This article interrogates the nature of editorial privilege and authorial integrity in peer-reviewed academic journals. Focusing on the authors’ experience with publishing a letter critiquing high-profile authors in a high-profile journal, the article identifies key concerns with (i) the time it took to complete the peer-review process, (ii) the failure to provide the authors with the peer-review reports, and (iii) the decision to rewrite our text instead of allowing us to respond to the peer-review comments. Our experience suggests that despite the existence of editorial codes of conduct, encroachments on authorial integrity still occur, and the lines between helpful copyediting and unhelpful rewriting of an article are not always clear.

The text of this article is only available as a PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.