Editorial Conflicts of Interest in Elite Peer Review

Abstract

Abstract The legitimacy of academic publishing depends on justified confidence in editorial integrity, yet the governance of elite journals often lacks accountability commensurate with its career- and field-shaping consequences. We audit 946 author–editor relationships across 788 articles published between 2010 and 2024 in two Financial Times 50 (FT50) journals and find widespread, patterned conflicts of interest (COI). Applying a conservative reasonable-observer standard, 49.7% of links involve at least one definitive COI and a further 11.6% are possibly conflicted, with prevalence increasing over time. COIs cluster within a small, dense, and homogeneous elite cohort of 54 highly prolific scholars, predominantly North American (90%) and male (94.5%), who account for roughly half of all publications. Reciprocal handling is most prevalent and embedded in hierarchical network structures, while editors within these networks exhibit disproportionate publication gains during service. A comparable non-FT50 journal shows substantially lower COI rates, largely attributable to the same elite cohort. These findings indicate that editorial COIs are systemic expressions of a collective-action problem rooted in institutional design, in which discretion and opacity enable recurrent insider advantage. Safeguarding legitimacy requires governance reforms that render editorial decisions transparent, enforce recusal, and enable systematic monitoring and accountability.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.