Conflicts of Interest Arising from Simultaneous Service by Editors of Competing Journals or Publishers

Tumor Biology's struggle to survive: A tough lesson for cancer and oncology research journals

Tumor Biology, owned by the International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers and currently published by IOS Press, lost its Clarivate impact factor of 3.650 in 2017. It has been plagued by over 100 retractions due to paper mills (including a batch of 15 papers published between 2014 and 2016 that were retracted at the end of 2021), faked peer reviews, and forged research. According to PubMed, the number of papers published by Tumor Biology has been reduced to a mere trickle, dropping from 707 in 2017 to 66 in 2018. It is unclear how Tumor Biology will be able to recover from such disastrous reputational damage and whether there is even merit in continuing its publication. Other journals for cancer and oncology research would do well to observe this case closely and learn from its mistakes.

PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE PUBLISHING ENTERPRISE: FOCUS ON JOURNAL EDITORS

Editors play a central role and form an essential link in the publication process. Consequently, they hold considerable influence as to how the literature is molded, and what eventually gets published. In addition to their standard editorial responsibilities, holding that amount of power, editors have extremely high responsibilities to declare any conflicts of interest (COIs) internal to, and external to, the peer review process, particularly those involving personal relationships and networks. This is because they also exist in the peer community, can be high-profile public figures, and form a very unique and restricted – in terms of size, membership and exclusivity – set of individuals. Consequently, editors need to declare their COIs openly, transparently, and publicly on their editor board profiles, and as part of their curriculum vitae. Without such declarations, the greater risk is that editors might have unregulated freedom to enforce their own individual or group biases, through hidden relationships and networks, including the possibility of hiding instances of favoritism, cronyism and nepotism. In the worst-case scenario, this might reflect editorial corruption. Hidden COIs in authors, which tend to be the focus of the academic publishing establishment, including in codes of conduct and ethical guidelines such as those by COPE and the ICMJE, tend to down-play editorial COIs, or restrict them to scrutiny during the peer review process. This opinion piece examines whether there is a systemic problem with under-reported editorial COIs, particularly personal and non-financial COIs, that extend beyond the peer review process and their editorial positions. Greater awareness, debate, and education of this issue are needed.