics to measure editorial quality and argued that editors must demonstrate a persistent capability to publish in leading international journals. Measuring quality is a controversial topic and inevitably involves a degree of subjectivity. Ideally, quality should be measured on the basis of originality and rigour. In no position to evaluate thousands of articles from various fields, however, I assume that the research quality is reflected in the journal choice of authors. I acknowledge that this assumption is not always true and that good quality papers can be published in national journals, while bad quality papers are often published in international journals, which have their own shortcomings and biases. However, the fact stands that local journals tend to be less selective, carry out lax peer reviews, and have a fairly low acceptance threshold. Their lack of selectivity is manifested in high acceptance rates, where Turkish journals average a large 54% (Tutuncu, 2023b). Most of the articles published in them have little chance of passing a rigorous peer review, a trademark of the flagship journals. In general, national journals cannot be considered the primary choice of publication outlet for high-quality research, as the official reward and promotion systems in Turkey rank them close to the bottom. Indeed, the lower ranking of national articles is consistent with the universal practice that equates local language journals with inferior quality compared to mainstream English language journals (Andersen & Pallesen, 2008; Hicks et al., 2015). The added prestige, recognition, and quality perception associated with SSCI articles mean that researchers would typically try their chances with higher ranked journals before moving down in the pyramid and submitting to lower ranked journals (Scheidegger et al., 2023). Therefore, a highly qualified scientist would not limit himself to national journals, and if that is the case, it is likely that the person in question is incapable of publishing in the higher ranked journals and potentially unfit for leading the scientific community. Consider an athlete that plays sport in his local sports club throughout his life and consider another one that improves his skills, stands out over time, and plays for several major international clubs. We would like the chief editor to be the second athlete; however, he is likely to be ignored while the mediocre one is likely to be appointed as a coach to the local club as a reward for his faithful service and loyalty. The club will maintain its usual mediocre game and remain in the amateur league in the foreseeable future.
Insider articles, which are a subset of the national articles, are the selected measure of low-quality publications. Insider bias is known to provide unfair advantages to authors and has been previously associated with low-quality research practice (Yoon, 2013). A survey of US Business School deans shows that insider articles are associated with lower qualifications (Koys, 2008). Deans give in-house articles an average score of 0.2, which corresponds to just one-fifth of the 1 point benchmark score for a peer-reviewed journal article. The highest given score is 0.70, indicating that none of the deans view insider articles as peer-reviewed article equivalent. Prestigious journals tend to have established procedures to address submissions from affiliated authors, such as appointing a third party editor to the submission (Harvey, 2013; Mani et al., 2013) and publishing reviewer reports with the article to dispel suspicions about peer review quality (Seeber et al., 2023). However, many Turkish journals lack a clear policy for processing insider submissions, as evidence shows widespread insider bias (Tutuncu et al., 2022). Chief editors are part of a small core of academics with influence and control powers (e.g. Klemencic & Zgaga, 2015). They could be enablers of insider bias, academic misconduct, and degeneration of research practices if they allow the publication of low-quality articles, either deliberately or due to a lack of technical competency to evaluate their content. In an organisational setting lacking clear recruitment criteria (Hermanowicz, 2013), insider publications can provide significant benefits to established power networks aiming to protect the existing status quo (e.g. Horta, 2022). Power cliques have an obvious interest in selecting chief editors with greater conformity to the local institutional culture. Overall, a qualified researcher would not regularly publish insider papers unless the journal is highly ranked in a specialized area.
It is difficult to pronounce a specific number of articles to (dis)qualify a person. Regarding WOS and Scopus articles, it is reasonable to assume that a researcher can have one or two publications through good luck or collaboration. This becomes serious and consistent when the number of publications cannot be explained by good luck. Given the circumstances of Turkish academia, this paper considers three or more WOS and Scopus papers as a signal of consistency and qualification. By the same logic, three or more insider articles could be viewed as a sign of persistent insider behaviour and nepotistic temperament. However, three is not a definitive magic number. For this reason, publication behaviour is observed to judge qualifications. Based on the two contrasting behavioural patterns, the insider-to-SSCI article ratio (ISRA) and national-to-SSCI article ratio (NASA) are defined following Tutuncu (2023b; 2024). The former measures insider behaviour, while the latter measures local vs. international orientation. These variables are based on the strategic journal selection decision of researchers and inform about their publication priorities; lower values indicate less insider behaviour and greater international orientation, in other words, higher qualification. As a crude rule of thumb, it is possible to say that highly qualified scientists should have a larger number of SSCI articles than insider articles, in which case ISRA would be lower than one. A smaller ratio and higher qualification bar could be considered to evaluate editors of international journals. Finally, first-authored WOS and Scopus articles (FWOS and FScopus) are used to demonstrate the leadership ability of the editor. Chief editors, as trend setters and pioneers of science, should have experience in lead-authoring articles in reputed journals to qualify for editorial positions and lead scientific journals. Corresponding authorship is used as an alternative leadership indicator. In some cases, first and corresponding authors could be different as senior professors may exhibit free riding behaviour to avoid paperwork while receiving the credit for work. The results are quite similar as first and corresponding authors are the same person in most of the cases. The differences are mostly limited to the Education and Business & Economics areas, where collaboration is common.
