“When a journal fails to conform to ethical standards and best practices appropriate to the discipline, all facets of the editorial function are affected. The editorial function includes the recruitment, selection, and production of publishable articles.”

(LIS Editors, 2010b)

Defining editorial responsibilities

The ethical core of the editorial structure of a journal is the editorial team – the editor(s) and the editorial board. The primary role of a journal editor is to provide knowledgeable, objective guidance in the determination of what work the journal ultimately publishes. This guidance is properly expressed through policy development (see Chapter 9 for specific policy considerations), through facilitation of the peer review process, and through communication and collaboration with authors and reviewers. The role of the editorial board will vary between journals, but generally editorial board members help recruit submissions, serve as reviewers, and may also provide guidance to the editor(s) when creating new policies or addressing ethical dilemmas.

When developing ethical guidelines for its journal editors, there are several issues that the library should consider.

Integrity and intellectual freedom. As publisher, the library must grant journal editors the right to determine what content is included in editors’ journals. By the same token, however, editors must remain objective when assessing authors’ work and not reject sound scholarship that conflicts with the editor’s beliefs or established knowledge/practice (Carraway, 2009).

Conflict of interest. In the same way that editors’ own scholarly or personal positions should not influence publication decisions, editors must also ensure that they do not have (or even appear to have) interests that could influence their ability to remain objective when making publication decisions (LIS Editors, 2010a).

Expeditiousness. In many disciplines, the currency of scholarship is vitally important. Unnecessary delays in the publication process can have a negative impact on authors and on the progress of knowledge. Editors must make every reasonable effort to oversee a review and publication process that is efficient (Carraway, 2009; LIS Editors, 2010a).

Respect for legal and ethical requirements. It is the responsibility of editors to be knowledgeable about all relevant legal requirements and ethical standards – and to make every effort to ensure that articles they publish conform to those requirements. While it is impossible for editors to detect all instances of misconduct or error, editors must put processes in place that proactively seek to identify issues (e.g., defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement) in submitted manuscripts.

Citation metrics. A journal’s reputation is important to both editors and authors, who benefit from their associations with well-regarded publications. In rare cases, this may lead editors to attempt to artificially enhance a journal’s reputation through its impact factor. (Despite the known problems with the impact factor as a measure of quality and relevance, it continues to be viewed as a (somewhat) meaningful measure of a journal’s reputation.) Editors should be cautioned to avoid practices that are intended to manipulate the impact factor (e.g., self-citation or requesting submitting authors to cite articles from an editor’s journal), as these are unethical (Enger, 2009; Farthing, 2006). Libraries may also wish to educate editors about alternative metrics or methods for assessing the impact of their journals.

In addition to these areas of personal responsibility for editors, the library may also choose to require (or recommend) that the editor and editorial board adhere to certain established standards when developing the journal’s general policies. These standards, such as those provided by the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, will be discussed in detail in Ch060pter 7. For related resources see COPE (2011a, c).

Peer review

Along with the oversight provided by the editorial team, the peer review process for a journal is the other mechanism that helps ensure the quality and ethical nature of the published scholarship. The integrity and transparency of the peer review process is of the utmost importance; because of this, the library should require that every journal:

The library should not require that journals it publishes adhere to a specific model of peer review. There are advantages and shortcomings to all commonly accepted models (i.e., prepublication, postpublication, open, closed, blind, double-blind, signed, etc.), and the appropriate model will vary between journals. However, regardless of whether a traditional or emerging model is used, some type of peer review should be required – not because it is a mark of “respectability”, but because peer feedback is an integral part of scholarly communication and libraries should encourage such feedback.

Whatever the chosen mode of peer review, each journal should post a clear description of its review process on its website. For example:

Publicizing the review process better allows for accountability, and gives authors the opportunity to determine whether the process will be deemed acceptable by colleagues within their discipline or on their tenure/promotion committees.

At the heart of the peer review process are the reviewers – the integrity and utility of the process is dependent on their work. Every journal needs to establish, and communicate to reviewers, clear ethical guidelines. The review model used will dictate in part what standards are appropriate, but there are several expectations for reviewers that are commonly accepted – for examples in practice, see the Council of Science Editors guidelines (Scott-Lichter et al., 2012) and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (COPE, 2013), which emphasize several key areas, which are reviewed here.

