The Editor-Author Conglomerate: Why the 'Self-Publishing' Defense is the Death Knell of Peer Review

Peer Review Isn’t Broken; It’s Being Weaponized as a Private Printing Press

The recent scandal involving Brian Lucey’s twelve retractions across three Elsevier journals isn't just another case of a professor cutting corners. It represents the final collapse of the "Gentleman’s Agreement" that has governed academic publishing for a century. For years, we’ve treated editorial independence as a sacred boundary, but the Lucey case confirms what many of us in the ethics community have long feared: the boundary has been replaced by a revolving door.

When Lucey claims that printing your own work in your own journal is just "common practice" in finance, he is effectively admitting the whole system is rotting. It is the classic "everyone does it" excuse used to normalize a complete lack of rigor. If an editor is the author, picks the reviewers, and makes the final call, they aren't doing science. They are running a vanity project while hiding behind a major publisher's logo.

The "Finance Journal Ecosystem": A Machine for Manufactured Authority

We need to talk about the structural incentives that allowed this to happen. The so-called "Finance Journals Ecosystem" cited in the fallout is the perfect example of how corporate efficiency is being used to mask citation stacking. By facilitating seamless transfers between journals, publishers have created an airtight loop where editors can keep rejected papers (and their potential citations) within their own financial and social networks.

Frederik Joelving's recent report for Retraction Watch highlights how this setup invites citation rings. The conflict of interest is deep, and it targets the institution itself. Since journals are now grouped into these "ecosystems," the drive for high Impact Factors produces a tribal atmosphere. Editors end up protecting their own numbers by running their own work, which then gets cited by their own students and friends.

The Myth of the 'Neutral' Finance Editor

The argument that "science is only wrong if the data is faked" is a dangerous distraction. Integrity is not merely about the absence of fabrication; it is about the presence of unbiased scrutiny. A paper published by an editor in his own journal, where he oversees the review, is biologically incapable of receiving an objective critique. It is a performance of peer review, not the reality of it.

The Urgent Need for Structural De-Monopolization

If we want to survive this mess, we have to stop just reacting to retractions. We need a fundamental change in how the world of publishing works. It is time for some hard rules.

The Hard Lock Rule: No editor in chief or associate editor should be allowed to publish original research in their own journal during their term, plus two years after they leave. If the paper is actually good, let a rival journal prove it.

Mandatory Third Party Adjudication: Any submission involving an editorial board member must be handled by a completely independent third party, not a buddy in the same network.

We have to stop treating journals like private clubs for editors. Using the excuse that "hundreds of others do it" is just a confession. It gives us a list of who to audit next. If finance and economics are built on a foundation of editors helping themselves, then we need to tear it down. We must do this to find some proof that the academic record still means something.