Bullying behaviors may be defined as recurring efforts to undermine, unsettle, or evoke fear in a targeted individual or group (Scott et al., 2008). Traditionally, workplace bullying often gravitates toward the well-documented issues of sexual harassment, overt bullying, and acts of discrimination (Cleary et al., 2010; Jagsi et al., 2023). These forms of mistreatment have long been at the forefront of discussions surrounding workplace dynamics and employee wellbeing. Numerous studies and legislative measures have emerged to address and combat these deeply ingrained problems, highlighting the importance of creating inclusive and respectful work environments (Averbuch et al., 2021; Hay, 2021; Moss et al., 2022; Iyer et al., 2023). However, the landscape of professional bullying is far more complex and pervasive than its traditional manifestations. Academic bullying and misconduct have infiltrated the seemingly impartial realm of scientific and scholarly publishing, raising concerns about the very foundations of knowledge dissemination and academic discourse (Smith, 2003; Godlee, 2004). In other words, bullying, a pervasive issue in various professional settings extends beyond traditional workplace bullying; and even involves instances where editors misuse their positions of authority, exhibit hostile behavior, or engage in questionable practices that compromise the integrity of the editorial process (Teixeira and da Costa, 2010).

The role of Editors particularly the Editor-in-Chief/s in scientific journals is pivotal as they are entrusted with safeguarding the rigor and credibility of published research. In other words, the role of Editor/s is vital in maintaining the integrity and credibility of academic discourse. Nevertheless, as with any position of power, there is a potential for misuse leading to a growing concern in the academic community (Godlee, 2004; Faggion, 2021). Such conduct can manifest in various ways, including biased decision-making, suppression of dissenting voices, and the exploitation of power dynamics in the peer review process. In the domain of scientific publishing, considerable attention has been devoted to authorial misconduct, encompassing phenomena like “honorary and/or ghost authorships,” “plagiarism”, “self-citations,” and strategies for upholding publishing ethics (Baskin and Gross, 2011; Al Lamki, 2013; Helgesson and Eriksson, 2015); nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that professional misconduct can also manifest from the editorial perspective (Barbour et al., 2016). According to Zapf et al. (2003), public humiliation, such as belittling comments, is a form of bullying behavior that some editors may display. Moreover, as per Einarsen et al. (2009), publicly berating individuals such as authors of manuscripts submitted to journals in front of colleagues and/or using derogatory language against individuals including authors submitting manuscripts to a journal are clear signs of bullying behavior by journal editors. In this context, ensuring the quality, transparency, and integrity of this process is of paramount importance in scientific publishing, which serves as the cornerstone of academic knowledge dissemination, serving as the gateway to sharing innovative research findings with the global scientific community. Actions, such as those referenced above are indicative of an effort to intimidate authors, a behavior that can significantly hinder the open exchange of ideas and erode the fundamental tenets of scholarly exploration. The World Medical Association (WMA), the (ICMJE), and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) have collectively outlined ethical responsibilities for editors in the publication and dissemination of research findings (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 1997; Cockcroft, 2000; Wager, 2012; World Medical Association, 2013). Likewise, the COPE guidelines include a section addressing the handling of misconduct, primarily intended for editors; however, authors should also familiarize themselves with the procedures that editors will follow when addressing suspected misconduct, which involve thorough investigation and resolution of such issues. The present study seeks to contribute to the scientific understanding of editorial bullying within academic journals, exploring the complex dynamics through which journal editors may exhibit bullying behavior; however, it was demanding to cite indexed references for each variable as scholarly articles often focus on broader issues rather than individual cases.

The present mini-review seeks to shed light on these issues, highlighting their gravity and the urgency to address them within the academic publishing landscape.

Editor bullying refers to the abuse and/or misuse of power and influence in positions of authority within academic publishing. It involves behaviors that undermine the scientific process, compromise the integrity of research, and harm the careers and wellbeing of individuals. In addition, the dissemination of submission-related information including details such as manuscript number, title, and editorial decision to colleagues and peers without obtaining prior consent from the authors constitutes a breach of editorial ethics and is considered a form of editorial misconduct (Barbour et al., 2016). In a longitudinal analysis, Petersen AM (Petersen, 2019) investigated the editorial activity of ~7,000 editors affiliated with a well-known journal (denoted as PO) during the 10-year period spanning 2006–2015. The results revealed a striking disparity in power distribution among editors of this reputed journal, with the top 10 editors overseeing a substantial 3,366 articles, constituting 2.4% of the total 141,986 articles scrutinized in this study (Petersen, 2019). Moreover, Petersen (2019) reported that articles handled by extremely active editors of PO had significantly faster acceptance rates, had higher rates of citations to the Editors' research, and lower citation impact relative to the other studies published in this journal. These results provided corresponding lines of evidence supporting an underlying self-citation strategy thereby suggesting either a lack of interest or scientific misconduct on the part of the Editors of PO (Petersen, 2019). This conspicuous inequality raises concerns about inadvertent incentives that may potentially foster biased decision-making at the editorial level, possibly fueling unethical conduct. Results by Petersen (2019) imply that editors could become less discerning in evaluating article quality and may be susceptible to imbalances driven by power. Furthermore, this study (Petersen, 2019) suggested that these effects become more pronounced as editors accumulate experience, in alignment with behavioral research on the evolution of misconduct and susceptibility to temptation in power-driven environments.

Typically, publishers extend invitations to authors to partake in surveys assessing their experiences with the publication process. However, authors of the present mini-review propose that journals should also proactively invite authors to participate in anonymous surveys specifically focused on the submission, review process and communication with the handling editor and editor-in-chief. The implementation of such anonymous surveys holds the potential to uncover and address any potential conflicts of interest and/or controversies that may arise during manuscript submission, interactive review, and decision phases, which might otherwise remain undisclosed in the final published article. Engaging in such initiatives can also serve as a valuable educational tool for editors, reviewers, and prospective authors submitting future contributions.

The pervasive issue of bullying and misconduct in professional settings and their negative impact on academic publishing cannot be overlooked. The implementation of routine mandatory educational training for authors, reviewers, and editors may serve as a proactive measure that can effectively mitigate the risk of bullying within the realm of scientific publishing.

FJ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. DM: Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. PR: Supervision, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing.