Depends upon! some editors publish like any thing and some are very strict not to publish..i know many who fall in both category.. So there is not THUMB rule or generalization but it depends on person to person.
Thanks for sharing your view. I’m of the opinion that the editor of a reputed journal should do his/her duty completely impartially. He/she should not do anything that may call his/her impartiality into question. Now, if the editor of a very highly ranked journal is found to have published his/her three joint papers in his/her journal in the last two years, won’t you question his/her academic honesty?
I go with those who exclude the editors as possible authors in the given journal. There is an obvious conlict of interests and therefore an incmpatibility as far as the two roles are concerned.
If the poor editor does not find the same opportunity elsewhere let she/he wash her/his hands in the flow of the Ganges! What matters then! Corruption has become a part of our - Indian - life.
Personally, I do find it less or more unethical according to the following criteria:
1. If the journal is really reputed and follows the standards of blind reviews by the genuine experts in the field and the papers were sent, reviewed, and selected for publication without any influence - direct or indirect, even without knowing the team that these papers are connected with the interest of the editor - then the editor is a fool to get them published in his own journal. She/he could have well nigh got the same opportunity anywhere.
2. If the condition one is not valid in this case, the editor is violating the principles of natural justice, conflict of interest, character, and propriety. She/he cannot defend this set of actions.
3. Then there are those who occupy the position - or start a journal - just to exploit the opportunity without a second thought to what is wrong or right. They can publish any rubbish, penned by a pen or by a cut and paste method, by any con, on any pretext.