[论文解读] The Issue with Special Issues: when Guest Editors Publish in Support of Self

Paolo Crosetto, Pablo Gómez Barreiro+1 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Jan 12, 2026

Academic Publishing and Open Access被引用 1

一句话总结

该论文首次系统分析内生性，界定了SI篡改的特殊议题，并显示内生性在主要出版商中普遍存在，对监管机构和编目方的执行现有指南提出政策性解决方案。

ABSTRACT

The recent exceptional growth in the number of special issues has led to the largest delegation of editorial power in the history of scientific publishing. Has this power been used responsibly? In this article we provide the first systematic analysis of a particular form of abuse of power by guest editors: endogeny, the practice of publishing articles in ones own special issue. While moderate levels of endogeny are common in special issues, excessive endogeny is a blatant case of scientific misconduct. We define special issues containing more than 33% endogeny as Published in Support of Self (PISS). We build a dataset of over 100,000 special issues published between 2015 and 2025 by five leading publishers. The large majority of guest editors engage in endogeny responsibly, if at all. Nonetheless, despite endogeny policies by publishers and indexers, PISS is comparable in magnitude to scientific fraud. All journals heavily relying on special issues host PISS, and more than 1,000 PISS special issues are published each year, hosting tens of thousands of endogenous articles. Extreme PISS abuses are rare, as the majority of PISS occurs at moderate levels of endogeny. Since the scientific literature is a common pool resource this is not good news, as it reflects a widespread normalisation of guest editor misconduct. Fortunately, PISS can be solved by setting easily enforceable commonsense policies. We provide the data and analyses needed for indexers and academic regulators to act.

研究动机与目标

• 关注特殊议题增长及潜在利益冲突的担忧。
• 定义内生性和SI篡改的特殊议题（内生性超过33%）。
• 量化主要出版商与期刊中内生性的普遍性。
• 强调编目方和监管机构需要执行现有政策。

提出的方法

• 构建一个覆盖2015-2025年间来自五大出版商的超过100,000个特殊议题的数据集。
• 计算每个特殊议题内的文章的内生性水平，以识别SI篡改案例。
• 按对特殊议题的依赖程度对期刊进行分类，以评估对SI篡改的易感性。
• 识别每年超过1,000个被篡改的SI的频率以及内生性的典型程度。
• 提供数据和分析，以告知编目方和监管机构对执行需要的认知。

实验结果

研究问题

• RQ1 在主要出版商的特殊议题出版中，内生性的盛行程度如何？
• RQ2 定义SI篡改议题的阈值是什么，超出该阈值的情况有多普遍？
• RQ3 哪些期刊和出版商最容易受到SI篡改影响，程度如何？
• RQ4 现有政策能否被有效执行，以减少内生性和SI篡改？
• RQ5 监管机构和编目方需要哪些数据来着手处理这一问题？

主要发现

• 中等水平的内生性很常见；过高的内生性构成科学不端行为。
• 内生性超过33%的特殊议题被定义为SI篡改。
• 每年有超过1,000个被篡改的SI在依赖特殊议题的期刊中发布。
• 过度的内生性往往反映了客座编辑利益冲突的常态化。
• 尽管出版商和编目方有内生性政策，SI篡改仍呈现地域性扩散。
• 编辑在出版商允许的范围内，常超过内生性阈值。