Ghost Authorship, Guest Authorship, and Insider Peer Review: Unveiling Ethical Gaps and Loopholes in Academic Publishing

Abstract

This study investigates ethical vulnerabilities in scholarly publishing, focusing on ghost authorship, guest authorship, and insider peer review, with special attention to identifying how power asymmetries influence editorial integrity and authorship transparency. Employing a phenomenological approach, the study captures and highlights the lived experiences of journal editors across disciplines, particularly Business and Management. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analyzed to identify patterns of ethical concern and institutional responses. Participants reported recurring ethical breaches driven by publication pressures, lack of professional integrity, and the absence of standardized accountability. The study highlights the limitations in current authorship norms and peer review practices, identifying a need for equity-focused reforms such as the CRediT taxonomy, anonymized peer review, and editorial audit trails. This research contributes to the literature by centering editorial perspectives and proposing a framework for ethical reform. It calls for longitudinal, mixed-methods studies and inclusive policies to promote epistemic justice and strengthen institutional trust in academic publishing.