A special issue — sometimes called a topical collection — gathers papers on one theme, usually coordinated by a guest editor with expertise in it. Done properly it is genuinely valuable: it brings scattered work together, attracts readers interested in the topic, and gives a subfield a moment of visibility. Done badly, it has become one of the most exploited weaknesses in scholarly publishing, and several publishers have retracted hundreds of papers from compromised collections at once.
How a legitimate special issue runs
- A guest editor proposes a topic and scope; the journal's editorial team assesses and approves it.
- A public call for papers is posted on the journal site, with the topic, deadline and submission route.
- Submissions enter the same system and the same peer review as ordinary papers.
- The guest editor handles editorial coordination, but a staff or senior editor retains oversight — and handles any paper the guest editor is connected to.
- Accepted papers publish with the standard licence, DOIs and archiving, indistinguishable in quality from the rest of the journal.
Why they get abused
The guest-editor role delegates editorial power to someone outside the usual staff. If that appointment is not verified, or the oversight is nominal, a bad actor can be handed the ability to accept papers — including their own network's — with fabricated reviews. Paper mills have specifically targeted this route because it scales: one compromised collection can push through dozens of manufactured articles.
Checking an invitation you receive
Unsolicited invitations are normal; indiscriminate ones are not. Before responding:
- Find the call on the journal's own website. If the special issue exists only in the email, stop.
- Check the guest editor. Do they exist, publish in this area, and list the role on their institutional page?
- Read the email for relevance. Legitimate invitations reference your actual work. Generic flattery ("your outstanding contributions to science") sent to a list is a red flag.
- Watch the timeline. "Submit within seven days, publication in two weeks" is incompatible with real peer review.
- Watch how fees are presented. A charge published openly on the journal's site is normal and expected; the warning signs are an invitation whose main content is the fee, any suggestion that payment affects acceptance, or a charge that appears only after acceptance.
- Assess the journal itself using the same checks you would apply anywhere — see how to identify a predatory journal.
If you are asked to be a guest editor
It is a real editorial responsibility, not a line for your CV. Expect to declare conflicts, to hand off any submission you are connected to, to select reviewers you have independently verified, and to reject papers that do not meet the standard — including from colleagues. If a publisher offers you the role with no oversight, no training and a target number of accepted papers, that is not an honour; it is a liability.
The healthy test for any special issue: could this paper have been accepted through the journal's normal route, on the same evidence? If the answer is no, the collection is not doing its job.