Editorial self-publication is the practice where academic journal editors submit and publish their own scientific research papers in the journals they manage. While editorial contributions are appropriate in moderation, high rates of self-publication raise major concerns regarding editorial bias, shortened peer-review cycles, and compromised scientific integrity. At Groundwork, our analysis of empirical data covering 1,623 biomedical journals shows that editors appear as co-authors on over 12% of published research, with top editors receiving significantly faster approval times than general authors.
| Author Role | Median Publication Lag (Days) | Fast-Track 5th Percentile Lag (Days) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | General Authors | 99 days | 35 days | | Editorial Board Members | 95 days | 33 days | | Editors-in-Chief | 84 days | 12 days |
Editorial self-publication occurs when an individual holding an editorial position at a scientific journal publishes original research, systematic reviews, or case reports in that same publication. While journals rely on prominent scholars to serve as editors, publishing in one's own journal creates an inherent structural conflict of interest between editorial oversight and personal academic output.
To manage this risk, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) establishes clear standards for self-publication. COPE guidelines dictate that journals must implement independent, recused review pipelines for any manuscript submitted by a sitting editor. Under these procedures, the author-editor is excluded from selecting peer reviewers, reading referee commentary before publication, or making final decision calls on their paper.
Despite these ethical standards, verifying whether recusal procedures are genuinely enforced remains difficult for outside readers. When an editor publishes in their own journal, the normal boundary between impartial arbiter and competing researcher dissolves. For consumers and clinicians evaluating medical findings, understanding self-publication patterns is vital for identifying potential bias in clinical evidence.
In biomedical research, editors co-author a median of 12.1% of all published research articles in their respective journals. Furthermore, empirical data tracking 1,623 PubMed-indexed journals reveals that an editor serves as the single most prolific author in 45.0% of analyzed biomedical journals.
At Groundwork, our empirical review highlights a clear divide between standard editorial output and extreme outlier behavior across academic publishing:
- Median editor output: In a typical journal, the single most prolific editor accounts for 1.78% of total published articles.
- High-volume self-publishing: In the top 5% of journals (95th percentile), the single most prolific editor co-authors more than 6.7% of all research papers published in that outlet.
- Overall editor footprint: In high-volume journals at the 95th percentile, at least one editor is listed as a co-author on 41.1% of all published papers.
These metrics demonstrate that editorial self-publication is not an isolated anomaly. Instead, it represents a core structural feature of modern medical publishing. While regular publication by active researchers is expected, concentration of authorship among sitting board members reduces space for independent scholars and increases the risk of institutional favor.
Keep exploring
More from GroundworkEditorial status directly correlates with shortened peer-review timelines, with editors-in-chief experiencing the fastest turnaround times from submission to acceptance. Across biomedical journals, general authors face a median publication lag of 99 days, whereas editors-in-chief achieve a median lag of 84 days and a fast-track approval speed of just 12 days.
Publication lag represents the total number of days between the date a manuscript is submitted to a journal and the date it is formally accepted for publication. This timeframe incorporates initial screening, external peer review, author revisions, and final editorial decisions.
Data synthesis reveals significant disparities across author roles:
- General Authors: Experience a median review lag of 99 days, with the fastest 5% of papers approved in 35 days.
- Editorial Board Members: Experience a median review lag of 95 days, with the fastest 5% approved in 33 days.
- Editors-in-Chief: Experience a median review lag of 84 days, with the fastest 5% approved in only 12 days.
A publication lag of 12 days provides insufficient time to perform rigorous, independent peer review, handle major manuscript revisions, and execute thorough copyediting. When approval timelines contract to less than two weeks, the process strongly suggests expedited processing, lax referee scrutiny, or internal bypassing of standard evaluation controls.
High levels of editorial self-publication distort academic impact metrics, risk fast-tracking unvetted medical data, and dilute the independence of peer-reviewed scientific literature. These risks are heavily concentrated in mid-tier biomedical journals where editorial oversight is less strictly monitored by external governance bodies.
Journals exhibiting the highest levels of editor self-publication—where the top editor co-authors over 6.7% of articles—have a median impact factor of 3.0 and a median author h-index of 42. In these environments, editors can leverage their positional authority to maintain high academic productivity, artificially boost personal citation rates, and satisfy institutional funding requirements.
For consumers, patients, and health professionals, unvetted or biased studies pose direct practical risks:
- Fast-tracked preliminary findings: Rapidly published studies with minimal peer review can lead to prematurely adopting unproven medical treatments or health interventions.
- Publication bias: Editors who publish heavily in their own journals may prioritize positive results that align with their personal research agendas while rejecting conflicting evidence.
