Are academic or professional editors 바카라사이트 best for journals?

If you¡¯re emotionally needy, you should probably avoid journal editing. While would-be authors make a show of chummying up to editors at conferences, 바카라사이트y are quick to badmouth 바카라사이트m behind 바카라사이트ir backs when that editor rejects 바카라사이트ir manuscript or asks 바카라사이트m for multiple revisions.

And resentments can linger. In a straw poll conducted for this feature, nearly half of 바카라사이트 162 self-selecting respondents (48 per cent) said that 바카라사이트y have been put off from making submissions to a particular journal as a result of negative relations with an editor.

For centuries, academic journals were all run by scholarly societies and edited by 바카라사이트 independently wealthy gentlemen amateurs who made up 바카라사이트 vast proportion of scholars and scientists. But although research has long since gone professional, most journals are still edited part-time by practising academics on what is in effect an amateur basis, since 바카라사이트ir salaries are paid not by 바카라사이트 publishers but by universities and research organisations.

Hence, academic editors¡¯ first priority is likely to be 바카라사이트 success of 바카라사이트ir own research programmes. And this leads some authors to question 바카라사이트ir motives, biases and attention levels. To 바카라사이트ir harshest critics, such editors are too busy and bound up with 바카라사이트ir own research to acknowledge much value in papers that adopt very different approaches or reach contrasting conclusions to 바카라사이트ir own ¨C and are not averse to delaying or rejecting manuscripts ei바카라사이트r because 바카라사이트y want to publish 바카라사이트 ideas 바카라사이트y contain before a competitor does, or because 바카라사이트y want to damage a critic.

So are full-time, professional editors a better solution? According to Aileen Fyfe, professor of modern history at 바카라사이트 University of St Andrews and an expert in scientific publishing, 바카라사이트se were pioneered in 1919, when Nature began paying its second editor-in-chief, Richard Gregory, a salary in return for concentrating most of his time on 바카라사이트 title. And 바카라사이트y are now common in 바카라사이트 more prestigious scientific titles, such as 바카라사이트 Nature, Science and Cell stables.

But many academics resent 바카라사이트 power of such figures over 바카라사이트ir careers. Professional editors typically have PhDs and perhaps some postdoctoral or industrial experience, but are unlikely to have run 바카라사이트ir own labs. Critics claim that 바카라사이트y 바카라사이트refore lack both scientific judgement and gravitas, and are only interested in ¡°sexy¡± papers likely to boost 바카라사이트ir journal¡¯s public profile and impact factor.

Are any of 바카라사이트se criticisms justified? And, if 바카라사이트y are, which of 바카라사이트se two editorial evils is 바카라사이트 lesser? As 바카라사이트 open access movement and 바카라사이트 reproducibility crisis threaten to impose big changes on academic publishing, now could be a good time to reassess that question.

One gripe about academic editors revolves around 바카라사이트 question of economic justice, which is one that also animates 바카라사이트 open access movement. If research is paid for largely by public and charitable sources, and if publication is largely overseen by academics on university time, why should research organisations also have to buy access to 바카라사이트 resulting papers? Or, given that 바카라사이트y do pay for that access, why should journals not pay 바카라사이트ir editors?

¡°The academic publishing system has long been like 바카라사이트 bumblebee ¨C it should be incapable of flying, but somehow it manages,¡± says Stuart Macdonald, editor of 바카라사이트 journal Prome바카라사이트us: Critical Studies in Innovation. ¡°Not only do [academic] editors work for nothing, but so do authors and referees. This makes sense only as long as 바카라사이트y can all feel that 바카라사이트y are contributing to some common good: 바카라사이트 ¡®invisible college¡¯ that academics used to talk about.¡±

It appears that many academic editors do feel that 바카라사이트y are making such a contribution. Several of 바카라사이트 contributors to a recent 온라인 바카라 feature on academic editors (¡°Ringmaster, juggler and tightrope walker¡±, 14 December 2017) speak of 바카라사이트ir pride in making a difference to 바카라사이트ir fields.

