Publication behaviour and (dis)qualification of chief editors in Turkish national Social Sciences journals

National journals play a large role in academic promotion affairs in the Social Sciences, as the area has a more locally focused approach than the hard sciences (Nederhof, 2006; Nederhof et al., 1989; Winclawska, 1996). Their editors exercise immense power in the creation of national literature in countries such as Turkey, where attempts to develop a national science index are supported by official state policies. Despite the acute need for a qualified editorship, the national publishing space is unregulated, and there is no established procedure for editor selection. The lack of formal procedures could lead to arbitrary editor appointments and endanger the future of national research because editors with questionable qualifications may not be eligible to lead scientific journals. This study aimed to dispel the mystery of national journals and shed light on the qualifications of their chief editors. This question is important because national journals often fly under the radar, despite playing a large role in the creation of academic identities and local scientific literature. Chief editors determine journal policies, select associate editors, and often deliver a final verdict on submissions, thereby leading and guiding the scientific community (Hames, 2001; Sharma, 2016). As editors set the journal vision and benchmark for research excellence (Besancenot et al., 2012; Hardin et al., 2008), scholars need to be highly productive in qualifying as chief editors (Gasparyan, 2013; Kaufman, 1984), who are typically selected from respected scholars with a well-tracked record of publications in prestigious journals (Bedeian et al., 2009; Lowe & Van Fleet, 2009). Despite the acknowledgement of their high scientific achievements, direct inquiries into editorial productivity are rare. Few studies examined the editors of top journals in specific fields, such as accounting, finance, economics, and psychology (Bedeian et al., 2009; Hardin et al., 2008; Lindsey, 1976; Lowe & Van Fleet, 2009). Others examined editorial board diversity (Brinn & Jones, 2008; Csomós, 2024; Hodgson & Rothman, 1999; Petersen et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2020), networking and self-publication tendencies (Brogaard et al., 2014; Ductor & Visser, 2022; Luty et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2021).

Contemporary scholars recognize that science is universal (Merton, 1973), and academic titles should be granted to qualified individuals who have contributed to the scientific literature. Otherwise, the credibility and integrity of scientific inquiry would be threatened (Bedeian et al., 2009). In recognition of this reality, top universities in developed countries typically stipulate publishing in leading journals for permanent positions and promotions (Hicks, 2012; Korytkowski & Kulczycki, 2019; Lutter & Schröder, 2016; Pontika et al., 2022). Other countries, such as Czechia, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, and Kazakhstan, recently began to implement new promotion rules that require publication in international journals (Grancay et al., 2017; Hladchenko & Moed, 2021; Kuzhabekova & Ruby, 2018; Sasvari et al., 2022). On the other hand, Turkey does not stipulate international articles to promote and encourage national publications in Social Sciences. As a result, national journals play an oversized role in the academic careers of Turkish social scientists, who may obtain tenure and other leadership positions without publishing international articles. Turkish researchers overall have a notorious relationship with scientific publishing. Prior studies showed their inability to publish in high-impact journals (Karadag, 2021; Önder & Erdil, 2015), publishing in affiliated journals to gain speed advantage (Tutuncu, 2023a), and favouring predatory journals for rent-seeking and quick promotion (Akça & Akbulut, 2018; Demir, 2018). In a hierarchical structure where researchers initially target high quality journals and move down in the rankings as they get rejected (Scheidegger et al., 2023), national journals may represent the last choice and an escape route for Turkish academics who are unable to publish in well-regarded journals. If editors lack the necessary research experience and qualification to conduct a sound assessment of submissions, national journals could be at risk of becoming a dumping ground for defective articles with little scientific value.