While this research takes a rather simplistic approach to quality in the local context, international metrics themselves are a subject of controversy, as local science clusters tend to employ different definitions of quality in academic promotions (Kulczycki, 2017; Pontika et al., 2022). For example, leading Business and Economics schools tend to utilize specially created whitelists, such as Academic Journal Guide, to assess the quality of journals (Walker et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020). Although there is much debate over the credibility of quality metrics (Andras, 2011; Hicks et al., 2015) and generalization of WOS as a universal quality indicator (Chavarro et al., 2018; Hicks, 1999), research is often quantified to evaluate quality for the lack of better alternatives. Moreover, objections to metrics conflict with the institutional practice, as opposing academics and managers themselves resort to quantification to evaluate academic performance (Ma & Ladisch, 2019). The debate over quality metrics stems from the high degree of metrification of performance appraisal systems in the Global North (Kulikowski et al., 2023; Rijcke et al., 2016). The critical discussions often involve different treatments of journals already covered by Web of Science and Scopus, such as measuring decimals of impact factors to rank them (Hicks et al., 2015). While Turkish higher education is fast becoming a metric-based system, it is behind the current discussions as international publication requirements are largely ceremonial. Furthermore, regulations treat all SSCI and Scopus journals uniformly regardless of their impact factor and ranking.① Regulations classify journals into four groups: SSCI journals, Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)/Scopus journals, national journals, and other journals. SSCI journals are at the top of the pyramid, and the reward for each type of article follows descending order. This classification is independent from citations and impact factors, which can be influenced by a variety of factors such as number of authors, age of paper, research discipline, and visibility of the paper (Tahamtan et al., 2016). Citations and impact factors are also controversial measures of quality (PLOS Medicine Editors, 2006; Seglen, 1998; Woolston, 2020); however, they can be used to complement other indicators. As individual metrics are criticized for being open to manipulation (Seeber et al., 2019), using multiple measures enables us to evaluate and compare editors’ research approaches instead of just numbers.
3.3 Methodology and variables
Descriptive statistics were used to examine editorial productivity and publication behaviour. Correlation and regression analyses were used to identify the determinants of productivity. Based on the significant covariates, we attempted to explain the characteristics of scientifically qualified editors. Regression estimates used three types of dependent variables: i) count variables that originate from productivity numbers, such as the number of SSCI articles, ii) continuous variables that involve the natural logarithm of the number of citations, and iii) ISRA and NASA proportion variables that measure publication behaviour. Due to the different properties of the dependent variables, separate regressions are used for each one. Negative binomial regression was used for count variables, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression for log citations, and logistic regression for proportion variables. Independent variables are determined based on the prior literature, e.g. individual and institutional background. As most of them are discrete variables, a Spearman test was performed to examine the correlations. The following model was estimated:
Productivity(Insider,SSCI,FWOS,Scopus,FScopus,Citations,ISRA,NASA)=
α+ForeignPhD+Non-mobile+WOS&Scopus+Experience+Female+Public+
Research +Field Controls+ε
The foreign Ph.D. dummy variable controls for international mobility. It is commonly acknowledged that a foreign degree from a developed country is valuable and is associated with more scientific productivity (Cao et al., 2020; Jonkers & Tijssen, 2008; Lu & Zhang, 2015; Müller et al., 2018; Velema, 2012). Therefore, foreign-educated editors are expected to be more qualified. The non-mobile dummy represents inbreeding of the editor, as lack of mobility is usually associated with less productivity and qualification (Altbach et al., 2015; Horta, 2013; Horta et al., 2010; Karadag & Ciftci, 2022). The variable equals one if the editor works at the institution that granted his/her doctoral degree and zero otherwise. WOS & Scopus is a dummy variable for Web of Science and Scopus indexed journals. These journals are expected to be more selective in editor appointments, and their editors are expected to be more familiar with international research practices. Academic experience is calculated from the completion of a Ph.D., and the variable is defined as the natural logarithm of one plus experience. As publications tend to accumulate over time, it is crucial to control for experience. The female dummy controls for potential gender differences, as women are expected to be less productive due to the gender gap, in line with prior evidence that women publish less in peer-reviewed journals (Aiston & Jung, 2015; Lone & Hussain, 2017; Mayer & Rathmann, 2018). Public is a dummy variable included to control for the journals published by public universities and private publishers. Public university journals tend to have less institutionally diverse editorial boards (Heckman & Moktan, 2020; Tutuncu, 2024), which may provoke clientelism and negatively affect editorial quality. Research is a dummy variable that controls for 23 research-focused universities. These universities are some of the most established institutions, and their staff typically have fewer teaching responsibilities to focus on research activities. Editors employed at these institutions can exhibit higher qualifications. Finally, six dummy variables were included to control for differences in fields.
