We set out to ask:
•Are AHSS editors aware of COPE and how can we best communicate our services to them?
•What issues are they dealing with that are problematic and what do they need in terms of support?
•What is COPE not currently providing?
Respondents were asked to report issues that were most widespread and frequent:
1) Addressing language and writing quality while remaining inclusive was the most prevalent issue, with 64% encountering it and 42% of those encountering it frequently. This reflects wider issues of diversity and inclusion in scholarly publishing. Balancing issues of language and diversity was a key discussion point in the online groups, with some editors indicating tensions between full representation of authors globally and the quality of papers due to issues around language skills and access to literature.
2) Issues with detecting plagiarism and poor attribution standards was encountered by 58% of respondents. This was particularly prevalent among Business, Finance and Economics editors (79% of editors working in these fields).
3) 55% of respondents highlighted dealing with bias in reviewer comments as one of the top five issues, with 19% saying this happened frequently. These included:
•A lack of support on ethics related to editors acting as reviewers or guest editors
•Achieving blind review when the reviewers and authors have ties, or when working versions of papers are often published online before journal submission.
4) 54% of respondents experience issues with the way authors receive and respond to criticism with 27% of them flagging this as a frequent issue. Editors reported feeling responsible for mentoring authors, such as encouraging them to keep revising manuscripts and to focus on constructive comments. They also saw themselves as mediating the relationship between author and publisher if peer review had been particularly critical.
5) Half of respondents have experienced self-plagiarism, with 22% saying this arose frequently. Again, this was especially widespread in Business, Finance and Economics (65% of editors working in these fields).
6) In the case of fraudulent submissions, these appeared to come up infrequently, though nearly 20% of respondents had experience of this issue.
There were no prominent regional differences (although some regions had small sample size) and editors from across all subject areas experienced similar ethical challenges. However, there is some evidence that Business, Finance and Economics editors face more ethical issues than other AHSS disciplines.