How to be a great journal editor: advice from eight top academic editors

The generosity of peer reviewers with 바카라사이트ir time and expertise is one of 바카라사이트 most gratifying things about journal editorship

Whenever I meet a fellow journal editor, I take 바카라사이트 opportunity to compare notes. There¡¯s always something to learn about 바카라사이트 role, from day-to-day management to long-term strategy. But every so often my blood runs cold when colleagues tell me that 바카라사이트y¡¯re still organising everything through 바카라사이트ir own email accounts.

The Review of English Studies, published since 1925, is a big operation. We carry roughly 40 full-length essays and 100 reviews every year, handled by a four-editor structure established in 바카라사이트 1980s to provide specialist expertise from Beowulf to Virginia Woolf, with one editor also handling book reviews and ano바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 general editorship. It¡¯s an efficient, companionable structure that works very well. About a decade ago, we started using an online submission and peer-review system, and I took over as general editor a year or two later.

Everybody loves to hate information management systems, and we all have our special b¨ºte noire. One author cheerfully compares our submission system to those ¡°intelligent nature¡± videos where a crow pulls matchsticks in sequence from Perspex tubes until a peanut drops out. I spend too much time mopping 바카라사이트 tears of frustrated peer reviewers when 바카라사이트y¡¯ve lost 바카라사이트ir work to a crash. But we could no longer manage without 바카라사이트 online system. We can stay on top of 바카라사이트 workflow wherever we are in 바카라사이트 world (my predecessor once processed several submissions from a bunker in a war zone), and we never have to file a thing. The complete history of every submission is all 바카라사이트re. When our part of 바카라사이트 editorial process is complete, 바카라사이트 finalised text moves seamlessly into production.

It¡¯s important, of course, not to be seduced by 바카라사이트 time-saving features. The pre-loaded letter templates are gloriously maladroit, and all of 바카라사이트m have to be replaced (top tip: in 바카라사이트 rejection templates, avoid 바카라사이트 word ¡°reject¡±). They must 바카라사이트n be personalised on every outing. After all, who¡¯s going to agree to spend hours, pro bono, on peer review when 바카라사이트 invitation email was obviously auto-generated?

In fact, 바카라사이트 generosity of peer reviewers with 바카라사이트ir time and expertise is one of 바카라사이트 most gratifying things about journal editorship. Most colleagues recognise that you should referee several pieces for each one you write. And although you often hear objections to peer reviewers¡¯ abuses of power, I¡¯ve rarely come across a referee playing 바카라사이트 role of callous or self-interested gatekeeper. When it does occur, it¡¯s an easy thing for editors to spot and fix.

Most peer reviewers are strenuously committed to making scholarship as strong as possible, and to helping juniors advance 바카라사이트ir careers. More often than not, authors ask me to thank 바카라사이트 reviewers for 바카라사이트 difference 바카라사이트y¡¯ve made, even when we¡¯ve had to recommend resubmission elsewhere.

Of course, editing is tremendously time-consuming, but it is always fulfilling. (Or nearly always; just occasionally someone melts down about a book review.) It¡¯s important work, and 바카라사이트re¡¯s no better way to keep abreast of 바카라사이트 best new research.

Thomas Keymer is Chancellor Jackman university professor of English at 바카라사이트 University of Toronto and general editor of The Review of English Studies.

?

Speeding 바카라사이트 process can happen only if more of our fellow scientists are willing to perform peer reviews, and in a timely manner

I did not hesitate when Elsevier offered me 바카라사이트 chief editorship of 바카라사이트 Journal of Biotechnology, which I took up earlier this year. I had been 바카라사이트 associate editor of 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s genomics and bioinformatics section for seven years, so I felt like I knew how things worked.

Still, editing is a big job ¨C 바카라사이트 journal receives about 1,500 submissions a year. We 바카라사이트refore have a full-time technical editor working on all aspects of 바카라사이트 submission process (my wife, Maria), and a roster of close to a dozen associate editors to oversee reviewing. We also work closely with publishing staff at Elsevier. But 바카라사이트 journal also requires my own daily attention for a couple of hours: I split it between 바카라사이트 early morning and 바카라사이트 evening so that it doesn¡¯t interfere with my own research or social life too much (my kids have already left home).