4 Findings
The productivity statistics of the chief editors are presented in Table 2. Editors publish an average of 6.4 insider papers compared to 2 SSCI, 3.1 WOS, and 3.3 Scopus papers, and lead-author around half of their WOS and Scopus articles. These statistics are dwarfed by their national output, which stands at 16.5 papers per editor. While insider publications are widespread across different editor sets, SSCI articles are mostly limited to a certain group of editors in Education journals, Business & Economics journals, and WOS & Scopus journals. These three groups appear to be the most qualified as they publish nearly three lead-authored articles per person in international journals. Theology, Law, and Art journal editors lead-author around 0.5 international paper per person, while publishing a large number of insider papers on par with other editors. Mobility and a research-conducive work environment appear to have a positive effect on productivity. The gender effect appears to be small, however, in line with expectations, as female editors have lower productivity in terms of all articles. Professor editors have higher productivity than less senior editors because of their greater academic experience and accumulation of publications over time. Their publication behaviour, on the other hand, shows parallels with other editors. The average professor editor has only three SSCI articles, compared to 9.2 insider articles. This leads to an ISRA of 3, demonstrating the prioritization of insider articles similar to junior professors. Overall, editors have an ISRA of 3.2, which means that insider articles outnumber SSCI articles by 3.2 times. This indicates an overall lack of qualification, overreliance on nepotistic practices, and a misconceived publication strategy. Editors with foreign Ph.D. degrees are a visible exception, as they publish more SSCI and Scopus articles than insider papers, and 65% of them demonstrate an unmatched qualification and leadership skill. Locally mobile editors have an ISRA of 3.1, and non-mobile editors have an ISRA of 5.4, the largest of all, which implies that their insider behaviour is three to five times as strong as that of foreign educated editors. Across editor demographics, non-mobile editors are by far the most underqualified as they publish the largest number of insider papers (7.6 per editor) while having the lowest number of international articles and citations. 36% of chief editors are non-mobile, and the journals under their management could be operating under perilous conditions. Internationally mobile researchers, on the other hand, show superior qualifications and appear more befitting for editorial jobs.
Table 2. Average statistics for editor productivity. |
| Editor Type | Insider | SSCI | WOS | FWOS | CWOS | Scopus | FScopus | National | WOS Citation | WOS h-index | ISRA | INNA | NASA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Editors (n=573) | 6.4 | 2.0 | 3.1 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 16.5 | 36.6 | 1.26 | 3.21 | 0.39 | 0.89 |
| WOS & Scopus (n=86) | 6.9 | 2.5 | 4.3 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 14.7 | 31.6 | 1.69 | 2.73 | 0.47 | 0.85 |
| Non-WOS & Scopus (n=487) | 6.3 | 1.9 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 16.8 | 37.6 | 1.19 | 3.31 | 0.38 | 0.90 |
| Foreign Ph.D. (n=61) | 4.1 | 4.3 | 5.6 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 6.6 | 4.3 | 10.9 | 80.9 | 2.40 | 0.95 | 0.38 | 0.72 |
| Locally mobile (n=305) | 6.1 | 2.0 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 17.2 | 39.7 | 1.17 | 3.10 | 0.35 | 0.90 |
| Non-mobile (n=207) | 7.6 | 1.4 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 17.0 | 19.4 | 1.06 | 5.40 | 0.45 | 0.92 |
| Research univ. (n=237) | 7.3 | 2.5 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 3.7 | 1.8 | 17.0 | 40.8 | 1.40 | 2.96 | 0.43 | 0.87 |
| Non-research u. (n=336) | 5.8 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 16.1 | 33.8 | 1.16 | 3.44 | 0.36 | 0.91 |
| Female (n=138) | 5.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 13.6 | 29.5 | 1.17 | 2.83 | 0.38 | 0.88 |
| Male (n=435) | 6.8 | 2.1 | 3.3 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 3.4 | 1.8 | 17.4 | 39.0 | 1.29 | 3.31 | 0.39 | 0.89 |
| Education (n=65) | 5.5 | 3.5 | 6.0 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 6.5 | 3.1 | 19.6 | 50.1 | 2.66 | 1.58 | 0.28 | 0.85 |
| BUS & ECON (n=123) | 6.8 | 4.2 | 6.1 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 6.7 | 3.2 | 18.9 | 104 | 2.60 | 1.62 | 0.36 | 0.82 |
| GSS (n=94) | 5.7 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 17.3 | 11.7 | 0.76 | 6.36 | 0.33 | 0.95 |
| SCIL (n=154) | 7.9 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 15.8 | 22.9 | 0.76 | 4.47 | 0.50 | 0.90 |
| Theology (n=65) | 5.5 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 12.8 | 0.4 | 0.19 | 50.5 | 0.43 | 0.99 |
| Law (n=39) | 5.3 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 12.2 | 2.53 | 0.24 | 25.1 | 0.43 | 0.98 |
| Comm (n=17) | 2.9 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 10.5 | 9.7 | 0.94 | 2.88 | 0.27 | 0.91 |
| Art (n=16) | 6.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 14.7 | 0.6 | 0.13 | 25.2 | 0.46 | 0.98 |
| PROFESSOR (n=280) | 9.2 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 21.9 | 56.9 | 1.78 | 3.04 | 0.42 | 0.88 |
| ASCPROF (n=147) | 4.7 | 1.5 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 2.7 | 1.4 | 15.3 | 30.1 | 1.14 | 3.12 | 0.31 | 0.91 |
