Editorial Complacency [Neurosurgery Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Editorial Complacency ======

**Definition:**  
*Editorial complacency* refers to a **state of stagnation or lowered critical standards within a journal’s editorial process**, often resulting in the acceptance of subpar or repetitive content due to lack of oversight, innovation, or editorial vigilance.

===== Characteristics =====
  * Routine approval of articles without rigorous peer review.
  * Tolerance for poorly written, outdated, or redundant manuscripts.
  * Over-reliance on habitual contributors or institutional affiliates.
  * Failure to innovate in content, layout, or thematic direction.
  * Lack of responsiveness to academic feedback or criticism.

===== Red Flags =====
^ Symptom                                     ^ Consequence                                      ^
| Repetitive topics and predictable formats   | Reader disengagement and reduced relevance       |
| Declining citation impact                   | Erosion of journal reputation                    |
| Minimal rejection rates                     | Signal of lax editorial scrutiny                 |
| No response to scientific controversies     | Perceived bias or indifference to quality        |

===== Consequences =====
  * Decreased academic credibility and impact factor.
  * Missed opportunities for intellectual leadership in the field.
  * Disengagement of high-quality authors and reviewers.
  * Risk of the journal becoming a niche echo chamber.

===== Related Terms =====
  * [[Editorial fatigue]]
  * [[Journal stagnation]]
  * [[Institutional inertia]]
  * [[Peer-review degradation]]

===== Application Example =====
  * A journal that routinely publishes honorary reviews or fragmented historical series without critical depth may be exhibiting signs of editorial complacency, signaling a need for reform in editorial leadership and review practices.