Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations

How much is the h-index of an editor of a well ranked journal improved due to citations which occur after his or her appointment? Scientific recognition within academia is widely measured nowadays by the number of citations or h-index. Our dataset is based on a sample of four editors from a well ranked journal (impact factor - IF - greater than 2). The target group consists of two editors who seem to benefit by their position through an increased citation number (and subsequently h-index) within journal. The total amount of citations for the target group is bigger than 600. The control group is formed by another set of two editors from the same journal whose relations between their positions and their citation records remain neutral. The total amount of citations for the control group is more than 1200. The timespan for which pattern of citations has been studied is 1975-2015. Previous coercive citations for a journal benefit (increase its IF) has been signaled. To the best of our knowledge, this is a pioneering work on coercive citations for personal (or editors) benefit. Editorial teams should be aware about this type of potentially unethical behavior and act accordingly.
Comment: 23 pages, 6 figures, 5 tables, 45 references, published in Publications (MDPI), 2017 (http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/15). The title of published version is slightly changed