In recent times, I have accumulated some evidence that some academics may be using their peer reviewer or editor vouchers as part of a trade for authorship, almost like a Ponzi scheme. The basic gist of the scheme is as follows: you peer review or serve as editor for journal A. You get a voucher, which offers either a discount on APCs for a future submission, or you might even get a voucher that gives you a free submission to select paper types. There is a catch. The vouchers have an expiry date!
So, from what I can appreciate (publishers' names not indicated for obvious reasons) is that as the expiry date approaches, those peer reviewers and editors (i.e., the ones with no ethical scruples) approach authors (or potential authors, known or unknown), inviting themselves to be co-authors of papers in exchange for them being able to pay the APC (or part of it), or to get a free paper published. That's scheme 1.
Scheme 2 is as daring, and no less unethical. Authors (known or unknown to the peer reviewer or editor) approach that peer reviewer or editor who likely has a discount voucher (e.g., for APCs) or free-to-publish voucher (not unlike Monopoly's get out of jail card for free card), with the proposal to the peer reviewer /editor to be a co-author (guest author) on their paper in exchange for the peer reviewer or editor's voucher!
How does this translate into a Ponzi scheme and thus authorship and citation circle? Would-be authors are encouraged to become peer reviewers (even if they are not suitably qualified) because they will get discount vouchers which they can use legitimately, or illegitimately (e.g., in exchange for a trade in citations or authorship). Corrupt peer reviewers and editors use their power to accumulate vouchers, which they then trade for authorship (and possibly cash). The size of the Ponzi circle just gets larger and larger.
Are the journals and publishers involved complicit? The evidence I have is that they are, in two ways: 1) they ignore or look the other way; 2) they fail to initiate an ethical investigation with the trading author / peer reviewer / editor; 3) they fail to inform the public, other authors and editors and peer reviewers of such schemes.
Share your knowledge on this topic, your views or your experiences. Take care when naming journals, publishers or specific individuals (all responsibility lies with commentators).