Although the required skill set to assess academic qualifications may vary across fields, eventually it comes down to publishing in leading international journals, which is a voluntary choice and represents a quality indicator in the local setting. This study utilizes the number of Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus publications, citations, and the Hirsch index (2005) to gauge the scientific productivity of a sample of 573 chief editors managing 432 journals. The number of first-authored and corresponding authored articles is used to investigate whether editors are able to lead other scientists in research. While there is controversy over the usefulness of individual productivity metrics and co-author contributions regarding jointly authored papers (Bedeian et al., 2009; Floyd et al., 1994; Persson et al., 2004), utilization of multiple metrics enables a less biased evaluation of scientific qualifications. Moreover, Turkish academic promotion policies are structured in a way that officially recognizes the high status of WOS and Scopus journals (Tutuncu, 2023a). Finally, publications in affiliated journals (insider publications) provide a measure of disqualification, as editorial reviews of these submissions are likely to be biased and subverted to provide an unfair advantage to insider authors. Survey evidence suggests that academic managers view insider articles as an indicator of low qualifications (Koys, 2008). Moreover, there is extensive evidence on editorinsider relationships showing that editors publish their own research, treat their friends and acquaintances to a less rigorous review process (Luty et al., 2009; Sarigöl et al., 2017; Tutuncu, 2023a; Yoon, 2013), and facilitate publications of other insiders (Tutuncu, 2024). Further, Tutuncu (2023b) shows that editors publishing insider articles tend to conduct less selective editorial assessments. Along these lines, this study questions the choice of journal and adopts the view that inside connections are used to publish substandard articles to meet performance targets. This would imply that individuals publishing inside papers while lacking WOS and Scopus publications are underqualified for editor positions and leading the scientific community. Editors’ publication behaviour is quantified based on the insider-to-SSCI article ratio (ISRA) and national-to-SSCI article ratio (NASA), following Tutuncu (2023b;2024).

To my knowledge, this study is the first attempt to investigate publication behaviour of national journal chief editors. The research covers all areas of Social Sciences and Humanities in a representative sample of 432 national journals. 64 of the journals are indexed in the Web of Science and/or Scopus, while six are indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) or Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). The remaining 368 journals are covered only by the national TR index. The contributions of this study are twofold. First, it is the first survey of chief editors’ scientific achievements on a national scale, and the results are representative of the population of Social Sciences journals in Turkey. Therefore, the research informs the scientific community about the publication behaviour of national journal editors. Second, the study informs the academic community on the scientific leadership ability of chief editors and provides guidance for selecting chief editor positions based on scientific merit.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the background and related literature. Section 3 describes the data, discusses quality indicators, and methodology. Section 4 presents the results, and Section 5 concludes with suggestions.

Each science discipline has its own dynamics of research; thus, scientific publications cannot be directly compared across disciplines. For example, it is natural for a medical scientist to be more productive than a social scientist as there is less concern over originality, data collection, and technicalities (e.g. Smith, 2006a). The research and publication habits are also influenced by career regulations varying across disciplines and institutions (Önder & Erdil, 2015; Ünal, 2017). In Turkey, sub-disciplines within Social Sciences are subject to the same promotion regulations, with the exception of Art field where artistic performance is stipulated in addition. This enables comparison of scientific productivity within Social Sciences. Turkish career regulations differentiate between international and national publications. While academics are free to publish in any journal, SSCI and Scopus articles have historically been attributed a higher value than other publications. Despite the quality implications embedded with these articles, Turkish universities typically do not require publishing in international journals for promotion, even though they are authorized to do so (Ünal, 2017). It is only recently that established universities began to introduce international article and lead-authorship clauses to academic promotion provisions. The lack of quality emphasis may reflect the fact that many universities are teaching-focused institutions, and regulations do not sufficiently incorporate non-research activities. As teaching and service commitments negatively affect productivity (Taylor et al., 2006; Teodorescu, 2000), the promotion bar may be intentionally kept low to reflect this reality. Several researchers argue integration of “academic citizenship” into promotion regulations, a broad concept incorporating the entirety of academic responsibilities and service duties (Braxton & Del Favero, 2002; Macfarlane, 2007). Most prominently, Boyer (1990) argued that the full range of scholarly talent should be considered in promotion decisions, and it is unacceptable to make these decisions based solely on research, as it does not fully reflect academic responsibilities. However, as he duly noted, institutions assume that all faculty are capable of teaching, but only good researchers are promoted. In practice, formal qualifications and research are the most important factors (Dawson et al., 2022; Petzold & Netz, 2023), and other activities are likely to be ignored without a research portfolio (Long et al., 1993).