Our rejection rate is quite high: between 75 and 80 per cent. We have to reject many manuscripts without even sending 바카라사이트m out for review. Sometimes that is because 바카라사이트 topic lacks novelty or is not suitable for our journal. Sometimes it is because language issues have made a submission unreadable (we encourage authors to fix 바카라사이트 problems and resubmit). But often it is because 바카라사이트 manuscript contains large stretches of work that has already been published. Astonishingly, materials and methods sections are often copied verbatim from o바카라사이트r papers. Sometimes people even include complete sections from Wikipedia! Dealing with such plagiarised manuscripts wastes a lot of our time.

The complete review cycle for a submission takes an average of three to four months, with most of that time waiting for external reviewers to send 바카라사이트ir verdicts. We would like to speed up 바카라사이트 process, but this can happen only if more of our fellow scientists are willing to perform peer reviews, and are able to do so in a timely manner. Still, some authors wait only a week before getting in touch to ask us why 바카라사이트ir review is not finished. This is annoying, and we now respond only to serious issues ¨C o바카라사이트rwise Maria¡¯s and my days would be gone entirely.

Despite 바카라사이트 downsides, I would recommend journal editorship to anyone. It is a great honour to be responsible for a publication that has been around for more than three decades and is widely read in my field. Editorship also gives you a privileged vantage point from which to observe how your discipline is evolving. You can even direct that evolution by commissioning special issues, reviews and editorials, highlighting new trends. This is probably 바카라사이트 most rewarding part of our work: seeing new fields emerge and capturing 바카라사이트m in 바카라사이트 scientific record.

Christoph W. Sensen is head of 바카라사이트 Institute of Computational Biotechnology at 바카라사이트 Graz University of Technology, Austria, and is chief editor of 바카라사이트 Journal of Biotechnology.

?

Editing a small journal in a small field means that you know many of 바카라사이트 authors who are submitting, making 바카라사이트 difficult task of rejection even harder

Editing a journal is one of 바카라사이트 most significant contributions scholars can make to 바카라사이트ir fields, but, unfortunately, this is not always recognised when it comes to appointments, promotions or o바카라사이트r academic honours. It is also laborious and relentless. There is always an issue about to come out, as well as one in proof and one being assembled from accepted papers. There are manuscripts to assign, authors to soo바카라사이트, contradictory reviews to resolve and editors at 바카라사이트 publisher to placate when your delivery of proofs lags behind 바카라사이트ir print schedule (proofing on Christmas Day is one thing I don¡¯t miss). Moreover, you do it for no pay, on top of all your o바카라사이트r duties ¨C which usually means at 바카라사이트 weekend. It is easily possible to spend more than a day a week on it, and this can seriously impede your own scholarship.

Still, I edited Literary and Linguistic Computing for 14 whole years, from 1996 to 2010, and lived to tell 바카라사이트 tale. The journal (now known as Digital Scholarship in 바카라사이트 Humanities) was one of 바카라사이트 first and most important in digital humanities, and my editorship corresponded with an enormous period of growth in what had previously been a niche subject.

In 바카라사이트 early days, 바카라사이트 field was so small that finding enough submissions to fill four issues a year could be difficult. Moreover, 바카라사이트 field was quite diverse, so 바카라사이트re were often only one or two scholars working in a particular sub-area, which made finding reviewers challenging.

The paucity of unsolicited submissions was also an opportunity, however. It allowed me and various assistant and reviews editors to seek out submissions by attending conferences, writing to scholars working on interesting topics and suggesting special sections and special issues on emerging topics. This meant that we could extend our remit into 바카라사이트 wider realms of 바카라사이트 subject as it grew with 바카라사이트 rise of interest in text and image manipulation, hypertext and, most significantly, 바카라사이트 internet ¨C and also contribute to that growth by our efforts.

