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.

• 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• Tolerance for poorly written, outdated, or redundant manuscripts.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.

• 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.

• Editorial fatigue
• Journal stagnation
• Institutional inertia
• Peer-review degradation

• 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.