Organizations’ strategic choices about performance evaluation reflect the values of their powerful actors (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Weiser, 1997), and institutions may be unwilling to impose high standards of performance when the majority of their elements consist of mediocre individuals (Hermanowicz, 2013). Organisational theorists describe two competing sets of academic logic in performance appraisal, a universal scientific logic (Merton, 1973) that favours high-impact publications in prestigious journals, and an inward-looking local logic that underestimates the importance of international publications in favour of local ones (Ünal, 2017; Üsdiken & Wasti, 2009). The local conformist faction may not directly deny the universal rules of achievement and incorporate minor ceremonial universal rules into its structure to keep up the appearances (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Pache & Santos, 2010). Turkish career regulations have long been dominated by the local logic, as national publications are emphasized, and international articles are left to individual discretion (Önder & Erdil, 2015; Ünal, 2017). The local approach to research is supported by a large portion of academics who lack the skills to publish high-quality articles (Önder & Erdil, 2015) or embrace the institutional culture to maintain their legitimacy (Hewlin, 2003). These academics could be hostile to international journals if they are unable to publish articles in elite journals and identify with their high status (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Walker et al., 2019). When an organization is dominated by average individuals, high achievers are sidelined, and recruitment and reward systems are manipulated to cherish and promote unskilled and mediocre individuals (Hermanowicz, 2013). The lack of selective performance criteria enables recruitment and promotion of the unqualified on the basis of ideological views and personal relationships, leading to institutional isomorphism, rampant favouritism and politicization (Karadag, 2021). Eventually, this allows academic oligarchs (Horta, 2022; Macfarlane & Jefferson, 2022) to keep the system under their control (Tutuncu, 2023a). They would prefer continuation of the status quo at the expense of research quality to ensure that their scholarship (e.g. national articles) is well-regarded by their local peers and consequently well-rewarded by the system through promotions and other incentives, despite the risk of damaging the local scientific culture, misleading the public about their scientific credentials, and preventing overall scientific advancement (Marusic & Marusic, 2001).

I argue that chief editors cannot be selected from mediocre individuals. They should be leading scholars who are able to make conscious decisions to give strategic priority to publishing in reputable journals. Their qualifications will set a good example for the Turkish academic community and consolidate their leadership. A lack of qualification, on the other hand, would cast a shadow on their eligibility, whereas journals published under their management could lead to academic corrosion and degeneration. Their publication behaviour reflects their priorities, and their qualifications can be assessed based on their publication history.

The national TR index currently covers 1,131 journals. This study utilized 432 journals that met the following selection criteria: i) The journal must be in the Social Sciences. This filter is required because of career regulations in Social Sciences that prioritize national articles for promotion. This leaves 670 journals in the sample. ii) The journal must be hosted in the open-access Dergipark platform to ensure access to journal information. Several private publishers do not disclose editor information and Dergipark adds a transparency filter. iii) The chief editor must be an academic in the Social Sciences. This is required to obtain a homogenous sample of academics who are subject to similar career regulations. The final sample consisted of 432 journals and 573 chief editors. Editor names were collected from journal websites and from the latest available issues. Information on their background, place of education, date of Ph.D., and published national articles were collected from the YÖK Akademik database (https://akademik.yok.gov.tr/AkademikArama). Data on international articles were collected from WOS and Scopus. Only original peer-reviewed articles were included in the data. Book reviews, book chapters, editorial materials, letters to editor, and conference proceedings were excluded.

