The cost of editorial independence,and the free speech it supports,is eternal vigilance

Editorial independence safeguards the rights of authors and readers to freely speak and be heard (Brakoulias and Malhi, 2024; Hoey, 2008; Looi et al., 2024b). This underpins the key goals of medical journals to strive for academic excellence and progress the science of care (Malhi and Brakoulias, 2022). It is enacted by editors having freedom to make decisions about the scientific publication record (Bhui et al., 2025). The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) works collaboratively with the editorial team, reviewers and authors to enforce the scientific quality of the journal (Malhi and Brakoulias, 2022). Conflicts may occur when the journal’s owner, such as the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP), comes under scrutiny or criticism in papers published by the journal or is placed under pressure by prominent members of the College (Malhi and Brakoulias, 2022). In this context, we reiterate the importance of editorial independence for the membership and the broader readership of the RANZCP journals.

The RANZCP publishes two peer-reviewed medical journals, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (ANZJP) and Australasian Psychiatry. The College, as an incorporated entity, owns the journals on behalf of its professional association members and assigns the responsibility of publication of the journals both online and in print (on subscription) to SAGE – a commercial publication house that has been contracted by the College for 15 years. Importantly, the EiCs are appointed by, and report to, the Board of the College in part by way of the Board-appointed Journals Committee, which meets twice a year, and includes volunteer College members as well as the EiCs.

The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME, 2009) policy makes explicit comments in relation to editorial independence:

Editors-in-chief should have full authority over the editorial content of the journal, generally referred to as ‘editorial independence’. Editorial content includes original research, opinion articles and news reports, both in print or electronic format, and how and when information is published. Owners should not interfere in the evaluation, selection or editing of individual articles, either directly or by creating an environment in which editorial decisions are strongly influenced.

For both College journals, as recommended by the WAME (2009), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, 2025) and the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE, 2008), the EiC makes all final decisions about submission, review, acceptance or rejection, correction or retraction and publication. Similarly, all decisions regarding content or complaints are made by the editors and, ultimately, the EiC:

Editorial decisions should be based mainly on the validity of the work and its importance to readers, not the policies or commercial success of the owner. Editors should be free to publish critical but responsible views about all aspects of medicine without fear of retribution, even if these views might conflict with the policies or commercial goals of the owner. To maintain this position, editors should seek input from a broad array of advisors such as reviewers, editorial staff, an editorial board, and readers (WAME, 2009).

This is the reason that both journals have an editorial team that encompasses a wide range of deputy or associate editors, trainee editors, editorial advisors and editorial committee members. Reviewers are also an essential part of the review process that conducts scientific appraisals of all research articles. Based on advice from the editorial team and reviewers, EiCs make decisions on the importance of papers to readers of the journal. The influence of the College Board, Executive, College Committees and administrative staff also warrants consideration. Since the College has its own bureaucratic governance structure, and bureaucracies can be vulnerable to direct or indirect expansion of remit (Looi et al., 2021), it remains essential to reiterate that the governance of journal processes and content rests with the RANZCP Editors-in-Chief.

A 2002 peer-reviewed survey of 33 general medical and specialist journals published by professional associations asked participating editors to rate their editorial independence as assessed on a number of measures (Davis and Müllner, 2002). How do the Editorial positions of the College journals compare to this review? The College EiCs report to the Board, which was the case for 30% of these Editors, and the Board has the authority to hire (48%) and fire (55%) the Editor (Davis and Müllner, 2002). Like 70% of the Editors, the RANZCP EiCs are appointed for a specific term, with a median term of 5 years, as is the case currently for the College journals (Davis and Müllner, 2002). As did a substantial number of Editors in the survey (percentage in brackets), as current or former EiCs for the journals, we have experienced pressure over editorial content from the association’s leadership (42%), senior staff (30%) and rank-and-file members (39%) (Davis and Müllner, 2002). Interestingly, the authors of the survey indicated that three quarters of the journals published material about the association’s activities not under editorial review, as does Australasian Psychiatry, but indicated that, if this is not under Editorial review, it may violate the concept of editorial independence. In this context, the editorial independence of the College journals remains somewhat limited in comparison to other medical journals, and potentially current standards, such as those recommended by the WAME and ICMJE:

Editorial independence cannot realistically be unlimited, and as WAME (2009) observes:

The limits of editorial freedom are difficult to define in the general case. Editors should be receptive to articles representing all legitimate points of view and should be free to publish any responsible positions. However, owners cannot be expected to retain editors who take strong, consistent, one-sided positions against the core values and policies of their parent organization.

And, notably while owners/publishers can intervene, they should in general only do so for extreme situations:

Owners have the right to hire and fire editors-in-chief but they should dismiss them only for substantial reasons such as a pattern of bad editorial decisions, disagreement with the long-term editorial direction of the journal, or personal behavior (such as criminal acts) that are incompatible with a position of trust. It may also be appropriate to end the editor’s service if, for whatever reason, owners and editors find they are unable to work together in a spirit of mutual trust and collaboration. Termination of an editor’s appointment should be a deliberate process, involving open discussion at the highest level of the organization, and should not be precipitous, except for egregious wrongdoing. (WAME, 2009)

Fortunately, there does not seem to have been any substantial interventions by the RANZCP in relation to editors to date. As a corollary, if the editors’ become aware of transgressions of editorial independence:

Editors should resist any actions that might compromise these principles in their journals, even if it places their own position at risk. If major transgressions do occur, all editors should participate in drawing them to the attention of the international medical, academic, and lay communities. (WAME, 2009)

This also has not occurred for either journal to date.

Nevertheless, as highlighted in the survey discussed above, there are a range of pressures that can be brought to bear on journal editors by the leadership of the professional association, association staff and ordinary members. Vigilance and appropriate advocacy by the editorial teams of the College journals is necessary to preserve freedom of speech, the promotion of academic excellence and the progress of science. This means that sometimes editorial teams will need to assert their independence, especially in contested areas such as commentary on the College’s positions and practice, without favouring the College or the interlocutor. The challenge is that neither the College nor the author may be satisfied with an editorial decision, but the decision must be independent to ensure the editorial integrity of the journal. There are nuanced decisions, such as re-directing correspondence that is intended to comment on or correspond with the Board or Executive of RANZCP to the persons addressed, while correspondence on the policies of the RANZCP is within journal bounds. Correspondence on papers published in the journal, in the spirit of scientific debate of the evidence, not the proponents, is within bounds (Looi et al., 2024a). Unfortunately sometimes, but not infrequently, correspondents disparage the College, the journal, authors, reviewers and editorial team by ad hominem attacks or attempts to deplatform – these correspondences are generally declined as inimical to free speech and respectful scientific debate (Brakoulias and Malhi, 2024; Looi et al., 2024b).

In order to promote excellence in research and practice, editorial independence is a sine qua non of medical journals such as the ANZJP and Australasian Psychiatry. It is challenging to maintain such independence for a journal published by a professional association. The Board and executive, administrative staff of the association and rank-and-file members may directly or indirectly seek to influence the content of the journal. And so, an editorial team needs to be receptive to stakeholders, and yet vigilant, and assertive against undue influence. Ideally, both the professional association publishers and editors can work together, as a joint statement on editorial independence from the American Journal of Public Health advocates (Northridge et al., 2005). This depends on the publisher and the editorial team supporting each other through independence of governance, such that journal content is governed by the editorial team, and the business of publishing by the publisher. This would include a separate cost centre to support the activities of the journal that is independent of the College. The cost of editorial independence, and the free speech it supports, is eternal vigilance.