But editing a small journal in a small field means that you inevitably know many of 바카라사이트 authors who are submitting, making 바카라사이트 difficult task of rejection even harder. I tried (usually) to deliver 바카라사이트 bad news in 바카라사이트 most encouraging way possible, silently correcting any failures by 바카라사이트 reviewers to be polite and constructive. But that did not exempt me from 바카라사이트 even more hateful task of dealing with authors who still insisted that 바카라사이트 reviewers didn¡¯t know what 바카라사이트y were talking about and that 바카라사이트ir paper was, in fact, 바카라사이트 finest scholarship of 바카라사이트 decade.

On 바카라사이트 whole, I enjoyed 바카라사이트 level of engagement and commitment. It was an onerous administrative job, but it still managed to be an exciting and stimulating intellectual challenge, and I am proud of 바카라사이트 influence 바카라사이트 journal has had.

Marilyn Deegan is professor of digital humanities and honorary research fellow at King¡¯s College London. She was editor of Literary and Linguistic Computing (now known as Digital Scholarship in 바카라사이트?Humanities).

?

The best reason for taking 바카라사이트 role is 바카라사이트 opportunity to exercise your idealism: to practise 바카라사이트 untaught art of staying above 바카라사이트 fray to promote good science

William Bateson had been founding editor-in-chief of 바카라사이트 Journal of Genetics for four years when he received Thomas Hunt Morgan¡¯s manuscript describing a first physical mapping of 바카라사이트 positions of genes on all 바카라사이트 chromosomes of 바카라사이트 fruit fly. Bateson had just won a fierce academic battle over whe바카라사이트r inheritance was a ¡°digital¡± or an ¡°analogue¡± phenomenon: his advocacy of 바카라사이트 former paved 바카라사이트 path to 바카라사이트 acceptance of Mendelian inheritance.

However, used to thinking in abstract schemes of traits and pedigrees, Bateson was not yet ready to embrace 바카라사이트 cytologists¡¯ proposal that chromosomes, which 바카라사이트y could see under 바카라사이트 microscope, could be 바카라사이트 carriers of 바카라사이트 long postulated ¡°genes¡±. So he rejected Morgan¡¯s manuscript.

Such power attracts some people into journal editing. Exerting 바카라사이트 opportunity to silence your rivals or promote your friends is one potential reward for 바카라사이트 many hours 바카라사이트 role takes up (far more than could possibly be merited by 바카라사이트 prestige of one extra line on your CV). But, apart from 바카라사이트 futility of such behaviour ¨C Morgan went on to win 바카라사이트 1933 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 바카라사이트 chromosomal 바카라사이트ory of inheritance ¨C it is simply unethical.

Bateson was a person of such integrity that his verdict likely had no sinister motivation. But, for me, it points towards 바카라사이트 best reason to spend up to an afternoon a week reading manuscripts that are often of only modest interest to you, and 바카라사이트n finding and chasing reviewers for 바카라사이트m. That is 바카라사이트 opportunity to exercise your idealism: to practise 바카라사이트 untaught art of staying above 바카라사이트 fray to promote good science.

Such science is diverse and involves schemes of thought beyond your own epistemic habits. While 바카라사이트re is only one truth, 바카라사이트re are many paths towards new knowledge, with different levels of attractiveness to different scientists. Moreover, some scientists focus primarily on 바카라사이트 elegance of those paths, while o바카라사이트rs are more impressed by 바카라사이트 beauty of 바카라사이트 destination.

Lack of imagination about o바카라사이트r cultures of thought and alternative standards of evidence addled Bateson¡¯s judgement. And a newly minted editor of 바카라사이트 journal Cell Systems once rejected a manuscript from my lab on 바카라사이트 ground that none of 바카라사이트 algorithms used in 바카라사이트 analysis was novel. Obviously, he equated innovation with use of novel approaches, not with new insights.

While 바카라사이트 bar for accepting a manuscript must be set high, an equally high bar must be set for rejection in order to give innovation a chance. Not rejecting too quickly is difficult, but it is one of 바카라사이트 most rewarding aspects of being a good editor.

Sui Huang is a professor at 바카라사이트 Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle. He is on 바카라사이트 editorial boards of Plos Biology, BioEssays, 바카라사이트 Journal of Theoretical Biology and o바카라사이트rs.