Table 1 presents the number of journals and chief editors in each science field. Journals are broadly classified into eight groups based on their target audience and editor characteristics: General Social Sciences (GSS) journals have a mix of editors from different disciplines and publish almost anything in Social Sciences. Education journals, Business and Economics (BUS & ECON) journals, Science and Literature (SCIL) journals covering Geography, History, Literature, Philosophy, Psychology, and Sociology studies. These fields are usually taught in one faculty, and likewise, we group their journals together. Theology, Law, Communication, and Art are defined as other fields. SCIL and BUS&ECON have the largest number of journals, followed by GSS, Theology, and Education. 55 journals are indexed in WOS, 21 are indexed in Scopus, and 12 are covered by both. Collectively, 64 (15%) journals were indexed in WOS and Scopus. Public universities own 260 journals (60 %). 61 editors received Ph.D. degrees outside Turkey, mostly from institutions based in the US and UK. The 207 editors were non-mobile and continued their academic careers at the institution that granted their Ph.D. degree. A minority of 138 (32%) chief editors were women. Education (40%) and Communication (53%) journals have the highest female representation, while Theology (12%), BUS&ECON (18%), and GSS (19%) journals have the lowest.

The productivity statistics of the chief editors are presented in Table 2. Editors publish an average of 6.4 insider papers compared to 2 SSCI, 3.1 WOS, and 3.3 Scopus papers, and lead-author around half of their WOS and Scopus articles. These statistics are dwarfed by their national output, which stands at 16.5 papers per editor. While insider publications are widespread across different editor sets, SSCI articles are mostly limited to a certain group of editors in Education journals, Business & Economics journals, and WOS & Scopus journals. These three groups appear to be the most qualified as they publish nearly three lead-authored articles per person in international journals. Theology, Law, and Art journal editors lead-author around 0.5 international paper per person, while publishing a large number of insider papers on par with other editors. Mobility and a research-conducive work environment appear to have a positive effect on productivity. The gender effect appears to be small, however, in line with expectations, as female editors have lower productivity in terms of all articles. Professor editors have higher productivity than less senior editors because of their greater academic experience and accumulation of publications over time. Their publication behaviour, on the other hand, shows parallels with other editors. The average professor editor has only three SSCI articles, compared to 9.2 insider articles. This leads to an ISRA of 3, demonstrating the prioritization of insider articles similar to junior professors. Overall, editors have an ISRA of 3.2, which means that insider articles outnumber SSCI articles by 3.2 times. This indicates an overall lack of qualification, overreliance on nepotistic practices, and a misconceived publication strategy. Editors with foreign Ph.D. degrees are a visible exception, as they publish more SSCI and Scopus articles than insider papers, and 65% of them demonstrate an unmatched qualification and leadership skill. Locally mobile editors have an ISRA of 3.1, and non-mobile editors have an ISRA of 5.4, the largest of all, which implies that their insider behaviour is three to five times as strong as that of foreign educated editors. Across editor demographics, non-mobile editors are by far the most underqualified as they publish the largest number of insider papers (7.6 per editor) while having the lowest number of international articles and citations. 36% of chief editors are non-mobile, and the journals under their management could be operating under perilous conditions. Internationally mobile researchers, on the other hand, show superior qualifications and appear more befitting for editorial jobs.

As far as fields are concerned, Education and Business & Economics exhibit the strongest SSCI publication behaviour, while editors in more locally oriented fields of Theology, Law, and Art show the strongest insider behaviour. Insider articles amount to 39% of the overall national output of chief editors; however, this ratio (INNA) can go up to 50% in SCIL journal editors. Similar trends were observed when national and SSCI articles were compared. NASA statistics show that 89% of all articles are national. This ratio rises to 99% in extremely introverted fields such as Theology and Law and drops to 72% in foreign educated editors. When BUS&ECON and Education editors are excluded, ISRA jumps to 6.4, and NASA rises to 94%. These statistics indicate that the chief editors have an extremely local research focus. The publication patterns and prioritisation of insider articles even extend to WOS & Scopus indexed journals. Editors of these journals publish nearly half of their national articles using the insider route, and their ISRA stands at 2.7. Yet, they outperform non-indexed journal editors and publish nearly three international papers apiece as first author or corresponding author. Overall, editors’ publication behaviour calls into question their qualification, vision, and eligibility to lead scientific journals. Their narrow focus on national articles carries an implicit hazard in the form of insider behaviour and nepotistic editorial practices. The fact that 39% of editors’ national research output comes from insider articles seriously undermines their scientific credentials, casts doubt on their ability to evaluate submissions, and remains impartial in the review process.

