Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE
作者：
Highlights：
• Anomalous activity identified among a relatively small but extremely active set of editors.
• Bias in manuscript handling time is strongest among the 10 most-active editors.
• Case study of anomalous editors reveals perverse incentives oriented around self-citation.
• Megajournals should list handling editor in manuscript byline for transparency.
• Editorial boards with active researchers should be multi-tiered and have activity quotas.
摘要
•Anomalous activity identified among a relatively small but extremely active set of editors.•Bias in manuscript handling time is strongest among the 10 most-active editors.•Case study of anomalous editors reveals perverse incentives oriented around self-citation.•Megajournals should list handling editor in manuscript byline for transparency.•Editorial boards with active researchers should be multi-tiered and have activity quotas.
论文关键词：Science ethics,Editorial board service,Perverse incentives,Bias,Self-citation,Human analytics
论文评审过程：Received 12 July 2018, Revised 24 August 2019, Accepted 29 August 2019, Available online 14 September 2019, Version of Record 14 September 2019.
论文官网地址：https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.100974
