The most important role one can play in the life of a young faculty member is editor.
Editor, here, refers to the person who accepts or rejects a paper.
Editors serve as gatekeepers to publication - a prerequisite for earning tenure.
Where a Dean may hold structural power over a faculty member, editors hold soft power - controlling whether people earn, keep, or find new jobs - by controlling whether papers are accepted.
It’s notable then that there are few formal training opportunities for faculty who become editors - and even fewer formal feedback mechanisms for the quality of editorial work.
Typically, across the eight or so editorial appointments that I’ve held - the onboarding is limited to a conversation, perhaps an annual board meeting, or some training in a paper management system.
There is a presumption that you (the new editor) have an understanding of and expertise needed to make decisions.
Then, unless there is a problem, you are left alone to manage papers.
What is also notable, for many journals, there is no annual report on timeliness, % of accepting or rejecting decisions vis a vis other board members, or a review of how to improve editorial reports.
At one level, this all makes sense bc managing peer review relies on making expert judgments & you can’t make apple-to-apple comparisons across papers or reports.
On another level, given the impact of editors’ decisions, it’s complete nonsense - bc if one is given power over lives, then one should be trained on how to wield that power responsibly.
So is there a better way to socialize? And develop editors?
Yes.
First, journals need to provide a clear rubric for how to evaluate management of the peer review process.
Expectations for the timeliness, rounds of review, & more should be clearly stated.
That way, editors can benchmark how they are doing.
Second, journals need to do a better job of training & upskilling their teams.
I have seen reports where editors freely admit they don’t know how to evaluate a novel method.
You can’t expect an editor to know everything, but journals can help them learn a bit more so they can make better decisions.
Note: some journals do offer tutorials to editors on new methods.
Third, journals need to lay out the decision-making process for editorial appointments.
It’s very difficult for interested scholars to learn skills needed to become editors absent an understanding of the appointment & evaluation process.
Absent a clear process; it becomes easy for editors to rely on friends - who may or may not be qualified.
Finally, journals should provide some form of annual editor review.
Absent a benchmark at the editor level, it’s hard to ensure consistency in the review process.
By providing metrics to self-assess, upskilling teams, a clear rubric for needed skills, & feedback - it becomes possible to develop a pool of qualified potential editors.
Let’s build a better academy!
Comments