Table 3 shows the distribution of editors by the number of publications and citations. Alarmingly, 62% of the editors have zero SSCI papers, 53% have no first-authored WOS papers, 58% have zero Scopus papers, 63% have no first-authored Scopus papers, and 62% have zero h-index. Only 19% of editors consistently publish in SSCI journals, as demonstrated by the number of editors that publish three or more articles in SSCI journals. Likewise, only 17% of editors have an h-index of 3 and larger. Editors demonstrate an overall lack of scientific leadership ability, as most of them did not publish a single first-authored WOS (Scopus) article in their lifetime. Only 21% of the editors had three or more FWOS articles, and only 18% of editors had three or more FScopus articles. The number of prolific editors, defined as those with more than five SSCI articles, is only 49 (8%), with similar statistics in FWOS and FScopus articles. International publication statistics contrast starkly with insider publication statistics, where 89% of the editors have at least one insider article, 67% publish at least three insider papers, and nearly 50% publish at least five insider papers. Illustrating the extent of publication priorities, out of 357 editors that lack an SSCI publication, 318 (89%) published insider article(s).

Overall, the results indicate that productivity distribution is highly skewed, and editors are concentrated in the low and no international productivity clusters. The overarching preference for insider articles combined with an endemic inability to publish in international journals is not only a demonstration of editors’ lack of competence and leadership, but also constitutes a serious drawback for Turkish national literature as these editors determine the national research output. Editorial and peer reviews play important roles in improving the manuscript. In this sense, a lack of qualified editors would prevent the development of manuscripts, as researchers would be less likely to receive quality feedback on their submissions. This could lead to the creation of a vicious circle of low-quality articles published by underqualified editors. If both sides were satisfied with the result, they would be reluctant to break out of this circle. In this setting, however, qualified researchers would begin to refrain from national journals to avoid reputational damage (Lowe & Van Fleet, 2009), which further ensures that most low-quality articles that have no publication potential in reputable journals and/or rejected by them would be published (Scheidegger et al., 2023). Eventually, national journals could become a dumping ground for defective articles with little scientific value. This outcome contrasts with the long-term efforts to develop the national science index as an alternative to the well-known indexes, and action needs to be taken to empower qualified editors and improve standards of national research.

Table 4 provides a closer look at the productivity of the three groups of the most qualified editors: Business and Economics, Education, and Foreign Ph.D. editors. The editor group with the highest SSCI productivity and/or the lowest ISRA is considered the most qualified. The publication strategies of these editors are visibly different, as SSCI and Scopus articles are more dispersed. 46% of BUS&ECON, 31% of Education, and 33% of Foreign Ph.D. editors lacked SSCI articles, which is considerably smaller than the 62% ratio in the overall sample. Moreover, a greater proportion of them have first-authored papers. Despite having higher qualifications than the rest, a large fraction of these editors have no WOS and Scopus articles and citations. Moreover, most editors lack a consistent stream of articles in leading journals, indicating that there is considerable room for improvement. To illustrate this point more clearly, the fourth panel of Table 4 provides publication statistics of WOS journal editors. Paradoxically, most of them have no SSCI or Scopus articles, and consequently have a zero h-index. The fact that they can lead Web of Science and Scopus indexed journals without publishing a single international article provokes curiosity about their editorial practice. Most importantly, the bottom second panel reports statistics for full professor editors. Full professors are the highest-ranked faculty and chief editors, and they are expected to have outstanding research credentials to lead the scientific community. The results show the exact opposite, as professor editors have strong insider productivity and considerably weak international productivity. Professors were consistent among publishers. 80% of them published three or more insider articles, while 51% of them had no SSCI article, and a similar percentage had no lead-authored article. Highlighting priorities in their journal selection, 96% of the professors lacking SSCI articles published insider articles in affiliated journals. Overall, the results suggest that a large fraction of professors are likely to be unqualified to lead scientific journals. The bottom panel reports the statistics for the most unqualified category, non-mobile editors. They performed worse than every other editor category and required no further explanation.