| ASTPROF (n=101) | 2.9 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 7.8 | 5.7 | 0.50 | 4.48 | 0.37 | 0.92 |
| RESAST (n=27) | 3.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 8.1 | 0.9 | 0.08 | 33.6 | 0.48 | 0.99 |
| Non-academic (n=19) | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 2.2 | 6.0 | 0.24 | 4.33 | 0.35 | 0.93 |
FWOS: First-authored WOS article, FScopus: First-authored Scopus article, CWOS: Corresponding author WOS article. There are 917 FWOS, 918 CWOS, and 922 FScopus articles. PROFESSOR: Full professor, ASCPROF: Associate professor, ASTPROF: Assistant professor, RESAS: Research assistant. ISRA: Number of insider articles divided by number of SSCI articles. INNA: Number of insider articles divided by all national articles. NASA: Number of national articles divided by the sum of national and SSCI articles. 18 UK-educated, 21 US-educated, 7 France, 4 Austria, 3 Germany, 1 Bosnia, Canada, Russia, Switzerland, Netherland, Japan, Iran-educated editors. |
As far as fields are concerned, Education and Business & Economics exhibit the strongest SSCI publication behaviour, while editors in more locally oriented fields of Theology, Law, and Art show the strongest insider behaviour. Insider articles amount to 39% of the overall national output of chief editors; however, this ratio (INNA) can go up to 50% in SCIL journal editors. Similar trends were observed when national and SSCI articles were compared. NASA statistics show that 89% of all articles are national. This ratio rises to 99% in extremely introverted fields such as Theology and Law and drops to 72% in foreign educated editors. When BUS&ECON and Education editors are excluded, ISRA jumps to 6.4, and NASA rises to 94%. These statistics indicate that the chief editors have an extremely local research focus. The publication patterns and prioritisation of insider articles even extend to WOS & Scopus indexed journals. Editors of these journals publish nearly half of their national articles using the insider route, and their ISRA stands at 2.7. Yet, they outperform non-indexed journal editors and publish nearly three international papers apiece as first author or corresponding author. Overall, editors’ publication behaviour calls into question their qualification, vision, and eligibility to lead scientific journals. Their narrow focus on national articles carries an implicit hazard in the form of insider behaviour and nepotistic editorial practices. The fact that 39% of editors’ national research output comes from insider articles seriously undermines their scientific credentials, casts doubt on their ability to evaluate submissions, and remains impartial in the review process.
Table 3. Distribution of editorial publications and citations. |
| Papers | Insider | SSCI | WOS | FWOS | Scopus | FScopus | National | WOS h-index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 63 (11%) | 357 (62%) | 256 (45%) | 304 (53%) | 330 (58%) | 359 (63%) | 18 (3%) | 357 (62%) |
| 1 | 75 (13%) | 67 (12%) | 81 (14%) | 92 (16%) | 43 (8%) | 54 (9%) | 10 (2%) | 76 (13%) |
| 2 | 51 (9%) | 41 (7%) | 57 (10%) | 59 (10%) | 38 (7%) | 49 (9%) | 15 (3%) | 45 (8%) |
| 3 | 61 (11%) | 25 (4%) | 37 (6%) | 36 (6%) | 26 (4%) | 27 (5%) | 16 (3%) | 30 (5%) |
| 4 | 44 (7%) | 22 (4%) | 35 (6%) | 28 (5%) | 20 (3%) | 18 (3%) | 19 (3%) | 20 (3%) |
| 5 | 44 (7%) | 12 (2%) | 18 (3%) | 15 (3%) | 21 (4%) | 18 (3%) | 24 (4%) | 15 (3%) |
| 6-10 | 131 (23%) | 26 (4%) | 52 (9%) | 26 (4%) | 53 (9%) | 31 (5%) | 150 (26%) | 21 (4%) |
| 11-20 | 72 (12%) | 13 (2%) | 23 (4%) | 11 (2%) | 19 (3%) | 13 (2%) | 165 (29%) | 5 (1%) |
| 20+ | 32 (6%) | 10 (2%) | 14 (2%) | 2 (0%) | 16 (3%) | 2 (0%) | 156 (27%) | 4 (1%) |
Table reports the number and percentage of editors that based on the number of articles. |
Overall, the results indicate that productivity distribution is highly skewed, and editors are concentrated in the low and no international productivity clusters. The overarching preference for insider articles combined with an endemic inability to publish in international journals is not only a demonstration of editors’ lack of competence and leadership, but also constitutes a serious drawback for Turkish national literature as these editors determine the national research output. Editorial and peer reviews play important roles in improving the manuscript. In this sense, a lack of qualified editors would prevent the development of manuscripts, as researchers would be less likely to receive quality feedback on their submissions. This could lead to the creation of a vicious circle of low-quality articles published by underqualified editors. If both sides were satisfied with the result, they would be reluctant to break out of this circle. In this setting, however, qualified researchers would begin to refrain from national journals to avoid reputational damage (Lowe & Van Fleet, 2009), which further ensures that most low-quality articles that have no publication potential in reputable journals and/or rejected by them would be published (Scheidegger et al., 2023). Eventually, national journals could become a dumping ground for defective articles with little scientific value. This outcome contrasts with the long-term efforts to develop the national science index as an alternative to the well-known indexes, and action needs to be taken to empower qualified editors and improve standards of national research.
