Published: January 2014
Type: Research Article
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, 2Bar‑Ilan University, Baruch College, 3Bar‑Ilan University, 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel,
1Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099, City University of New York, New York, NY 10010, USA
One of the main pillars of the academic sphere is publication of articles, the scientific purity of which should be as higher as possible. Allegedly, scientists may prefer to cite journal editors more frequently than they would do when those personae are not in editors’ position, and quite a few of the formers in quite a few instances do not seem to refuse to go along with. The viability of this sort of assertion is supported by an exploratory examination through a cross‑disciplinary scanning of long‑term empirical evidence from leading journals in 11 research fields. This analysis covered a total of 337 journal editors from 35 top disciplinary journals spanning 40 years. The findings seem to support the alleged trend called “editor citation”. Three psychology journals appear less susceptible to such desirability. Possible accounts are suggested with a special reference to the hypothesis of moral/social modularity.