Table 5 provides the publication statistics for the 25 most prolific editors. The editors are listed in descending order by the number of SSCI articles. Business & Economics and Education journals are represented in the list with 16 and six editors, respectively. Y. K. from Yaşar University leads the list with 80 SSCI and 126 Scopus papers. T. G. from ODTÜ follows closely with 80 SSCI and 74 Scopus papers. In terms of scientific leadership, F. B. from Erciyes University leads the list of 35 first-authored WOS papers. This amounted to a 70% first-authorship rate, which is an exceptional demonstration of leadership. The top authors have a 41% first-authorship rate for WOS and Scopus publications compared to nearly 50% for the entire sample, implying that they collaborate more with other researchers. Eight editors on the list have doctorate degrees from US and UK universities. Collectively, they published 137 inside papers (3.7% of the total), 597 SSCI papers (52.1% of the total), and received 63.3% of WOS citations. Their internationally oriented approach to research is evident, as their national output is a small 4.8%, a fraction of their international output. Their publication statistics imply an ISRA of 0.23, and a NASA of 43%, indicating that SSCI articles outnumber insider and national articles by a large margin.

The contrast in publication strategies becomes clear when the statistics of the least qualified editors (the most prolific insiders) are observed. Statistics reported in Table 5 show that these editors had 740 inside papers and just 42 SSCI papers while publishing 1,225 national articles. These figures imply a collective ISRA of 17.6 and a NASA of 97%, showing the extent of their insider behaviour and local focus. The least qualified editors publish 2.7 times more national articles and 5.4 times more insider articles than top editors. They have an insider ratio (INNA) of 60.4% compared to 30% for the top editors. In other words, their national publications are twice as likely to exhibit insider behaviour as top editors. Note that 30% does not imply a large number of insider papers for top editors, as their national output is quite small. They publish 5.5 inside papers per editor compared to 29.6 papers for the least qualified ones. N. K. from Anadolu University publish the most inside papers with 60 articles, followed by M. Ö. O. from Ankara HBV University (39 articles), and M. Ü. from Marmara University (37 articles). Apparently, these editors do not face any barriers to publishing their work in affiliated journals, as the numbers are too large to justify. Overall, the concentration of quality publications in the hands of a minority of scholars is consistent with Lotka’s Law (Lariviere et al, 2010; Lotka, 1926) and the rise of citation inequality (Nielsen & Andersen, 2021). However, insider article distribution is more dispersed and endemic than Lotka’s Law would suggest, indicating influence of short-sighted local policies and institutional culture encouraging insider behaviour (Tutuncu, 2024).

Table 6 reports the Spearman correlations. Insider articles are positively correlated with national articles, research universities, experience, and non-mobility, while they are negatively correlated with female and foreign-educated editors. SSCI and Scopus articles were highly correlated (p = 0.86), suggesting a significant overlap between the two indexes. This result is expected because Scopus covers a larger number of journals than SSCI, and many SSCI journals are typically indexed in Scopus. Correlations between ISRA and NASA suggest that qualified editors are preferably foreign-educated, mobile, and more experienced. Other indicators, such as research, gender, and WOS, are not strongly correlated with greater international productivity. The multivariate regressions for the determinants of scientific productivity are presented in Table 7. The models utilize WOS and Scopus publications as dependent variables. The results indicate significantly greater international productivity for internationally mobile editors, while lack of mobility is associated with greater local orientation and insider behaviour. Interestingly, experience is associated with greater productivity across the board; however, it is not significantly related to publication behaviour (ISRA and NASA), suggesting that senior and junior academics exhibit similar publication behaviour. This underlines the importance of establishing correct research habits at the start of an academic career. A worrying sign in the data is that junior academics (research assistants and assistant professors) publish many insider papers. This would imply that insider publication options will continue to be exercised in the foreseeable future as they advance in their careers. Finally, evidence shows that editors of Web of Science and Scopus journals are associated with several high quality indicators after controlling for other variables. Specifically, WOS journal editors are associated with greater first-authored articles and citations. While their publication behaviour shows signs of international focus, the evidence is of moderate significance at best. The estimates with Scopus data are closely aligned with the results from WOS estimates, supporting the inferences.