Table 4. Closer look at the most qualified editors. |
| Papers | Insider | SSCI | WOS | FWOS | Scopus | FScopus | H-index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business & Economics Editors (n=123) | |||||||
| 0 | 15% | 47% | 29% | 43% | 37% | 50% | 41% |
| 1-2 | 24% | 25% | 22% | 31% | 16% | 24% | 28% |
| 3 or more | 61% | 28% | 49% | 26% | 47% | 26% | 31% |
| Education Editors (n=65) | |||||||
| 0 | 15% | 31% | 21% | 31% | 26% | 28% | 23% |
| 1-2 | 26% | 26% | 17% | 28% | 14% | 25% | 34% |
| 3 or more | 59% | 43% | 62% | 41% | 60% | 48% | 43% |
| Foreign Ph.D. Editors (n=61) | |||||||
| 0 | 25% | 36% | 25% | 31% | 36% | 39% | 39% |
| 1-2 | 25% | 15% | 16% | 23% | 8% | 15% | 28% |
| 3 or more | 50% | 49% | 59% | 46% | 56% | 46% | 33% |
| Web of Science & Scopus Journal Editors (n=86) | |||||||
| 0 | 10% | 58% | 33% | 36% | 52% | 57% | 55% |
| 1-2 | 16% | 14% | 22% | 33% | 11% | 14% | 16% |
| 3 or more | 74% | 28% | 45% | 31% | 37% | 29% | 29% |
| Professor Editors (n=280) | |||||||
| 0 | 5% | 51% | 39% | 48% | 48% | 54% | 53% |
| 1-2 | 15% | 21% | 20% | 25% | 13% | 19% | 23% |
| 3 or more | 80% | 28% | 41% | 27% | 39% | 27% | 24% |
| The most underqualified: Non-mobile Editors (inbreeding) (n=207) | |||||||
| 0 | 5% | 66% | 44% | 54% | 60% | 65% | 64% |
| 1-2 | 18% | 21% | 29% | 30% | 12% | 19% | 21% |
| 3 or more | 77% | 13% | 27% | 16% | 28% | 16% | 15% |
Table 5. The most vs. the least qualified editors. |
| Editor | Insider | SSCI | WOS | FWOS | Scopus | FScopus | National | WOS Citation | WOS h-index | Scopus Citation | Scopus h-index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The most qualified 25 | 137 | 597 | 712 | 294 | 781 | 319 | 456 | 13,284 | 263 | 15,550 | 282 |
| editors (%) | 3.7% | 52.1% | 39.4% | 31.7% | 41.7% | 34.4% | 4.8% | 63.3% | 36.5% | 61.5% | 35.6% |
| The least qualified 25 editors (%) | 740 | 42 | 75 | 38 | 91 | 67 | 1,225 | 827 | 51 | 1,199 | 50 |
| 20.1% | 3.6% | 4.1% | 4.1% | 4.8% | 7.2% | 13% | 3.9% | 7.1% | 4.7% | 6.3% |
Table shows aggregate productivity of editors. List is ordered by the number of SSCI publications. 25 editors publishing 10 and more SSCI articles are presented in the top panel. % shows percentage productivity of top 25 editors to 573 editors’ total productivity. Bottom panel shows total productivity of the least productive editors defined as 25 editors publishing the most insider papers. |
The contrast in publication strategies becomes clear when the statistics of the least qualified editors (the most prolific insiders) are observed. Statistics reported in Table 5 show that these editors had 740 inside papers and just 42 SSCI papers while publishing 1,225 national articles. These figures imply a collective ISRA of 17.6 and a NASA of 97%, showing the extent of their insider behaviour and local focus. The least qualified editors publish 2.7 times more national articles and 5.4 times more insider articles than top editors. They have an insider ratio (INNA) of 60.4% compared to 30% for the top editors. In other words, their national publications are twice as likely to exhibit insider behaviour as top editors. Note that 30% does not imply a large number of insider papers for top editors, as their national output is quite small. They publish 5.5 inside papers per editor compared to 29.6 papers for the least qualified ones. N. K. from Anadolu University publish the most inside papers with 60 articles, followed by M. Ö. O. from Ankara HBV University (39 articles), and M. Ü. from Marmara University (37 articles). Apparently, these editors do not face any barriers to publishing their work in affiliated journals, as the numbers are too large to justify. Overall, the concentration of quality publications in the hands of a minority of scholars is consistent with Lotka’s Law (Lariviere et al, 2010; Lotka, 1926) and the rise of citation inequality (Nielsen & Andersen, 2021). However, insider article distribution is more dispersed and endemic than Lotka’s Law would suggest, indicating influence of short-sighted local policies and institutional culture encouraging insider behaviour (Tutuncu, 2024).