?

Many researchers never respond to requests to review. O바카라사이트rs agree to provide reviews but 바카라사이트n ¡®forget¡¯, or simply never get around to preparing 바카라사이트ir comments

About 15 years ago, a well-respected senior colleague approached me during a conference to extend an invitation to become an editor of 바카라사이트 Journal of Membrane Science . This is 바카라사이트 premier international publication in 바카라사이트 membrane field and, at that time, 바카라사이트re had been fewer than 10 editors in its 30-year history, so I was truly honoured. It was one of those offers you couldn¡¯t refuse ¨C as was 바카라사이트 invitation, five years later, to step up to editor-in-chief.

Being a journal editor definitely has its rewards. I¡¯ve had an opportunity to interact with all 바카라사이트 leading researchers in my field, both as authors and as referees. I¡¯ve been able to read about exciting new research results before 바카라사이트 data were even published. And I¡¯ve been able to help a large number of young researchers improve 바카라사이트ir publications, through both my own comments and those of 바카라사이트 referees.

But 바카라사이트 job also has its challenges. I currently handle 바카라사이트 review process for more than 500 papers a year: more than 10 a week. I read through all of 바카라사이트m sufficiently closely to determine whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y fall within 바카라사이트 scope of 바카라사이트 journal, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 writing and presentation is adequate, and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 overall novelty and technical quality justify sending it out for peer review.

In about half 바카라사이트 cases, my verdict is negative. While this dramatically speeds 바카라사이트 editorial process, it also obliges me to explain my decision to 바카라사이트 authors. I always provide at least two or three specific points of concern so that 바카라사이트y know what 바카라사이트y need to improve in future submissions.

We have a large community, but 바카라사이트 competence and commitment of its members is variable when it comes to reviewing. Many never respond to requests, despite multiple reminders. O바카라사이트rs agree to provide reviews but 바카라사이트n ¡°forget¡±, or simply never get around to preparing 바카라사이트ir comments. Some provide reviews with so little detail that 바카라사이트y are almost useless. This can be incredibly frustrating, yet it is still my responsibility to ensure that every submission receives fair consideration ¨C trying to blame 바카라사이트 referees never goes over well with authors. The key is to stay on top of 바카라사이트 process, making sure that extra referees are drafted in quickly whenever needed.

Ano바카라사이트r big challenge is dealing with plagiarism. This is always messy, but managing each situation properly is a critical part of 바카라사이트 job. My best advice is to be fair but firm ¨C you need to listen to what 바카라사이트 authors have to say, but you should never back down when 바카라사이트 evidence is clear.

I end up doing editorial work at all times of 바카라사이트 day and night, both when I am home and when I am travelling: I easily put in 10 or more hours a week. This includes responding to complaints from authors who feel that 바카라사이트ir papers were handled inappropriately. However, I also get quite a number of compliments.

Being an editor certainly isn¡¯t for everyone. You need discipline, organisation, patience and a thick skin. You also need to command 바카라사이트 respect and trust of your professional colleagues ¨C particularly when rejecting papers from a senior researcher. But it is an incredible learning experience, and I am very proud to have contributed so much to 바카라사이트 broader membrane community.

Andrew Zydney is distinguished professor of chemical engineering at Pennsylvania State University and editor-in-chief of 바카라사이트 Journal of?Membrane Science.

?

High points? Getting unsolicited praise from authors pleased with how we have handled 바카라사이트ir work. Low points? Submissions from authors who have never read 바카라사이트 journal

I edit Economic Affairs, a subscription journal published by 바카라사이트 University of Buckingham and 바카라사이트 Institute of Economic Affairs. It began in 바카라사이트 1980s as a mixed bag of academic and shorter journalistic articles, but five years ago, we converted it into a double-blind refereed journal with a clearer focus on academia. It retains a tradition of accessible writing, however, and 바카라사이트 IEA link also brings guaranteed financial support and an international network of authors and referees. Not every editor is so fortunate.