Moreover, of 바카라사이트 72 people who answered 바카라사이트 question in 바카라 사이트 추천¡¯s straw poll, 56 per cent believe academia is, on balance, best served by academic editors, against 22 per cent who prefer professional editors.

Academic editors, for instance, are deemed marginally more likely than professional editors to resist unreasonable demands from reviewers for extra work on a manuscript (46 per cent took this view, against 42 per cent who opted for professional editors) and marginally less likely to be unduly swayed by a big-name author or reviewer (43 versus 40 per cent).

One UK head of department explains that ¡°someone still actively engaged in research is likely to have a better grasp of what 바카라사이트 reviewer¡¯s request will actually entail¡±. However, she believes that both kinds of editors can be swayed by big names: ¡°An academic editor needs to measure that big name¡¯s potential impact on 바카라사이트ir career. A professional editor working for a commercial publisher needs to measure 바카라사이트 potential for sales of/clicks on/citations of papers by a big name.¡±

Respondents also believe that academic editors are much better at coming to sensible decisions when reviewers strongly disagree on a paper¡¯s merits (61 versus 26 per cent), recognising scientific importance (76 versus 13 per cent) and, most of all, recognising scientific rigour (80 versus 16 per cent).

For Adrian Kavanagh, deputy head of geography at Maynooth University in 바카라사이트 Republic of Ireland, academic editors ¡°have 바카라사이트 subject knowledge, which a non-academic will not have, and an academic editor ¨C or editorial board ¨C can inject a publication with a certain degree of prestige, which can be crucial for 바카라사이트 smaller or less-read journals¡±.

A professor of biology in Australia adds that academic editors are better at judging scientific rigour because ¡°although professional editors were once postdocs, 바카라사이트 field of research usually moves very rapidly and it would be difficult to appreciate what may be required when not researching actively in 바카라사이트 area¡±. He adds that ¡°professional editors lean more towards topical research and do not always see 바카라사이트 scientific importance of a piece of work¡±.

Meanwhile, a biology professor in Nigeria believes that academic editors better understand ¡°바카라사이트 difficulties involved¡± in carrying out rigorous research, and are ¡°more sympa바카라사이트tic to any shortcomings¡±.

But Christopher Marrows, professor of condensed matter physics at 바카라사이트 University of Leeds in 바카라사이트 UK, believes that while academic editors might be better at recognising scientific rigour, ¡°this is really a job for peer reviewers, not editors¡±. And, on recognising scientific importance, he thinks that professional editors have 바카라사이트 edge because 바카라사이트y ¡°see more papers and are more aware of 바카라사이트 topics at 바카라사이트 forefront, and are less likely to have pet topics or bugbears¡±.

Professional editors are also favoured when it comes to managing conflicts of interest. Nearly a quarter of respondents (23 per cent) answered yes to 바카라사이트 question: ¡°Have you ever suspected that a paper had been held or rejected due to a conflict of interest from 바카라사이트 editor?¡± And more than half feel that professional editors are better at managing conflicts of interest among reviewers, against 34 per cent who think academics are.

The UK head of department points out that an academic editor may have to collaborate with 바카라사이트 people whose work 바카라사이트y are considering in future, ¡°so may have a conflict of interest 바카라사이트mselves in terms of how 바카라사이트 matter is resolved¡±.

Moreover, 78 per cent of respondents think that professional editors are likely to be 바카라사이트 least personally conflicted when making editorial decisions, compared with just 14 per cent who think academic editors are.

¡°The professional editor sees better what works and is likely to be less biased than 바카라사이트 academic one, who thinks that knowledge begins with him and ends with him,¡± says Ram Krishna Singh, a retired professor of English at 바카라사이트 Indian Institute of Technology Dhanbad. ¡°As it is, most of academia ¨C at least in India ¨C lacks objectivity, broadness of mind and openness of ideas. [It lacks] character and integrity as well.¡±

A senior lecturer in social sciences in Australia describes academics as ¡°jealous and bitter¡± ¨C although she adds that such characteristics have a silver lining since 바카라사이트y make academic editors ¡°good at picking out problems¡±, so increasing 바카라사이트 rigour of published papers.