Table 6. Spearman correlations. |
| Insider | SSCI | Scopus | National | ISRA | NASA | Citations | Public | Research | WOS | For. Ph.D. | Female | Exp. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insider | 1 | ||||||||||||
| SSCI | -0.06 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Scopus | -0.05 | 0.86*** | 1 | ||||||||||
| National | 0.7*** | 0.03 | 0.10** | 1 | |||||||||
| ISRA | 0.24*** | -0.95*** | -0.80*** | 0.09** | 1 | ||||||||
| NASA | 0.17*** | -0.97*** | -0.81*** | 0.12*** | 0.98*** | 1 | |||||||
| Citations | -0.03 | 0.79*** | 0.85*** | 0.09** | -0.74*** | -0.76*** | 1 | ||||||
| Public | -0.11*** | -0.14*** | -0.13*** | -0.07 | 0.11*** | 0.14*** | -0.1** | 1 | |||||
| Research | 0.14*** | 0.07* | 0.03 | 0 | -0.05 | -0.07* | 0.03 | 0.17*** | 1 | ||||
| WOS | 0.06 | 0.08* | 0.08* | -0.04 | -0.06 | -0.08* | 0.09** | 0.15*** | 0.22*** | 1 | |||
| For. PhD | -0.14*** | 0.14*** | 0.12*** | -0.16*** | -0.16*** | -0.16*** | 0.09** | 0.19*** | 0.11** | 0.04 | 1 | ||
| Female | -0.1** | -0.00 | -0.01 | -0.12*** | -0.03 | -0.03 | 0.01 | 0.19*** | 0.21*** | 0.05 | 0.09** | 1 | |
| Experience | 0.43*** | 0.17*** | 0.13*** | 0.35*** | -0.09** | -0.13*** | 0.12*** | -0.07* | 0.23*** | 0.11*** | 0.08* | 0.01 | 1 |
| Non-mobile | 0.16*** | -0.09** | -0.06 | 0.04 | 0.1** | 0.09** | -0.05 | 0.16*** | 0.42*** | 0.17*** | -0.2*** | 0.1** | 0.1** |
***, **, * show significance at 1%, 5%, and 10%. ISRA: Number of insider articles divided by the sum of insider and SSCI articles. NASA: Number of national articles divided by the sum of national and SSCI articles. |
Table 7. Determinants of publication behaviour. |
| Insider | SSCI | FWOS | Scopus | FScopus | WOS Citations | Scopus Citations | ISRA | NASA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foreign Ph.D. | -0.526** | 0.061 | 0.613** | 0.113 | 0.718** | 0.548* | 0.761** | -1.324*** | -1.236*** |
| [-2.40] | [0.17] | [2.27] | [0.33] | [2.34] | (1.78) | (2.31) | [-3.58] | [-3.50] | |
| Non-mobile | 0.015* | -0.812*** | -0.308** | -0.571** | -0.485** | -0.154 | -0.092 | 0.462** | 0.610*** |
| [1.65] | [-3.17] | [-1.98] | [-2.40] | [-2.52] | (-0.96) | (-0.55) | [2.17] | [2.82] | |
| WOS | 0.014 | 0.230 | 0.744*** | 0.394 | 0.712*** | 0.569*** | 0.544*** | -0.442* | -0.508** |
| [0.14] | [0.94] | [4.29] | [1.64] | [2.96] | (2.86) | (2.63) | [-1.78] | [-2.07] | |
| Experience | 0.599*** | 0.776*** | 0.324*** | 0.721*** | 0.562*** | 0.341*** | 0.399*** | 0.051 | -0.11 |
| [8.18] | [5.72] | [3.28] | [5.64] | [4.35] | (4.99) | (5.58) | [0.41] | [-0.77] | |
| Female | -0.241** | -0.192 | -0.289* | -0.216 | -0.329 | -0.031 | -0.007 | -0.226 | -0.054 |
| [-2.46] | [-0.84] | [-1.71] | [-1.00] | [-1.62] | (-0.19) | (-0.04) | [-1.12] | [-0.26] | |
| Public | -0.217** | -0.155 | -0.187 | -0.274 | -0.386** | -0.42*** | -0.477*** | 0.385** | 0.464** |
| [-2.56] | [-0.66] | [-1.26] | [-1.34] | [-2.11] | (-2.88) | (-3.02) | [2.16] | [2.43] | |
| Research | 0.024 | 0.772*** | 0.107 | 0.595*** | 0.380** | 0.141 | 0.035 | -0.276 | -0.577*** |
| [0.26] | [3.39] | [0.68] | [2.81] | [2.04] | (0.92) | (0.22) | [-1.35] | [-3.05] | |
| Field controls | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Constant | 0.242 | -2.098*** | -1.04** | -1.51*** | -1.574*** | -0.098 | -0.162 | 1.48*** | 2.926*** |
| [0.93] | [-4.15] | [-2.55] | [-2.89] | [-3.01] | (-0.35) | (-0.54) | [2.99] | [5.16] | |
| χ2/F | 155.56 | 166.38 | 110.78 | 200.12 | 167.23 | 17.92 | 17.52 | n/a | n/a |
| Log likelihood | -1,592.7 | -827.77 | -895.62 | -1,034.17 | -815.6 | n/a | n/a | -194.68 | -126.05 |
| N | 573 | 573 | 573 | 573 | 573 | 573 | 573 | 534 | 559 |
