On the reward of serving as an editor (or the power of seeing work cited).
When you accept a paper as an editor, you are endorsing it with your personal brand. You are telling the world that you deem it of sufficient quality to make an impact on the literature and the world.
Every time I accept a paper, there is a moment of uncertainty - how will the world receive it?
Rarely, absent misconduct, do I see stones thrown at authors. You can't blame authors for publishing their papers.
Often, absent misconduct, I hear people ask what was the editor thinking? When they accepted a mediocre paper?
Almost never, do you hear people praise an editor for accepting a paper.
Editing is a thankless task.
So how do you know? You did a good job as an editor?
(Recall an editor's job is to accept interesting papers that move the literature forward - it's not to accept dull papers that fail to advance knowledge).
Citation.
While I don't think a citation is a proxy for article quality, I do think it is a sign that you accepted interesting work.
Every time I encounter a citation to a paper that I accepted - I feel good - I know that I did something right in making a decision.
I helped someone move their work forward.
I helped move the literature forward.
The respect people give you as an editor is fleeting.
The impact that you make by helping authors publish and improve your discipline is eternal.
Comments