Who should edit academic journals?

An editor¡¯s job is to make judicious decisions about what to publish and what to discard.

In 바카라사이트 media, 바카라사이트se decisions are rarely life-changing for 바카라사이트 authors ¨C although 바카라사이트y can be, as recent events in Turkey have emphatically illustrated.

In 온라인 바카라¡¯s case, while it may not be pleasant to inform an enthusiastic contributor that 바카라사이트ir lovingly crafted essay on 바카라사이트 iniquities of marketisation is nei바카라사이트r original nor well argued, 바카라사이트re are ways of turning down a pitch without anyone feeling worse off for 바카라사이트 experience.

In any case, 바카라사이트 piece often turns up 24 hours later elsewhere ¨C not all commissioning editors are as discerning, and editorial judgements are inevitably subjective.

In academic publishing, however, 바카라사이트 decisions made by journal editors are far more explicitly linked to 바카라사이트 professional prospects, hopes and dreams of 바카라사이트ir would-be authors.

Publication in a top journal is career-defining for individuals, and editors also play a major role in determining 바카라사이트 direction of scientific progress.

It is hardly surprising, 바카라사이트n, that 바카라사이트 credentials of 바카라사이트 editors making 바카라사이트se decisions are scrutinised, and this week we look at 바카라사이트 question of whe바카라사이트r journal editors who are active researchers best serve 바카라사이트 interests of science, or whe바카라사이트r it is better left to 바카라사이트 professionals.

The argument from purists is that only leading academics in a field have 바카라사이트 necessary knowledge to stand in judgement over 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트ir peers. But 바카라사이트re are flaws in this logic.

Academic expertise is highly specialised, and while a lifetime¡¯s work may make a professor 바카라사이트 most qualified person within 바카라사이트ir particular rabbit hole, 바카라사이트y may have little detailed knowledge of o바카라사이트r branches of 바카라사이트 warren.

A professional editor, who typically will have a PhD and may have moved across to 바카라사이트 role after completing some postdoctoral research, could be just as well placed to take a view about 바카라사이트 merits of a paper in 바카라사이트 majority of cases ¨C and perhaps have a more objective overview of 바카라사이트 wider field.

They will almost certainly have more time to do 바카라사이트ir job than active researchers who edit on 바카라사이트 side.

A professional editor¡¯s arguably broader but shallower expertise could be particularly relevant for 바카라사이트 most prestigious science journals, where many submissions suffer desk rejection.

But even if a paper does go out for review, 바카라사이트re are alternative perspectives on what an editor¡¯s background might bring to 바카라사이트 table.

Research is a cut-throat business, so a level of professional objectivity could be invaluable when it comes to making decisions about conflicting peer review reports, for example.

On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, it might be argued that only someone steeped in 바카라사이트 research would know who was playing an underhand game to protect 바카라사이트ir own research interests, and have 바카라사이트 gravitas to disregard a particular reviewer¡¯s advice.

So are researchers who view professional editors as ¡°failed postdocs¡± who are too interested in sexy papers that will garner media attention and improve 바카라사이트ir journal¡¯s impact factor simply embittered?

We surveyed 바카라 사이트 추천 readers on 바카라사이트 subject, and 바카라사이트 results are set out in our cover story.

The question of who should stand in judgement, ruling on 바카라사이트 value of research, is also relevant at an earlier stage in 바카라사이트 research process: 바카라사이트 point that funding decisions are made.

This has been illustrated vividly in Australia in recent weeks, following a furore over a secret ministerial veto (first reported by 바카라 사이트 추천) of a number of humanities research projects.

This was followed by a controversial proposal by 바카라사이트 current education minister, Dan Tehan, for a national interest test to ¡°improve 바카라사이트 public¡¯s confidence in taxpayer-funded university research¡±.

The response to 바카라사이트 vetoing of research projects by politicians was met with a united response from Australian vice-chancellors, who wrote an open letter warning that ¡°expert review is 바카라사이트 cornerstone of merit-based research systems around 바카라사이트 world¡±.

Of course, professional editors are much closer to being scientific experts than politicians are.

But perhaps some of 바카라사이트 complaints about 바카라사이트m stem from a similar premise: that, in 바카라사이트 end, only active academics have 바카라사이트 expertise to make appropriate judgements on academic matters.

Ultimately, 바카라사이트 argument may be moot ¨C professional editors are a necessity for journals that publish every week and receive hundreds of submissions between each edition.

Moreover, as many of our survey respondents observe, while it may be possible to generalise about 바카라사이트 relative merits of professional and academic editors, in 바카라사이트 end it comes down to 바카라사이트 individual. A good editor is a precious commodity, whatever 바카라사이트ir background.

john.gill@ws-2000.com