Table presents regression estimates with robust standard errors. Insider, SSCI, FWOS, Scopus and FScopus models are estimated with negative binomial regressions. Citation models are estimated via OLS. ISRA and NASA models are estimated via logistic regression (Baum, 2008). Dependent variables are number of articles, one plus natural logarithm of WOS and Scopus citations, ISRA and NASA. Public: Dummy variable for editors of public university journals, WOS: Dummy variable that equals to 1 if the journal is indexed in Web of Science or Scopus, Research: 1 if editor is employed at one of the 23 research-focused universities, Female: Dummy for female editors, Experience: Natural logarithm of one plus time after completion of Ph.D. GSS, Education, BUS&ECON, SCIL, Theology, Law are dummy variables for journal discipline. t-values are in parentheses, z-values are in brackets. ***, **, * show significance at 1%, 5%, and 10%. |
5 Conclusion
Chief editors are some of the most important people in academia, as their position is a major source of power. Their expertise determines and guides the future trajectory of scientific research. This study investigates publication behaviour of chief editors in Turkish national journals. Editors were selected from 432 Social Sciences journals to create a homogenous sample of academics subject to similar career regulations. The results show that scientific productivity is highly skewed. 52% of the SSCI articles are published by an elite class of 25 prolific editors, while 62% of the editors do not have a single SSCI article or WOS citation. Moreover, the majority of editors did not lead-author any Web of Science or Scopus articles, calling into question their ability to lead scientific journals. We find that editors’ publication behaviour is extremely localised and inclined towards national journals, where they can rely on inside connections to get published. Nearly 40% of the overall national output of editors is published in affiliated journals, a worrying sign that insinuates a lack of rigorous peer review procedures and checks on nepotistic exercises of editorial power. Editors of Education and Business & Economics journals appear to be the most internationally oriented, while mobility, in particular, a foreign Ph.D. degree, and experience are significant quality indicators. On the other hand, non-mobility (inbreeding) is a significant indicator of underqualification. Inbreeding could lead to academic entrenchment, the establishment of personal zones of influence, and fiefdoms over time (Horta, 2022; Tutuncu, 2024) that academics could exploit to advance and sustain their careers. Although non-mobile faculty have the obvious advantage of institutional loyalty and familiarity compared to mobile faculty, the results would advise against their appointment as they tend to be inferior researchers and underperform others.
The results offer useful insights for improving national publication practices. Academic publishing is a largely unregulated business, and anyone can start an academic journal and claim its editorship. This leads to the proliferation of predatory or grey journals managed by editors with questionable credentials, some of which are included in the national TR index and recognized by career regulations (Akca & Akbulut, 2018). To protect the integrity of national research, new regulations should be introduced to impose conditions for editorial positions and to prevent domination of national journals by low-skilled researchers. The majority of editors appear underqualified as they do not have a record of international publications, tend to work with a narrow pool of national journals, and demonstrate rampant insider behaviour. These editors are likely to lack credibility, leadership ability, vision, and research experience to evaluate the submissions of other researchers and lead the scientific community. Career regulations promoting lack of mobility and mediocrity are the likely source of this endemic lack of qualification, as they foster inbreeding and allow social scientists to be promoted to full professorship without publishing in leading journals, who then go on to become chief editors, deans, and even rectors (e.g. Karadag, 2021). Therefore, the long-term solution to increase editorial qualifications inevitably involves reforming regulations, providing greater incentives, and wherewithal to publish international articles.
