An editor is generally the first person who will interact with your submitted paper — so who is this person, and what do they do?
Journals generally have an Editor-in-Chief (or sometimes two Co-Editors) at the top of their operational structure. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for governing and guiding the direction of the journal, making decisions regarding its scope and policies, and ensuring that the journal operates in line with its mission while publishing high-quality content. This Editor-in-Chief may be assisted by one or more lower-level editors, with titles such as Associate Editor or Section Editor, who usually oversee specific kinds of content submitted to the journal or content submitted to specific journal sections. For example, one editor may oversee only book review submissions, while another evaluates research articles.
These editors generally participate in an Editorial Board, which advises the Editor-in-Chief on matters of journal governance. The Board may also include members who support the journal in other ways, such as social media communication. Editorial board members may also serve as core peer reviewers for the journal.
Any editor who handles content submissions is responsible for shepherding those submissions through the review process and, if deemed suitable, through the publication workflow as well. The editor makes initial judgments regarding whether a paper fits the journal’s scope and guidelines and whether it is of sufficient quality and interest to begin the peer review process. Then the editor oversees the process, maintaining communication among all involved parties and following journal timelines while initiating each appropriate step.
The submission process. Created by Erin Owens, 2023.
Inviting peer reviewers to read a submission is one of the editor’s regular tasks. The next section will address the peer review process in more detail, but for now, let’s discuss who serves as peer reviewers and how they are they selected. Reviewers are often “scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript,” but “can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers” (Kelly, Sadeghieh, and Adeli 2014). Peer reviewers almost never receive financial compensation, but scholars may gain personal benefit from fulfilling service requirements for a university position, for example, or may have other motivations to participate, such as maintaining relationships with editors in the field and remaining aware of the latest research.
The process for selecting peer reviewers can vary somewhat among disciplines and journals. Some journals may ask the submitting author to suggest the names of several appropriate reviewers whom the editor may then contact. The editor may themselves search for authors of related works, possibly by exploring the author’s cited works, and send an invitation to review. An invitation usually includes the title and abstractAbstractThe concise summary of a research article that provides a broad overview of the research being presented. of the submission to be reviewed so that a potential reviewer can gauge how well it fits their expertise and interest.
An invited reviewer may accept or decline a review invitation based on their schedule and existing commitments; their interest in the journal overall and the individual submission’s abstract; and their perception of their own expertise in relation to the submission’s subject or methods.
An editor may have to send multiple rounds of invitations before securing acceptance from their desired number of reviewers. This can impact the speed of the review process and create a bottleneck in scholarly publishing. Depending on how much difficulty the editor faces in finding willing reviewers, it may also lead to the reviews being conducted by less knowledgeable or less experienced reviewers, which may eventually impact the quality and usefulness of the feedback that the author receives from the review.
Topic 1 References
Kelly, Jacalyn, Sadeghieh, Tara, and Adeli Khosrow. “Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.” EJIFCC 25, no. 3 (2014): 227–243. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27683470
The Role of the Editor
An editor is generally the first person who will interact with your submitted paper — so who is this person, and what do they do?
Journals generally have an Editor-in-Chief (or sometimes two Co-Editors) at the top of their operational structure. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for governing and guiding the direction of the journal, making decisions regarding its scope and policies, and ensuring that the journal operates in line with its mission while publishing high-quality content. This Editor-in-Chief may be assisted by one or more lower-level editors, with titles such as Associate Editor or Section Editor, who usually oversee specific kinds of content submitted to the journal or content submitted to specific journal sections. For example, one editor may oversee only book review submissions, while another evaluates research articles.
These editors generally participate in an Editorial Board, which advises the Editor-in-Chief on matters of journal governance. The Board may also include members who support the journal in other ways, such as social media communication. Editorial board members may also serve as core peer reviewers for the journal.
Any editor who handles content submissions is responsible for shepherding those submissions through the review process and, if deemed suitable, through the publication workflow as well. The editor makes initial judgments regarding whether a paper fits the journal’s scope and guidelines and whether it is of sufficient quality and interest to begin the peer review process. Then the editor oversees the process, maintaining communication among all involved parties and following journal timelines while initiating each appropriate step.
Inviting peer reviewers to read a submission is one of the editor’s regular tasks. The next section will address the peer review process in more detail, but for now, let’s discuss who serves as peer reviewers and how they are they selected. Reviewers are often “scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript,” but “can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers” (Kelly, Sadeghieh, and Adeli 2014). Peer reviewers almost never receive financial compensation, but scholars may gain personal benefit from fulfilling service requirements for a university position, for example, or may have other motivations to participate, such as maintaining relationships with editors in the field and remaining aware of the latest research.
The process for selecting peer reviewers can vary somewhat among disciplines and journals. Some journals may ask the submitting author to suggest the names of several appropriate reviewers whom the editor may then contact. The editor may themselves search for authors of related works, possibly by exploring the author’s cited works, and send an invitation to review. An invitation usually includes the title and abstractAbstract The concise summary of a research article that provides a broad overview of the research being presented. of the submission to be reviewed so that a potential reviewer can gauge how well it fits their expertise and interest.
An invited reviewer may accept or decline a review invitation based on their schedule and existing commitments; their interest in the journal overall and the individual submission’s abstract; and their perception of their own expertise in relation to the submission’s subject or methods.
An editor may have to send multiple rounds of invitations before securing acceptance from their desired number of reviewers. This can impact the speed of the review process and create a bottleneck in scholarly publishing. Depending on how much difficulty the editor faces in finding willing reviewers, it may also lead to the reviews being conducted by less knowledgeable or less experienced reviewers, which may eventually impact the quality and usefulness of the feedback that the author receives from the review.
Topic 1 References
Kelly, Jacalyn, Sadeghieh, Tara, and Adeli Khosrow. “Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.” EJIFCC 25, no. 3 (2014): 227–243. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27683470
“Peer Review Process and Editorial Decision Making at Journals.” Editage Insights. November 4, 2013. https://www.editage.com/insights/peer-review-process-and-editorial-decision-making-at-journals.
“Publishing in a Scholarly Journal: Part Two, Role of the Editorial Board.” American Psychological Association. September 2021. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/publishing-tips/editorial-board.