Expeditious feedback. Reviewers, just like journal editors, have a duty to authors to provide feedback “within a reasonable time-frame” (COPE, 2013). Editors should set firm deadlines for reviewers and hold reviewers to those deadlines. Furthermore, if a reviewer anticipates that he or she will not be able to complete the requested review in time – or does not have “the subject expertise required to carry out the review” (COPE, 2013), the reviewer should let the editor know as soon as possible so that another reviewer may be assigned (Scott-Lichter et al., 2012; Carraway, 2009).

Conflict of interest. If a reviewer receives an article that presents a conflict of interest, the reviewer should inform the editor and seek advice as to whether recusal is necessary (Scott-Lichter et al., 2012). Potential conflicts might include reviewing a study in which the reviewer has a financial interest (Fletcher and Fletcher, 2003); reviewing an article that presents competing or contradictory research to the reviewer’s own work; or reviewing an article written by a family member or close colleague (Benos et al., 2007). In some cases, if the article is on a highly specialized topic and the reviewer is one of the only people competent to comment on it, the editor may decide to allow the review.

Respect for intellectual property. By participating in the review of submitted manuscripts, reviewers are often granted access to data, findings, or research results that are not yet public knowledge. Although it may be tempting to incorporate the data or ideas from the submitted manuscript into their own work, reviewers should never do so without first contacting the author (usually a mediated communication initiated through the journal editor to preserve the anonymity of the review process) (Farthing, 2006; Scott-Lichter et al., 2012).

Confidentiality. Respect for an author’s intellectual property is also demonstrated by maintaining the confidentiality of the review process. Reviewers should never share a manuscript (or information from that manuscript) with anyone else, unless they have explicit permission to do so from the journal editor. Even though most reviewers will understand not to discuss the article with colleagues, they should be specifically reminded that they should not recruit others to participate in their review of the article – even if those individuals possess knowledge that the reviewers lack (Steneck, 2006). (If reviewers do not feel personally knowledgeable enough to review a specific article without help, they should not accept the assignment; Scott-Lichter et al., 2012).

It should be noted that the specific review process of the journal may render the issue of confidentiality less important. For example, if a journal uses an open, prepublication review process, the manuscript may be publicly available online for comment. The degree of confidentiality that is present in the review process should be made clear to potential authors, as this could affect their decision as to where to publish.

Useful feedback. It should be the ultimate goal of reviewers to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts – to act as a “blind partner in adding value to promising research” (Fischer, 2011, p. 227). This is best achieved when reviewers provide thoughtful, productive comments to authors. Suggested revisions should be accompanied by rationales so that authors understand the context for the reviewers’ suggestions (COPE, 2013; Scott-Lichter et al., 2012). Journal editors can encourage this type of feedback by providing templates to guide reviewers through a critical analysis of manuscripts.

Together, the reviewers and editors for a journal have a shared responsibility to ensure that authors are dealt with in an ethical manner and that authors’ work itself conforms to ethical and legal standards. Though it has been observed that the traditional review process is not capable of detecting every ethical breach (Weller, 1995), libraries should feel confident in the journals they publish if their editors and reviewers demonstrate personal integrity and hold all authors to a similar standard.

Instructions for authors

Within the context of ethical guidelines, responsibility means that authors are accountable for the content of their work – it should comply with relevant ethical and legal standards. The most effective way to communicate the relevant standards to authors is by including the standards on the journal’s website. Usually, this is done on an “instructions for authors” or “submission guidelines” page, though the information can also be included with other general journal policies. Regardless of where it is located on the site, the information should be prominently displayed for authors who are considering submitting a manuscript. If, as is usually the case, the “instructions for authors” page includes a variety of practical requirements (e.g., formatting requirements for manuscripts, preferred citation styles, etc.), care should be taken to ensure that the journal’s ethical and legal guidelines are not buried in the other content.

Within its ethical guidelines, it is not reasonable or necessary for a journal to provide comprehensive education to authors about the ethical conduct of research or their responsibilities as a researcher or scholar. Almost every academic discipline has issued ethical guidelines for scholars in its field, and authors should be familiar with the expectations of their respective fields. For example:

Author agreements

Providing policies and clear expectations for authors only goes part of the way towards establishing authors’ accountability for the ethical and legal nature of their work. Every journal should also receive explicit assurances from authors that their submissions conform to the journal’s requirements. While these assurances can be obtained either at the point of submission, or after the article is accepted for publication, it is advisable to receive them as early as possible so that editors and reviewers don’t waste time on a submission that presents legal or ethical problems. The most appropriate mechanism for receiving these assurances is an author agreement. Similar to an institutional repository submission agreement, an author agreement is a contract between the author and the publisher (usually the university on behalf of the library–publisher) that outlines the terms under which an article is published.