Chief editors are some of the most important people in academia, as their position is a major source of power. Their expertise determines and guides the future trajectory of scientific research. This study investigates publication behaviour of chief editors in Turkish national journals. Editors were selected from 432 Social Sciences journals to create a homogenous sample of academics subject to similar career regulations. The results show that scientific productivity is highly skewed. 52% of the SSCI articles are published by an elite class of 25 prolific editors, while 62% of the editors do not have a single SSCI article or WOS citation. Moreover, the majority of editors did not lead-author any Web of Science or Scopus articles, calling into question their ability to lead scientific journals. We find that editors’ publication behaviour is extremely localised and inclined towards national journals, where they can rely on inside connections to get published. Nearly 40% of the overall national output of editors is published in affiliated journals, a worrying sign that insinuates a lack of rigorous peer review procedures and checks on nepotistic exercises of editorial power. Editors of Education and Business & Economics journals appear to be the most internationally oriented, while mobility, in particular, a foreign Ph.D. degree, and experience are significant quality indicators. On the other hand, non-mobility (inbreeding) is a significant indicator of underqualification. Inbreeding could lead to academic entrenchment, the establishment of personal zones of influence, and fiefdoms over time (Horta, 2022; Tutuncu, 2024) that academics could exploit to advance and sustain their careers. Although non-mobile faculty have the obvious advantage of institutional loyalty and familiarity compared to mobile faculty, the results would advise against their appointment as they tend to be inferior researchers and underperform others.

The results offer useful insights for improving national publication practices. Academic publishing is a largely unregulated business, and anyone can start an academic journal and claim its editorship. This leads to the proliferation of predatory or grey journals managed by editors with questionable credentials, some of which are included in the national TR index and recognized by career regulations (Akca & Akbulut, 2018). To protect the integrity of national research, new regulations should be introduced to impose conditions for editorial positions and to prevent domination of national journals by low-skilled researchers. The majority of editors appear underqualified as they do not have a record of international publications, tend to work with a narrow pool of national journals, and demonstrate rampant insider behaviour. These editors are likely to lack credibility, leadership ability, vision, and research experience to evaluate the submissions of other researchers and lead the scientific community. Career regulations promoting lack of mobility and mediocrity are the likely source of this endemic lack of qualification, as they foster inbreeding and allow social scientists to be promoted to full professorship without publishing in leading journals, who then go on to become chief editors, deans, and even rectors (e.g. Karadag, 2021). Therefore, the long-term solution to increase editorial qualifications inevitably involves reforming regulations, providing greater incentives, and wherewithal to publish international articles.

The following suggestions can be made to improve editor qualifications and national research: i) Chief editors should be selected from qualified individuals who have a proven record of publishing in leading international journals. Unlike Web of Science, the national TR index does not screen journals for editorial qualifications and anyone can be appointed as chief editor, absent quality filters, abuse prevention mechanisms or consequences, ii) Academic publishing space should be regulated to ensure empowerment of qualified individuals, editorial independence, and prevention of insider publications, iii) Editorial board diversity should be maintained as institutionally concentrated boards tend to be open to clientelism (Heckman & Moktan, 2020), iv) Journals must be transparent about their review process and editors must be held accountable for their actions, including self-publications, editorial nepotism, and fast-tracked insider publications, and v) Editors must be compensated for their effort. Unlike leading journals, national journal editorship is often viewed as an unnecessary workload, as it does not bring any scientific recognition. Without recognition, monetary, and career rewards in return, some editors may resort to publishing their own research and engage in quid-quo-pro arrangements with other editors and acquaintances to extract career benefits. To ensure that editors are financially rewarded for their work, they can be employed on a contractual basis. Regardless of a policy change towards higher quality publications at the national scale, unqualified editors must be dismissed and replaced with qualified researchers to prevent the degeneration of Turkish academia.