The following suggestions can be made to improve editor qualifications and national research: i) Chief editors should be selected from qualified individuals who have a proven record of publishing in leading international journals. Unlike Web of Science, the national TR index does not screen journals for editorial qualifications and anyone can be appointed as chief editor, absent quality filters, abuse prevention mechanisms or consequences, ii) Academic publishing space should be regulated to ensure empowerment of qualified individuals, editorial independence, and prevention of insider publications, iii) Editorial board diversity should be maintained as institutionally concentrated boards tend to be open to clientelism (Heckman & Moktan, 2020), iv) Journals must be transparent about their review process and editors must be held accountable for their actions, including self-publications, editorial nepotism, and fast-tracked insider publications, and v) Editors must be compensated for their effort. Unlike leading journals, national journal editorship is often viewed as an unnecessary workload, as it does not bring any scientific recognition. Without recognition, monetary, and career rewards in return, some editors may resort to publishing their own research and engage in quid-quo-pro arrangements with other editors and acquaintances to extract career benefits. To ensure that editors are financially rewarded for their work, they can be employed on a contractual basis. Regardless of a policy change towards higher quality publications at the national scale, unqualified editors must be dismissed and replaced with qualified researchers to prevent the degeneration of Turkish academia.
However, challenges in finding a sufficiently large number of suitable editors must be acknowledged. Turkey has a high ratio of inbreeding and a declining ratio of people educated in foreign countries, currently hovering around 35% and 12%, respectively (Karadag & Ciftci, 2022). These ratios closely mirror the distribution of the chief editors’ background. Declining mobility and increasing barriers to mobility may lead to a deteriorating research environment. In general, Turkish academia is not conducive to creative thinking and research. Academics are typically overburdened with teaching and administrative responsibilities, while being offered little incentive and support for high-quality research. Authorities must take precautions to encourage academic mobility and offer greater research incentives. It is well known that even social scientists from areas such as Business & Economics that have a high degree of international exposure experience chronic difficulty in accessing international journals (Tutuncu & Seeber, 2024). Many academics harbor a belief that institutional affiliation bias, not their sloppy research, prevents them access, and it is necessary to co-author with well-known scientists from Western institutions to get published. A search of WOS InCites shows that 3,804 SSCI articles in Business & Economics journals originating from Turkey have been published in the last five years. 18% of them were single authored, and 53% involved international collaboration. Nearly half of the published papers were written exclusively by Turkish authors, invalidating this belief. One solution to the potential shortage of qualified scientists is to diversify the institutional affiliation of editors. Most editors are typically selected from institutions that publish journals (Tutuncu, 2024), shrinking the pool of qualified candidates. Another solution is to appoint highly skilled researchers to multiple journals, a practice called interlocking, which is common to flagship journals. On the other hand, if an institution lacks qualified scientists to fulfil editorial duties, its academic promotion rules and rationale for publishing the journal would be called into question. Many of the 670 national Social Sciences journals are ceremonially published without a greater purpose than satisfying the whims of rectors and polishing the careers of fossilized professors who perceive themselves to be beyond science and pretend to be above it, leading and shaping science. These journals likely have no reason to exist and should, therefore, be removed from the national index. A smaller journal pool would make it easier to find qualified editors, develop journals, and raise their status. This action has an official precedent, and the Higher Education Authority, YÖK, recently began to seek research productivity criteria for the launch and continuation of postgraduate programs. Universities were informed that programs that did not meet these criteria would be closed. YÖK is actively attempting to reduce the number of institutions offering postgraduate degrees to improve the quality of graduate programs. A similar course of action would lead to the closure of dozens, if not hundreds, of journals, but visibly increase the quality of the remaining ones.
While this research involves a narrow national context, some of the findings can be extrapolated to a wider international publishing arena. The commercialization of scientific publishing and widespread use of research metrics in academic appointments brought about a plethora of side effects and attempts at manipulating metrics through the formation of paper mills and citation cartels, and arguably exacerbated existing misconduct such as gift/ghost authorship, self-citation, and self-publishing (Christopher, 2021; Maddi & Teixeira da Silva, 2024; Seeber et al., 2019). This paper does not aim to glorify WOS and Scopus journals, as they tend to have their own shortcomings. Instead, it aims to remind the audience that chief editors cannot be some random person selected based on their loyalty, title, or cooperation, and their selection must have a scientific basis. The editor must be able to demonstrate scientific capability and leadership through regular publications in leading journals, not in an obscure journal edited by himself or his colleagues. The academic community requires, more than ever, selfless and qualified editors committed to gatekeeping the integrity and sanctity of scientific research, without giving in to temptation to inflate publication counts through questionable practices.
The chief editors are often senior professors. In this study, 75% of the editors were tenured. Tenured faculty remain in academia for life, leading higher education institutions and grooming a new generation of scientists. Further studies can extend the findings of this investigation by studying publication behaviour and promotion of tenured professors. Countries with a strong national journal base, such as Brazil, China, Poland, and Spain, can provide additional insights to complement this research.
Acknowledgements
I thank the anonymous reviewers for the suggestion.