As part of the author agreement (which will be discussed in its entirety in Chapter 9), the author should be required to provide assurances (representations) regarding the content of the submission. For example: “[T]he Article is the original work of the Author(s) and does not contain any libelous or unlawful statements or infringe on the rights or privacy of others or contain material or instructions that might cause harm or injury” (JLSC, n.d.). In general, authors should be required to provide assurances that (a) they have the right to submit the work to the journal, (b) the work does not infringe on the rights of any third parties, and (c) the work does not otherwise include content which could lead to legal action against the author or publisher (e.g., defamatory statements).

Intellectual property

If authors are willing to take responsibility for the content of their work, they should equally be allowed to take responsibility through ownership of their work. For library publishers, this necessitates developing policies and author agreements that not only seek assurances from authors but that also allow authors to maintain their intellectual property rights.

Traditionally, author agreements in scholarly publishing have taken the form of “copyright transfer agreements”, which require authors to assign their rights to publishers in exchange for the privilege of being published. Although publishers continue to make efficiency-based arguments for the need for this practice (Gillen, 2011), there is no reason that library-published journals should continue it. Particularly for open-access journals, which allow broad reuse of articles by readers, there is little need for a publisher to own article copyrights in order to facilitate permission requests or otherwise manage rights for authors.

The most common alternative to a copyright transfer agreement is a license agreement. A license (which is granted as part of the overall author agreement) gives the publisher permission to exercise certain rights that belong to the author, but does not transfer the copyright to the publisher – the author retains ownership. In this way, a license (particularly a nonexclusive license, which will be discussed in Chapter 8) preserves an author’s ability to use his or her own article in a variety of ways without needing to seek permission from the publisher.

If, for some reason, a library–publisher (or, more likely, its institution) believes it is necessary to require a copyright transfer from authors instead of a license, the library should make certain that the author agreement allows authors to retain rights that will allow them to, at minimum, make the article available online, either through a personal website or an institutional or disciplinary repository; make unrestricted use of the article for teaching, including use in e-reserves or course packs; and use the article in the creation of other works (LIS Editors, 2010b). For all of these uses, the author should be allowed to use the final published version of the article.

Open access

Setting aside the issue of the “digital divide”, an open-access publishing model (coupled with self-archiving) is the surest means through which to enable universal access to journal articles. Within the open-access model, there are several variations for publishers to consider:

Even though the gold and hybrid models of open access sometimes require the payment of author fees, library publishers should consider it best practice to use an open-access model that is free for both readers and authors. Unlike commercial, society, or other nonprofit publishers, library publishing services are usually directly or indirectly subsidized by their parent institutions – there should be no need to recoup costs by charging author fees. If a library partners with an external group (e.g., a professional society) to publish a journal, the library should strongly advocate for a gold open-access model in which articles are made immediately available to readers, at no charge to the readers or authors. In fact, it is advisable for libraries to develop partnership policies that clearly state whether or not the library will provide hosting or publishing services for journals that are not open access or that charge author fees. In some cases, however, it may be preferable for a library to publish a toll access (subscription-based) journal in order to keep subscription fees low (instead of the journal being added to a commercial publisher’s portfolio).

Although providing free access is a central tenet of open access, a library publisher also needs to define what types of use will be allowed for readers who access the library’s journals. Widely used definitions of open access (e.g., the Budapest Open Access Initiative statement) refer not just to the open availability of content, but to the ability for readers to use that content in any way they see fit. This distinction is commonly discussed as the difference between “gratis” (free to access) and “libre” (free to use) – with the implication that open-access literature should be both gratis and libre (Suber, 2008).

Though it is largely accepted that open-access literature (whether in journals or repositories) should allow for readers’ free access and use, there is less agreement as to the nature of use that should be allowed by default (Royster, 2012). Library publishers can choose to require a certain level of use/reuse rights to be standard across all journals that they publish, or they can allow each journal to establish its own policy. The latter approach is more sensitive to disciplinary differences – for example, a literary journal that publishes poetry and prose will likely favor more conservative reuse rights in comparison to a scientific journal. Creative Commons licenses (see Chapter 2 for an expanded discussion) provide a known standard for offering a range of reuse rights to readers, but it is also possible that the library (or a journal) may wish to craft its own policy. Take, for example, the following statement that allows reuse for specific purposes:

Whether a standard or locally created license is applied to published articles, the objectives should be the same: (a) remove readers’ doubts about how they may use an article and (b) remove the barrier of a permissions process for common uses that may fall outside fair use.

