In recent years, many scientific journal editors have recognized the value of publishing special issues because they enable them to explore emerging topics, attract new authors, and increase visibility in particular fields. These themed collections, edited by guest scholars (who sometimes suggest them), have become a standard editorial practice.
However, as their use increases, the number of irregularities has also grown. Peer review fraud, undeclared conflicts of interest, and entire collections compromised by malpractice have triggered concerns in the scientific publishing sector. In response, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) published an official guide in July 2025 titled: “Guest Edited Collections: Guidelines for Editors and Publishers”1This document offers essential criteria for managing special issues with transparency and accountability.
Here, I outline the essential recommendations that every editor, whether of a large or small publisher, should know.
What are the special issues in scientific journals?
Special issues are collections of articles that focus on a specific topic within the journal's scope. These issues are overseen by guest editors, most of whom are academics from outside the permanent editorial team. These guest editors are responsible for proposing the topic, inviting authors, coordinating peer review, and making editorial decisions. These thematic collections often originate from the researchers themselves, although the journal may also commission them.
COPE recognizes that collections can be valuable because they foster collaboration in specific niches, highlight new lines of research, and create space for diverse voices. However, it also warns that if not managed carefully, they can become vulnerable to unethical practices.
Main risks in managing special issues
COPE recognizes six common risk types in handling special issues. These risks can impact individual articles and may also threaten the integrity of the entire collection and the journal itself.
- Peer review fraud: practices include falsifying reviewer identities, using fake email addresses, or allowing authors or colleagues to review their work. This completely undermines the credibility of the editorial process.
- Identity theft: individuals may impersonate real researchers or use fake profiles to act as authors, reviewers, or guest editors. COPE recommends verifying identities using ORCID profiles or verifiable institutional pages.
- Participation of “paper mills”: produce manuscripts on demand for researchers seeking rapid publication. These organizations often take advantage of special issues as less controlled channels.
- Manipulation of authorship: Schemes have been detected in which someone is offered co-authorship in exchange for money or payment of APCs.
- Citation cartels and excessive self-citation: groups of authors or editors who cite each other in a coordinated manner to inflate metrics. This may include pressuring authors to cite articles by the guest editor or their network.
- Biased or closed commissioning: some collections become spaces for small groups, where only close collaborators are invited. This runs counter to the diversity of perspectives and may reflect conflicts of interest.
What should scientific journals do when managing special issues?
COPE's main message is clear: collections edited by guests must follow the same ethical standards as any other content in the journal. This requires vigilance, transparency, controls, and most importantly, a clear division of responsibilities. COPE stresses that the editor-in-chief and the permanent editorial team cannot avoid their duties, even if someone else handles the collection.
A key initial step is to establish clear policies on special issues and publish them on the journal's website. COPE's guide highlights this several times: roles, responsibilities, review criteria, transparency requirements, and conflicts of interest must be publicly accessible, not just in internal documents or private emails. Not having these policies exposes the journal to unnecessary risks and diminishes trust among readers, authors, and reviewers.
Recommended best practices
COPE suggests several strategies to reduce risks when handling special issues. These involve creating a formal, documented process for reviewing proposals related to these issues. This includes:
- Verifying the background and editorial experience of potential guest editors.
- Ensuring that they have no history of unethical conduct (such as retractions or links to paper mills).
- Explaining in detail their roles, the time their participation will require, and the limits of their authority.
- Reviewing potential conflicts of interest, for example, if they also edit another journal that competes for the same articles.
- Establish clearly that final decisions remain with the editor-in-chief or a permanent academic editor.
Another suggestion is to limit the number of collections the journal accepts at the same time, especially if there aren't enough staff members to supervise them properly. This isn't about slowing down growth but about keeping it manageable and preventing quantity from compromising editorial quality.
Additionally, COPE urges journals to regularly audit their content and review procedures. This involves checking the number of articles each editor reviews, review durations, the quality of reports, and the connections among authors, reviewers, and editors.
Transparency from the outset
One of the most common mistakes is assuming that a guest editor is familiar with the journal's editorial model and principles. COPE recommends not taking anything for granted and clearly explaining everything in writing from the beginning. The guest editor should sign a letter or agreement agreeing to follow the ethical policies, review process, and editorial guidelines.
The economic model should also be clear. If there are APCs, guest editors need to inform and honestly communicate this to authors. Exemptions should not be used as a “hook” to attract contributions unless this is outlined in the journal's policies.
Conclusion: professionalize without improvising
Special issues will remain part of the publishing ecosystem and, if managed well, are a valuable tool. But now more than ever, professionalism, precise controls, and transparent policies are essential. As editors, it is our duty to safeguard the journal from practices that could harm its integrity.
Establishing clear public policies, regularly auditing processes, and maintaining active editorial oversight are essential for ensuring that thematic collections enhance the publication's prestige rather than damage it.
References
1COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Guest Edited Collections – English. https://doi.org/10.24318/Bp64sd1c
