The Issue with Special Issues: when Guest Editors Publish in Support of Self
Paolo Crosetto, Pablo G\'omez Barreiro, Mark Austin Hanson

TL;DR
This paper systematically analyzes the abuse of editorial power in special issues, revealing widespread moderate misconduct called PISS, which resembles scientific fraud, and proposes policies to address it.
Contribution
It provides the first large-scale dataset and analysis of endogeny in special issues, defining PISS and highlighting its prevalence and impact on scientific integrity.
Findings
Over 1,000 PISS special issues annually
Moderate endogeny is common, extreme is rare
PISS prevalence is comparable to scientific fraud
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…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAcademic Publishing and Open Access · scientometrics and bibliometrics research · Publishing and Scholarly Communication