Aggregator access

While it is important for library publishers to provide open access to journals in their portfolios, it is also important to remember that readers won’t use what they can’t find. To a certain extent, this simply requires optimizing a journal’s indexing and retrieval by Internet search engines. However, even open-access journals can profit from other traditional access points – namely, bibliographic databases. Databases are still used by students and researchers alike when conducting comprehensive literature searches and having a journal’s content indexed can both improve its visibility and provide (depending on the database) an imprimatur for the journal.

The process through which journals are selected for inclusion in databases is outside of the scope of this text, but the contracts that library publishers enter into with database providers present relevant legal and ethical issues. There are three significant considerations:

The simplest way to ensure that the library has the right to contribute content from the journals it publishes is to include this activity in the journals’ author agreements. Even if a journal’s articles are published under a Creative Commons license that would already permit the articles to be included in a full text database, it should still be considered best practice to add explicit language to the author agreement. This removes any doubt as to the rights that the library has, and also makes it clear to authors that this type of activity may occur. For example:

Assuming that a library has the right to license journal content to an aggregator/database, the terms of that license should be carefully examined. In addition to including the full text of journal articles in its database(s), the aggregator may also seek permission to further sublicense the content for other uses – for example, in a “pay-per-view” service where readers are able to buy individual articles, or in other fee-based services. Although these options may be attractive because they present revenue possibilities, library publishers should consider whether such sublicenses are actually consistent with their missions. For example, if a library is publishing an open-access journal, it doesn’t make sense to allow an access point to be created (like a pay-per-view option) that could conceivably draw readers who would otherwise have found the content for free on the journal’s website. Any licensing option that would unnecessarily prompt readers to pay to access content that is open access should be declined. The exception, of course, are the bibliographic databases themselves, which are subscription based – but which don’t present a paywall to an individual conducting a general Web search.

For readers who do discover journal content through an aggregator’s database (instead of the journal’s website), it is important the journal’s copyright and reuse policies are clear. For instance, most aggregators include an automatically generated default copyright statement as the final page of article PDFs. These statements usually declare that the journal publisher owns the copyright of the article and that no more than personal use of the article is allowed without permission. For most open-access journals, this type of statement would not accurately describe their policies – and so database users would be presented with a more limited set of reuse rights than actually subsist in the article they are viewing. To avoid any such confusion, library publishers should make sure that journal content provided to aggregators is clearly labeled with the appropriate rights information (e.g., indicating a Creative Commons license on the first page of the article). Libraries should also work with content aggregators to revise the automatically generated copyright statements for articles to more accurately reflect the policies of the journal. For example:

Regardless of where a reader accesses journal content, the scope of his or her ability to use that content should remain the same.

Universal and perpetual access

In order to fully demonstrate the commitment to “universal” access that is implied in definitions of open-access literature, library publishers must appropriately address the potential barriers presented by technology and time. As with institutional repositories, libraries should make certain that journal websites, articles, and other content adheres as closely as possible to relevant accessibility standards. Not only is there a legal obligation to do so (through the Americans with Disabilities Act, as discussed in Chapter 5), but there is again an ethical imperative to ensure that the ways in which libraries and others are reimagining scholarly communication is not excluding potential participants.

In the same way that there is a responsibility to enable access for as many people as possible, library publishers also have a responsibility to preserve that access for as long as possible. An initial step in preserving access is to create an archive of published content; the library’s institutional repository (if hosted on a separate platform) is a logical place to maintain that archive (Solomon, 2008). However, true preservation of digital content entails not simply creating backup copies, but actively managing the content so that it will be accessible and usable as technologies change over time. Unless a library already has robust digital preservation infrastructure in place, it is likely simpler to use an existing preservation service. For example, both Portico (http://www.portico.org/) and LOCKSS (http://www.lockss.org/) are used by many libraries and publishers to preserve digital content. Libraries should consult with comparator institutions, and with relevant professional associations (e.g., Council of Editors of Learned Journals, Society for Scholarly Publishing, or Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association) to determine accepted standards and practices.