However, challenges in finding a sufficiently large number of suitable editors must be acknowledged. Turkey has a high ratio of inbreeding and a declining ratio of people educated in foreign countries, currently hovering around 35% and 12%, respectively (Karadag & Ciftci, 2022). These ratios closely mirror the distribution of the chief editors’ background. Declining mobility and increasing barriers to mobility may lead to a deteriorating research environment. In general, Turkish academia is not conducive to creative thinking and research. Academics are typically overburdened with teaching and administrative responsibilities, while being offered little incentive and support for high-quality research. Authorities must take precautions to encourage academic mobility and offer greater research incentives. It is well known that even social scientists from areas such as Business & Economics that have a high degree of international exposure experience chronic difficulty in accessing international journals (Tutuncu & Seeber, 2024). Many academics harbor a belief that institutional affiliation bias, not their sloppy research, prevents them access, and it is necessary to co-author with well-known scientists from Western institutions to get published. A search of WOS InCites shows that 3,804 SSCI articles in Business & Economics journals originating from Turkey have been published in the last five years. 18% of them were single authored, and 53% involved international collaboration. Nearly half of the published papers were written exclusively by Turkish authors, invalidating this belief. One solution to the potential shortage of qualified scientists is to diversify the institutional affiliation of editors. Most editors are typically selected from institutions that publish journals (Tutuncu, 2024), shrinking the pool of qualified candidates. Another solution is to appoint highly skilled researchers to multiple journals, a practice called interlocking, which is common to flagship journals. On the other hand, if an institution lacks qualified scientists to fulfil editorial duties, its academic promotion rules and rationale for publishing the journal would be called into question. Many of the 670 national Social Sciences journals are ceremonially published without a greater purpose than satisfying the whims of rectors and polishing the careers of fossilized professors who perceive themselves to be beyond science and pretend to be above it, leading and shaping science. These journals likely have no reason to exist and should, therefore, be removed from the national index. A smaller journal pool would make it easier to find qualified editors, develop journals, and raise their status. This action has an official precedent, and the Higher Education Authority, YÖK, recently began to seek research productivity criteria for the launch and continuation of postgraduate programs. Universities were informed that programs that did not meet these criteria would be closed. YÖK is actively attempting to reduce the number of institutions offering postgraduate degrees to improve the quality of graduate programs. A similar course of action would lead to the closure of dozens, if not hundreds, of journals, but visibly increase the quality of the remaining ones.

While this research involves a narrow national context, some of the findings can be extrapolated to a wider international publishing arena. The commercialization of scientific publishing and widespread use of research metrics in academic appointments brought about a plethora of side effects and attempts at manipulating metrics through the formation of paper mills and citation cartels, and arguably exacerbated existing misconduct such as gift/ghost authorship, self-citation, and self-publishing (Christopher, 2021; Maddi & Teixeira da Silva, 2024; Seeber et al., 2019). This paper does not aim to glorify WOS and Scopus journals, as they tend to have their own shortcomings. Instead, it aims to remind the audience that chief editors cannot be some random person selected based on their loyalty, title, or cooperation, and their selection must have a scientific basis. The editor must be able to demonstrate scientific capability and leadership through regular publications in leading journals, not in an obscure journal edited by himself or his colleagues. The academic community requires, more than ever, selfless and qualified editors committed to gatekeeping the integrity and sanctity of scientific research, without giving in to temptation to inflate publication counts through questionable practices.

The chief editors are often senior professors. In this study, 75% of the editors were tenured. Tenured faculty remain in academia for life, leading higher education institutions and grooming a new generation of scientists. Further studies can extend the findings of this investigation by studying publication behaviour and promotion of tenured professors. Countries with a strong national journal base, such as Brazil, China, Poland, and Spain, can provide additional insights to complement this research.