An early career colleague recently asked me what it takes to become an associate editor at a top journal in my discipline.
I paused to think. I quietly debated how do I explain that I didn’t know?
At a high level, I know.
Associate editors share several attributes.
First, they are most often tenured faculty.
Rarely, almost never, is an untenured assistant professor named to a top journal’s editorial board.
Second, they usually have published in the journal.
Publication demonstrates competence.
Third, they most often have reviewed extensively for the journal.
Reviewing means that you are part of the journal's community.
Fourth, they most often have written on time and constructive reviews.
These are tells that you are diligent & likely to turn in reports on time.
Fifth, they have caught the eye of a current editor.
Usually, there is a nomination process - this varies with journals - but there is some way that a current board member lets the journal editor know you are competent.
Beyond this high-level understanding, an operational understanding of how one becomes an associate editor is a mystery to me.
The first time I was asked to be an associate editor - the invitation followed my submission of a high-quality review.
The second time - the invitation was mysteriously timed with my tenure case.
The third time - the invitation came from a top journal I have not published in.
The fourth time - the editor cited a need for more people with my expertise to handle submissions.
Beyond broad brushstrokes, most journal editors do not publish or discuss their decision-making processes - nor how they use the nominations they receive.
I like to think editors are fair in their assessments and decisions - I suspect most are - but I don’t know how to assess that fairness bc there are usually no published standards or information on board members.
I would be much more comfortable if journals published processes and used them consistently across editors over time.
A clear rubric and process would introduce several advantages - including educating community members on how to earn spots on a board, introducing quality standards for reviewing, and making possible equivalent evaluation of the merits of prospective board members.
In short, clear benchmarks and processes would level up access and opportunity to become a board member.
Perhaps, it’s time that academic communities demand such clarity.
It would go a long way towards ensuring more inclusive and equitable editorial boards.
And perhaps, help us build a better academe!
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_editorialboards-diversity-inclusion-activity-6965194870927855616-nkyv?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web