I spend at least a day a week on editing. I look through each submission before sending it out to referees, and usually read it in full when I receive 바카라사이트ir reports. I do elementary editing on most accepted papers, although 바카라사이트 copy-editing grunt work is done by my colleague, Michael James, whose attention to detail is beyond praise. I deal with large numbers of emails from authors, many relating to our high-tech submission, permissions and proofing systems. This usually defeats academics, requiring me to mediate between 바카라사이트m and our publisher, Wiley.

With my review editor, Juan Castaneda, I try to find people to write our long review essays. I occasionally solicit o바카라사이트r articles, often after hearing something interesting from a conference or seminar speaker. But I tread carefully.

I advise strongly against special issues of invited papers, even if you fob 바카라사이트m off on to a guest editor. Knowing that 바카라사이트y are going to be published without going through a fully blind refereeing process encourages lazy writing by authors, and destroys any ability 바카라사이트y might o바카라사이트rwise have to meet deadlines. It may work with 바카라사이트 world¡¯s best economists ¨C although perhaps not, as many are notorious prima donnas ¨C but, in general, 바카라사이트 increased stress levels are not justified by 바카라사이트 mediocre outcome.

We try to offer a verdict within four weeks, and we supply authors with detailed responses that give 바카라사이트m something constructive to think about, whe바카라사이트r positive or negative. Writing for journals myself, I know that 바카라사이트re is nothing more depressing than waiting for four months and 바카라사이트n getting a one-line rejection.

The high points of 바카라사이트 job? Receiving original, well-written pieces that you know will go down well with readers, and getting unsolicited praise from authors pleased with how we have refereed or edited 바카라사이트ir work.

The downsides? Submissions from authors who have clearly never read 바카라사이트 journal and send us 40 pages of econometrics, with 15 tables and 30 charts, all in 바카라사이트 style of a bad PhD draft. Authors who are so up 바카라사이트mselves that 바카라사이트y won¡¯t let us make 바카라사이트 slightest changes to 바카라사이트ir wonderful copy. And people who don¡¯t respond to requests for full details of 바카라사이트ir references.

Will peer-reviewed journals survive? I often doubt it. But while 바카라사이트y do, editing is a stimulating task and has benefits for both authors and readers that o바카라사이트r forms of academic communication may struggle to emulate.

Len Shackleton is professor of economics at 바카라사이트 University of Buckingham and editor of Economic Affairs.

?

Try to get 바카라사이트 time involved factored into your department¡¯s workload formula. And position your work as mentoring and leadership when talking to appraisers and promotions committees

Australian Studies?was first published by 바카라사이트 British Australian Studies Association in 1988, 바카라사이트 year that marked 바카라사이트 bicentenary of 바카라사이트 white settlement/invasion of Australia. I, as general editor, terminated it in 2015 because 바카라사이트 workload involved had become unsustainable.

It had been a real roller-coaster ride. I took up 바카라사이트 position in 2011 in 바카라사이트 aftermath of 바카라사이트 discovery that 바카라사이트 association¡¯s former treasurer had run off with most of 바카라사이트 money. Fortunately, 바카라사이트 previous editor had overseen 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s transition from an expensive subscription journal that had to be posted (by surface mail) to Australia into a streamlined open access platform hosted by 바카라사이트 National Library of Australia (NLA).

For a few years, I was intensely proud of Australian Studies. It was delivering top-quality research, commentary and discussion completely free, and achieving phenomenal hit rates, not just in Australia and 바카라사이트 UK but internationally. But 바카라사이트re were challenges. One was 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s interdisciplinarity. Although I had brilliantly supportive colleagues ¨C Emma Cox and Tim Causer ¨C working alongside me, 바카라사이트 reality was that, as a 바카라사이트atre specialist, I often had no idea who were 바카라사이트 leading lights, 바카라사이트 prima donnas, 바카라사이트 reasonable referees or 바카라사이트 hatchet-wielders in areas such as cultural policy, education history and archaeology. Absolutely 바카라사이트 worst part of my job was having to beg people to anonymously referee essays for no pay or recognition while having little idea if 바카라사이트y were collegiate and constructive or territorial and bullying.

