Journal editors are the main gatekeepers in scientific publishing. Yet there is a concern that they may receive preferential treatment when submitting manuscripts to their own journals. The prevalence of such self-publishing is not known, nor the consequences for reliability and trustworthiness of published research. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the prevalence of editors publishing in their own journals and to conduct a normative ethical analysis of this practice. A systematic review was performed using the following databases: Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science. Articles that provided primary data about editors publishing in own journals were included. We identified 15 studies meeting inclusion criteria. There was large variability of self-publishing across fields, journals and editors, ranging from those who never published in their own journal to those publishing extensively in their own journal. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. Nevertheless, our results show that there are settings where levels of self-publication are very high. We recommend that editors-in-chief and associate editors who have considerable power in journals refrain from publishing research articles in their own journals. Journals should have clear processes in place about the treatment of articles submitted by editorial board members.

This article outlines a first attempt at analysing counter‐media publishing through the lens of remix theory. We concentrate on two key concepts appropriation and authorship—which have a permanent standing in the remix research literature. To support our theoretical analysis, we investigate the coverage of two cases in the Finnish right‐wing counter‐media online publication MV‐lehti. Our findings enable new readings on the nature of both counter‐media work and remix culture. In fact, counter‐media publishing leans more in the direction of remix culture—which is based on the act of using pre‐existing materials to produce something new—than towards traditional journalistic convention, with its rules and ethical guidelines. MV‐lehti’s practice of combining and layering different material is discernibly political, often resembling media activism. Our study provides the argument that counter to the utopian democratising assumptions of remix culture, the proliferation of remix practices has also given antidemocratic actors the means to challenge collectively and institutionally supported ideas of knowledge and justice. Counter‐media publishing is perhaps democratising in that it offers the means to participate, but these antagonistic actors also remix news to undermine liberal‐democratic ideals and social justice. Evidently, remix practices can be co‐opted for a reactionary agenda.