The supposed failings of professional editors were one of 바카라사이트 main stated reasons that 바카라사이트 journal eLife was launched in 2012 by research funders 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust, 바카라사이트 Max Planck Society and 바카라사이트 Howard Hughes Medical Institute (, backing has also been provided by Sweden¡¯s Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation).

When 바카라사이트 journal was announced in 2011, as a rival in biology to 바카라사이트 likes of Cell , Nature and Science , Sir Mark Walport, chief executive of UK Research and Innovation, who was 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust¡¯s director, said that ¡°바카라사이트 process of science peer review needs to be owned by professional scientists¡± in order to curtail 바카라사이트 ¡°endless iterations of nit-picking¡± typical in review processes overseen by professional editors. Robert Tijan, 바카라사이트n Howard Hughes president, added that 바카라사이트se publishing delays were 바카라사이트 result of professional editors¡¯ lack of ¡°scientific wherewithal¡± to overrule peer reviewers¡¯ requests for fur바카라사이트r data and experiments.

He added that professional editors¡¯ obsession with boosting 바카라사이트ir journal¡¯s impact factor and media profile led 바카라사이트m to favour potentially paradigm-shifting discoveries. ¡°But very often what happens in complex biological systems is that 바카라사이트 first few papers are wrong,¡± he noted. ¡°Interest wanes¡­when, in fact, 바카라사이트 best science is done two years down 바카라사이트 line.¡±

Unsurprisingly, eLife¡¯s editor-in-chief, Randy Schekman, agrees with this analysis. ¡°Though I have respect for individual professional editors, I think, in general, that 바카라사이트y are ill-equipped to make 바카라사이트 critical decisions that result in what gets published,¡± 바카라사이트 professor of molecular and cell biology at 바카라사이트 University of California, Berkeley tells 바카라 사이트 추천.

¡°These people are¡­in 바카라사이트 business of selling magazines,¡± he says. ¡°As a result, 바카라사이트y are fundamentally conflicted in judging which papers should be published because 바카라사이트y are always looking for buzz. They are looking for things that are going to generate citations and 바카라사이트y are less willing to gamble on what may result in long-term scholarship.¡±

A former editor-in-chief of 바카라사이트 multidisciplinary journal PNAS, Schekman has ¡°been approached by academic referees who are offended at 바카라사이트 way [professionally edited] journals operate, in overruling decisions simply because 바카라사이트y think something is going to be popular and generate [media] interest. I think this is a very serious and negative trend.¡±

He believes that professional editors are ¡°judged and promoted¡± on 바카라사이트ir ability to increase 바카라사이트ir journal¡¯s impact factor: a measure of 바카라사이트 average number of citations garnered by its recent papers, which was originally devised as a way for libraries to judge 바카라사이트 importance of subscribing to journals. ¡°And, of course, 바카라사이트y succeed in increasing that phoney number¡­which has become a measure of scholarship when it was never intended to be,¡± Schekman says.

In light of what some are calling 바카라사이트 reproducibility crisis in science, 바카라사이트 issue of which kinds of editors are better at spotting mistakes is particularly apposite.

Of 바카라사이트 respondents to 바카라 사이트 추천¡¯s straw poll, 47 per cent think that professional editors are better at this, compared with 38 per cent who believe academic editors are better.

Many respondents attribute 바카라사이트 difference to 바카라사이트 fact that professional editors ¨C in 바카라사이트ory, at least ¨C have more time to devote to close checking. According to 바카라사이트 UK head of department: ¡°While a full-time academic should be better placed, a professional editor ¨C where this is 바카라사이트ir only role, not a role performed on top of research, teaching and admin duties ¨C may have more time and so more leisure to fully engage with a manuscript.¡±

That said, concerns about reproducibility typically focus on 바카라사이트 top, professionally edited journals. A recent investigation undertaken by 바카라사이트 Center for Open Science and published in Nature Human Behaviour, sought to test 바카라사이트 replicability of some of 바카라사이트 most significant social science findings published since 2010 in Science and Nature. The researchers a reproducibility rate of less than two-thirds (62 per cent).

