In response to the ever-evolving publishing landscape, CSE’s Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications¹ is updated regularly to reflect new or best practices. In August 2024 it was updated with additional information in section 2.1.7, “Supplements, Special Series, or Calls for Papers,” and now includes section 2.1.16, “Censoring or Editing Reviewer Comments.” 

These standards and the updates are summarized below. 

2.1.7 Supplements, Special Series, or Calls for Papers 

In 2023, a Scholarly Kitchen post by Christos Petrou,² and then later a preprint by Hanson et al.,³ raised the topic of journals publishing high numbers of articles via the Guest Editor model. These pieces discuss the strain this has caused for scholarly publishing, and in 2023–2024, we have seen the potential for reputational damage for some journals. In his post, Petrou stated that “publishers pursuing the Guest Editor model at scale ought to be transparent about the safeguards that they have in place to uphold their journals’ editorial integrity.” Given the conversations around Guest Editor models, the CSE Editorial Policy Committee determined an update to section 2.1.7 was needed. 

The committee considered current Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance⁴ and discussed a potential expansion to include the topic of Guest Editors for single papers.⁵ Since community concerns seemed to rest with Guest Editors overseeing large collections of papers, the committee ultimately agreed the update should focus specifically on supplements, series, or calls for papers. 

The updated section recommends that Guest Editors have clearly defined responsibilities, which include declaration of conflicts of interest, application of the journal’s review policy, and review of manuscripts in a manner consistent with the journal’s vision, mission, standards, and processes. The updates also indicate that when Guest Editors are used, journals should be transparent about the peer review process. Decisions should be approved by the Editor-in-Chief, or the Guest Editor should be authorized via a Memo of Understanding to make decisions on peer-reviewed manuscripts. Guest Editors should not review any manuscripts in which they are a coauthor, and they should adhere to all timelines and consult the Editor-in-Chief if extensions need to be granted to authors. 

2.1.16 Censoring and Editing Reviewer Comments 

The August 2024 addition of a topic on censoring and editing reviewer comments came about naturally during discussions about areas where further guidance may be needed. I am particularly interested in this topic as it is one that comes up frequently during the training I provide for new journal editors. Aside from a formal policy issued by COPE⁶ in 2021, there is little guidance that exists for censoring and editing reviewer comments. Yet, multiple scholarly articles online ponder this dilemma. In conversations with editors, I’ve heard a range of opinions as to if, and how much, reviews should be edited. There is a natural tension between respect for the work of the reviewer and the obligation of the editor to ensure that reviews are not offensive, derogatory, potentially libelous, or unethical in content. The recommendations added in August 2024 to CSE’s recommendations refer heavily to the COPE policy and lean on the experiences of the members of the Editorial Policy Committee. 

First, we focused on reviewer education. Journals should publish guidelines for reviewers with specifics as to what is acceptable (or not) in a review and try to include examples. This recommendation not only helps to ensure reviewers submit appropriate reviews but also allows journals to refer reviewers to the published guidelines when concerning language is used. The committee expanded on the COPE guidance by indicating that policies should bar language in reviews that could be derogatory or that passes judgment on an author because of their geographic or institutional location, language skills, or career level. This expansion of the COPE guidelines was in response to real-world examples we’ve seen with reviewers in our journals, for example, senior reviewers referring to an author’s early career stage in an inappropriate manner or providing a poorly worded recommendation for professional editing. 

Second, we focused on recommendations around the actual censoring or editing of reviews. While this is a decision that each journal must make (i.e., what is permissible), the common recommendation is that this should be stated clearly in a published policy so that reviewers and authors are aware of consequences. Journals should note what actions they may take and what circumstances might dictate these actions. 

Journals that approve of the censoring or editing of reviews should explore the feasibility of 1) allowing reviewers to edit their own reviews and 2) consulting or notifying the reviewer of the edits or censorship. We recognize that at times this may not be possible if there are time constraints or other barriers; therefore, journals should create policies that reflect the practicalities of their publishing environment. 

For journals that choose not to permit censoring or editing of reviews, the policy ideally should provide a path for editors to acknowledge the concerns they have with the review, advise the authors as to how to respond to the review, and note journal policy. 

Finally, this recommendation emphasizes the need for internal documentation. If issues arise as a result of the review or censorship or editing, the journal should, at a minimum, have access to the original review, any changes made, and all communications with the reviewer. 

The Editorial Policy Committee hopes the update and new section are helpful additions to the recommendations paper. If you are interested in becoming involved with the recommendations paper, please consider joining the Editorial Policy Committee.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jill Jackson with the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) for her feedback and edits during the writing of this article. 

References and Links

1. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/recommendations-for-promoting-integrity-in-scientific-journal-publications 
2. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/03/30/guest-post-of-special-issues-and-journal-purges/
3. Hanson MA, Gómez Barreiro P, Crosetto P, Brockington D. The strain on scientific publishing. arXiv:2309.15884. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.15884.  
4. https://doi.org/10.24318/7cKLAia0 
5. https://publicationethics.org/case/guest-editor-single-articles 
6. https://doi.org/10.24318/AoZQiusn

Ruth Isaacson (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4321-6608) is Senior Managing Editor, Genetics Society of America (GSA).