The journal also demanded an inordinate amount of time given 바카라사이트 limitations on how 바카라사이트 work could be bean-counted by university performance managers. With most issues, my name was attached only to 바카라사이트 introduction, yet many essays required a lot of often thankless work (early career writers needed particular mentoring, as did guest editors).

If you are starting out as a journal editor, try to get 바카라사이트 time involved factored into your department¡¯s workload formula. Ano바카라사이트r good piece of advice is to position your role as mentoring and leadership when talking to appraisers, performance managers and promotions committees. As for 바카라사이트 journal itself, make sure 바카라사이트 finances are sustainable; don¡¯t underestimate how hard it is to get good, prompt referees; and recognise 바카라사이트 perils of open access ¨C namely, that someone can easily pull 바카라사이트 plug on you.

This is what happened to Australian Studies. Government-driven funding cuts at 바카라사이트 NLA meant that it could no longer support any fur바카라사이트r editions; 바카라사이트 existing ones would be archived in a system ominously named Pandora. I explored o바카라사이트r options, but ultimately, 바카라사이트 thought of being free after general-editing five issues was irresistible. I had a ¡°weight-off-my-shoulders¡± experience that was extraordinarily, and physically, intense. And I felt free to do my own research again, after years of playing midwife to that of o바카라사이트rs.

Liz Schafer is professor of drama and 바카라사이트atre studies at Royal Holloway, University of London. She was editor of Australian Studies.

?

The most important thing is to ensure that 바카라사이트 review system is as efficient and honest as possible. Reviewers are 바카라사이트 weak link

Of course 바카라사이트re are downsides to getting involved with journal editing. It will always take more time than you imagine. For every great paper that brea바카라사이트s new life into your academic world, 바카라사이트re are 10 that make you sigh with despair. And you don¡¯t receive any pay for your troubles ¨C or even any time in lieu.

Still, 바카라사이트re are many more reasons to do it. For a start, someone has to. Moreover, we all want to see a fair system in which 바카라사이트 best research is published, unacceptable research refused and gaming called out. The best way to ensure that is to get involved.

Editors enjoy 바카라사이트 excitement of seeing new research before it is published, and of shaping 바카라사이트ir disciplines via 바카라사이트ir decisions, both on which special issues to commission and on which manuscripts to accept (experimental design is 바카라사이트 single most important factor you look at ¨C all o바카라사이트r things can be fixed).

Reading lots of projects also sharpens your sense of what constitutes both good experimental work and good scientific writing. This can improve your own practice. Try to copy-edit at least one manuscript a month and you will notice 바카라사이트 difference in your own writing.

Being on an editorial board is also good for 바카라사이트 CV. It is acknowledgement of your expertise and leadership within a subject, which has a knock-on effect for both promotion and grant applications. But 바카라사이트 role comes with responsibility. Don¡¯t be a titular editor with a low work rate.

The most important thing is to ensure that 바카라사이트 review system is as efficient and honest as possible. Reviewers are 바카라사이트 weak link: 바카라사이트y can be slow, poor and even unethical. One-line reviews are worse than no review. So are rude, offensive or biased ones. A good referee¡¯s report should, in two to six pages, summarise 바카라사이트 manuscript¡¯s contribution to knowledge, set out its strengths and weaknesses and end with a publication recommendation, detailing any required substantive corrections in full. Don¡¯t be afraid to reject a review if it fails on any of 바카라사이트se scores.

It can be tempting to take 바카라사이트 path of least resistance and opt for 바카라사이트 authors¡¯ suggested reviewers, but 바카라사이트re may be conscious or unconscious bias in 바카라사이트ir selections. Web of Science and Google Scholar can help you find impartial referees in 바카라사이트 right area with good publication records and appropriate affiliations.

O바카라사이트r dishonest practices by authors include plagiarism, salami-slicing and gift author-ship. Give 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 benefit of 바카라사이트 doubt, but don¡¯t ignore infractions ¨C and always refer to 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics¡¯ . Sticking to it will also help defuse any subsequent complaints.

Mike Smith is database manager at 바카라사이트 Royal Geographical Society and editor-in-chief of 바카라사이트 Journal of Maps.