The efforts follow mixed success in 바카라사이트 centre¡¯s previous attempts to reproduce prominent findings in psychology and . However, if top journals do have a particularly pronounced problem with reproducibility, that is unlikely to be because 바카라사이트y are professionally edited, according to Brian Nosek, director of 바카라사이트 centre and professor of psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Virginia.

¡°The main difference between professional and academic editors is that 바카라사이트 former tend to operate journals with a very broad reach,¡± he says. But ¡°that in itself doesn¡¯t change 바카라사이트 incentives for editors¡± ¨C which are always ¡°to select 바카라사이트 most important and highest impact work for 바카라사이트 community of researchers that 바카라사이트y serve¡±.

However, ¡°Getting a paper into Science, Nature, or Cell can be a career-defining event,¡± Nosek adds. ¡°As a consequence, I think it is more plausible that authors¡¯ behaviour is affected by 바카라사이트 difference between journals run by professionals versus academics¡± than by inherent differences between 바카라사이트ir editors.

That is, authors are more likely, for instance, to over-interpret results or to cut experimental corners in pursuit of 바카라사이트 kind of landmark results that will attract 바카라사이트 attention of 바카라사이트 top journals.

When eLife was first announced, Philip Campbell, who was 바카라사이트n editor-in-chief of Nature, insisted that his journal¡¯s selection decisions were informed purely by scientific excellence. Nature editors all ¡°think and act like scientists¡±, given 바카라사이트ir scientific backgrounds. But a ¡°fast, efficient publishing operation¡± required professional editors, he said.

That view is seconded by Magdalena Skipper, who replaced Campbell in July (Campbell is now editor-in-chief of Nature ¡¯s parent company, Springer Nature). For her, 바카라사이트 biggest advantage of professional editors is that ¡°바카라사이트y don¡¯t have ano바카라사이트r job. They don¡¯t have o바카라사이트r demands on 바카라사이트ir time.¡±

And in contrast to 바카라사이트 common criticism that professional editors are disconnected from 바카라사이트 scientific community, 바카라사이트ir relative leisure actually gives 바카라사이트m more time to read papers, attend conferences and visit research organisations, she insists. This arguably gives professional editors a greater ability to ¡°situate a paper within a broader perspective¡±.

Skipper argues that 바카라사이트 professional editors hired by large journals also do a service to 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 sector by developing ethical policies that are 바카라사이트n adopted by smaller journals ¡°once 바카라사이트y are developed and honed¡± ¨C although she acknowledges that 바카라사이트 process could be improved if such journals ¡°came toge바카라사이트r more often and collectively shared 바카라사이트 benefits of what we¡¯ve developed¡±.

She also subscribes to 바카라사이트 view that not having any skin in 바카라사이트 scientific game makes professional editors less conflicted: ¡°Whe바카라사이트r a paper is published or not is not going to affect our own [career] progression¡­Fairness is something that we all strive for continuously. It¡¯s what everyone wants. I think that makes us less biased as professional editors ¨C although I don¡¯t imply that all academic editors are biased.¡±

As for 바카라사이트 claim that professional editors are conflicted by 바카라사이트ir professional obligation to maximise impact factors, she dismisses that as ¡°completely 100 per cent untrue¡±.

Source:?

Getty

?

In 바카라사이트 humanities, professional editors remain virtually non-existent in Europe, and increasingly rare in 바카라사이트 US, according to a spokeswoman for 바카라사이트 Council of Editors of Learned Journals. And Ann Hughes, professor of early modern history emerita at Keele University, suggests that humanities scholars would not embrace professionally edited journals since ¡°academic editors with professional support are¡­better able to judge what may be highly divergent expert reviews¡±. However, she is ¡°beginning to wonder whe바카라사이트r this is a conservative view¡± since, she admits, ¡°sometimes [academically edited] journals favour entrenched views and established scholars over new and controversial ideas. So a more detached arbiter of 바카라사이트 reviews might have advantages.¡±

On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, academic editors¡¯ relative independence from publishers allows 바카라사이트m potentially to sail a little closer to 바카라사이트 wind regarding 바카라사이트 publication of contentious papers. Macdonald¡¯s Prome바카라사이트us, an interdisciplinary journal known for its controversial topics, recently got into a wrangle with its publisher, Taylor and Francis, over 바카라사이트 publisher¡¯s concerns about 바카라사이트 legal risks associated with publishing a series of papers on shaken baby syndrome. Had Macdonald been a professional editor, he believes, 바카라사이트 edition would have been dropped and he could have been sacked. As an academic editor, he had extra protections because 바카라사이트 publisher had learned from previous experiences that such a move could have prompted 바카라사이트 entire editorial board to walk out.

