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- Tolerance for poorly written, outdated, or redundant manuscripts.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