Assessing risk and liability

The most relevant legal issues for library publishers are the same as those faced by libraries that distribute original, unpublished content through an institutional repository: intellectual property, privacy, and defamation. However, as a journal publisher – a partner in the creation and dissemination of new content – a library potentially faces greater risk than it does in its role as simply a distributor of content created by others. As a publisher, the limitations on liability that are available to libraries when they act as distributors are no longer applicable.

Even though, in general, the library assumes more responsibility for content that it publishes, the risk present in individual journals or articles will vary widely based on the discipline or topic. Journals that publish interviews or research into current political issues will be more likely to face decisions about potentially defamatory content than will journals that focus on basic scientific research. Healthcare journals, particularly those that publish case studies, are more likely to raise privacy concerns than are literary journals. And although every journal has the potential to present copyright issues, those publishing research funded by corporate sponsors should be mindful of patent and trademark concerns.

Depending on the type of content a journal publishes, and the specific issues and risks that it presents, the library should work with the journal’s editorial team to develop policies and procedures that can help mitigate those risks. For example, using a publication checklist can remind editors to verify that all appropriate permissions have been obtained prior to publishing an article, or that opinion pieces about specific individuals have received special review for potentially defamatory comments. Ultimately, the goal should be to create processes that efficiently address realistic risk areas while not unduly burdening (or scaring) editors and authors with issues that are likely irrelevant to their journals. (See Chapter 9 for a more detailed discussion of appropriate policies.)

Responsibility for journal content

An essential strategy for limiting a publisher’s liability for content that infringes on someone’s rights is the use of author, editor, and partnership agreements (the term “partnership” is used informally here, and should not be confused with legal partnerships between business partners). As discussed earlier, a publication agreement with an author should require that the author provide assurances that his or her article does not violate any laws related to intellectual property, privacy, or defamation. It is advisable for library publishers to require similar assurances from editors and from publishing partners – for example, that the editor or publishing partner will not approve for publication any work that is defamatory or infringes on others’ intellectual property or privacy rights.

It is worth noting that a library will likely contract directly with either an editor or a publishing partner, but not both. For example, if the library publishes a journal on behalf of a professional society that is responsible for editorial oversight of the journal, the library would probably enter into an agreement with the society, not the journal’s editors. But if a journal is created by a group of faculty from within the library’s institution, the library would enter into an agreement with the individual editor(s), since there would be no corporate entity behind the journal (unless the editors created one for that purpose).

Whether an agreement is with an author, an editor, or a publishing partner, two principles should guide the library in drafting the agreement: (a) the library’s institution must be willing to accept a certain amount of risk as a part of being a publisher and (b) content creators should only be held accountable for willful or negligent acts on their part – not forced to enter into legal agreements that place an undue burden on them and discourage their participation in the publishing process. Each of these agreements (with authors, editors, and partners) is explored in greater depth in Chapter 9.

Disclaimers and insurance

Ideally, the review processes and assurances received from authors will be sufficient to produce journal content that presents no legal or ethical issues. However, as the existence of retractions and legal actions attest, publication does not necessarily equate to perfection (in quality or legality). To address this reality, there are two further measures that library publishers may wish to consider: disclaimers for readers and liability insurance.

Disclaimers are a common part of terms-of-use agreements for websites, but they are really only advisable in relation to a journal’s published content if that journal has some practical application (e.g., medical care). In other words, there is little danger that anyone reading the American Historical Review will depend on an article’s contents to make a decision that results in physical or psychological harm to themselves or others.

Unlike disclaimers, however, insurance is relevant to all journals (and publishers), as it can cover claims related to copyright infringement, invasion of privacy, defamation, and errors or omissions made by the publisher. This type of insurance, called “media liability” (Rothberg and Fenstermacher, 2004) or “media perils” (Jassin and Schechter, 1998) insurance addresses the specific liabilities that publishers face. However, it may not be necessary to purchase special insurance. Library publishers are units within larger institutions, and the liability insurance held by the parent institution may – if publishing activities are “incidental to [the] core business” of the institution – cover publishing-related liabilities (Rothberg and Fenstermacher, 2004). However, the exact terms of coverage will vary from institution to institution. It is best to confer with institutional legal counsel to determine if existing insurance will cover the library’s publishing program or if additional coverage is recommended.