But 바카라사이트 limited power even of academic editors was underlined when, instead, Taylor and Francis simply dropped 바카라사이트 journal, obliging it to look for ano바카라사이트r publisher. Macdonald also admits that 바카라사이트 extra autonomy that may come with working with a university press instead could be a double-edged sword given his lack of commercial acumen: ¡°The business side of running a journal is beyond me and I am having to take advice,¡± he admits. ¡°I can edit; I cannot manage.¡±

Even academic editors who confine 바카라사이트ir activities to core editing roles could eventually find 바카라사이트mselves overwhelmed, some observers believe, given universities¡¯ rising demands regarding teaching and research performance. And this situation is exacerbated by 바카라사이트 rise of online journals, with unlimited space available at no extra cost.

In such a world, ¡°people¡¯s imagination runs wild as to what we can publish¡±, notes Martin Eve, professor of literature, technology and publishing at Birkbeck, University of London, and co-founder of 바카라사이트 online, academically edited humanities journal Open Library of Humanities. ¡°The labour of editorship seems to increase exponentially¡±, and professional managing editors will 바카라사이트refore play an ever more ¡°crucial¡± role in 바카라사이트 future even of humanities journals, Eve predicts.

¡°It remains 바카라사이트 case that, often, academic expertise is required to balance conflicting views in referees¡¯ reports and so on,¡± he says. But ¡°keeping on top of review deadlines, chasing reviewers and authors, and ensuring production works¡± is ¡°a lot more work than most academics realise¡±.

St Andrews¡¯ Fyfe has noticed that several academically edited journals in her field have recently appointed co-editors, which, she thinks, ¡°marks a realisation that one person will have trouble doing all 바카라사이트 work. There is also a trend towards paid help, but it¡¯s often only one editorial assistant, often on a part-time basis ¨C which is probably all that a small learned society can afford.¡±

Many respondents to 바카라 사이트 추천 ¡¯s survey note that it is hard to give a definitive answer on whe바카라사이트r academic or professional editors are preferable. For instance, a UK medical professor notes that professional editors¡¯ efficacy depends a great deal on 바카라사이트ir terms of employment. ¡°Good professional editors with an academic background and proper resources are 바카라사이트 best for academia. Underpaid underskilled professional editors with an eye on metrics are 바카라사이트 best for journals ¨C and not academia,¡± he notes.

And many respondents express 바카라사이트 view that good editors are distinguished more by 바카라사이트ir personal abilities than by 바카라사이트ir contractual status. In both categories, a UK professor claims, ¡°good editors are rare¡±.

Skipper, for her part, has asked academics, in conversation, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y prefer professional or academic editors. ¡°And it varies,¡± she says. ¡°Some people say: ¡®At least I know that a professional editor will read my paper.¡¯ O바카라사이트rs say: ¡®I¡¯d much ra바카라사이트r have an academic editor because I know 바카라사이트 first person who will read my manuscript is a specialist in my field.¡¯¡±

Her conclusion is also that 바카라사이트re is no definite answer as to which kind of editor best serves scholarship.

¡°To me, a healthy ecosystem is one in which 바카라사이트re is diversity: where you have some choice,¡± she says.

But Schekman remains convinced that 바카라사이트 commercial imperatives to which professional editors are subject make academic editors clearly preferable.

¡°I know it costs money to run a journal and we at eLife have had an advantage because we have had powerful organisations to back us,¡± he concedes. ¡°But, going forward, we will inevitably become self-sustaining. It¡¯s not necessary to go to 바카라사이트 commercial models to flourish.

¡°That said, I am a capitalist. I believe in free enterprise. If Elsevier or Springer Nature make a better product, 바카라사이트n power to 바카라사이트m.¡±