Return of the Blog
Welcome back to the blog entitled, “How not to suck at graduate school.” This was a monthly blog that has lapsed due to distraction and sloth. Distraction and sloth are still present, but it is time to bring it back with new things to say. I have an ulterior motive for bringing back the blog. I am planning on creating three short books that will consist of collected essays (i.e., blog posts). The three books will be how not to suck at graduate school, how not to suck at being a postdoc, and how not to suck at being in early career researcher. The purpose is to create short and accessible bits of experience and inspiration that provide practical solutions for the real and largely untaught issues in academia. Let’s open the unwritten rules of being an academic just a wee bit. Please feel free to comment or provide new ideas for me at the contact information listed below. Although the blog title remains, this post is more about how not to suck as an Early Career Researcher.
Journal Editorship: How Not to Suck at Graduate School
Steven R. Shaw
McGill University
Twitter: @shawpsych
Courriel: steven.shaw@mcgill.ca
In my 15 years as an academic, I have spent nine of those years as the editor-in-chief of an academic journal. And no, I do not know the difference between an editor-in-chief and a regular editor. I have found this activity to be one of the most rewarding scholarly activities with which I have engaged. Editing a journal is not for everyone. I have been asked more than one time why anyone would want to do such a thing as a colleagues look at me with a combination of horror, admiration, and pity. The purpose of this blog post is to consider whether editorship of a scholarly journal is right for you and your career as an academic. I am also going to throw in a little bit of experience and bits of wisdom that can help if you have chosen to become an editor of a scholarly journal.
Why Be an Editor?
Most scholars with even a minimal publication track record have been asked to serve on editorial boards of scholarly journals. And quite a few scholars have served as associate editors as well. But why would anyone want the headaches and time-demanding activities required of being the editor-in-chief? I am sure everyone who has thought about being an editor or has been an editor has a different answer. My answer has several parts. It is easy to complain about lack of representation, homogeneous and derivative ideas in science, the proliferation of questionable research practices, manuscript reviews that are more destructive than constructive, questionable ethics of the publication process, and a culture where new voices and ideas are ignored or dismissed. Being an editor provides the power and opportunity to address all these issues. And with that power and opportunity also comes accountability, which is likely why so many people avoid the role. Being an editor is also the opportunity to shape the culture and direction of a small segment of the profession or research domain. Along with being a referee in the grant funding process and training the next generation of scholars, being an editor of a scholarly journal is the greatest opportunity that an academic has to shape the present and future of how knowledge is prioritized, reported, and disseminated. Complaining, whingeing, and heckling of academic journals is something of a cottage industry for academics. Responsible professionals and leaders will jump into the arena and work for constructive evolution.
Vision, Mission, and Purpose
I have never been a fan of taking on any role as a caretaker. I do not need the title. If your career is all about ticking boxes or producing widgets, then you are no longer a professional—just a cog. Have a vision and purpose or do not become an editor. This could be an explicit statement or a simply personal goal. Having a vision, mission, and purpose also drives decisions. I tend to go back to basic principles and ask if this difficult decision is consistent with my higher order values for the journal. As always and for nearly all tasks: what are you really trying to accomplish here?
Curation
I remain a little bit surprised that so many scholars do not really understand how editorial decisions are made. I have had many authors tell me that because there are no major sampling, analysis, or interpretation errors in the paper that it deserves acceptance. It is not uncommon to have papers that received positive reviews from reviewers and yet the editor will reject the paper. This is not common, but it is perfectly understandable. Although the reviewers lend their expertise to the evaluation process, they are usually focused on details of scholarship, design, analysis, and interpretation. The editor understands the big picture of journal content and has an important responsibility to curate a collection of articles that supports the vision, mission, and purpose of the journal. Editors curate as much as evaluate. Typically, high-quality studies and review papers are exactly what editors want and I would guess about a 97% overlap between quality of manuscript and the types of papers that editors value. But a major role of the editor is to determine what type of voices that the journal is to have, what the journal contributes to the field in general, and to create an environment in which quality manuscripts are most likely to be submitted and accepted.
The rejection rate for unsolicited manuscripts for the journal I currently edit is approximately 81%. Most of the rejected papers have significant flaws in logic, scholarship, research design, interpretation, and clarity of expression. However, some are rejected because they are unimportant. Yes, that is harsh. But the best quality research design that does not contribute to knowledge, theory, or clinical practice is not worth publishing. Note that replications and null results are often critical and important contributions. As an editor, the number one case that needs to be made in any manuscript is why would anyone care about this article or study.
Nuts and Bolts
Some of the job is clerical. And tedious. And time consuming. Being efficient and having support from others is important. I enjoy criticisms of journal publishers that their primary purpose is to put an article into PDF form. Although I understand the arguments concerning overhead and profit margin of major publishing corporations, I have found that publishers make the job of an editor much easier (or not in some cases). Some things that publishers do include establishing and contracting with a manuscript management system and portal, screening articles for general format, managing a significant amount of author and reviewer correspondence, copy editing, art quality, formatting and layout, management of the website, copyright and permissions, and having full authority for legal issues. I am not excusing the ridiculous profit margins, but publishers engage in a lot of activities without which editorship would be extraordinarily difficult and far more time-consuming. There are other factors in ensuring that the journal runs smoothly.
Good AEs. Naming good associate editors may be the most important issue that editors have full control over. The AEs need to share the values, purpose, and vision of the editor. There needs to be significant trust so that AEs can easily make decisions without being micromanaged. There also needs to be a strong relationship so that the editor can simply bounce ideas off an AE with short notice. Nearly every time I have a difficult decision to make that may appear to be unilateral, I have actually asked the AEs to weigh in to ensure that I am being fair, ethical, and consistent with the vision and purpose of the journal.
Desk reject often. Every journal is different in terms of the number of papers submitted and overall acceptance rates. My view is that editors should read and review as many articles as possible and desk reject papers liberally. The advantages of the desk rejections are several fold: they allow a quick decision for a paper with no chance of being accepted so that the author can move on to a different outlet, removes demands and stresses from the editorial review board or ad hoc reviewers, this is the phase that allows for the most efficient curation of the types of papers that the editor wants to have published, and (cynically) is a mechanism with which to reduce the median time between submission and decision. I also encourage and support AEs to desk reject papers that I have passed on to them, but they do not think work for the journal.
Set a tone. The tone of reviews is an important part of the journal. Rapid turnaround and helpful reviews do more for the reputation of a journal than impact factor or other metrics. I quickly scan all reviews looking for unhelpful, snide, mean-spirited, insensitive, or other language in a review or decision letter that would not reflect favorably on the journal. This takes a lot of time. Should I find a word or sentence or tone that is not productive, I edit that segment of the review. In addition, I will write to the reviewer to identify the problem. Typically, if the problem occurs more than one time then I will no longer use that reviewer or will remove them from the editorial review board. As mentioned earlier, everyone wants reviews, including even reviews leading to negative outcomes, to be helpful and productive. But exactly how that happens and how the editor is accountable for these values is a challenge for each editor.
Tricks and Tips
There are a lot of little tricks and tips that editors can use to support the journal and achieve their vision, mission, and purpose. I understand that some of these tricks and tips are cynical and playing into a game that may not be productive in the long run. However, all of these are consistent with the vision and purpose that I bring to the journal.
Editorials. It is helpful for the editor or associate editor to write a brief statement on the state of the journal, typically in the first issue of each volume. This can help readers and potential contributors understand the values and vision that will be emphasized. It is also a mechanism by which you can review the last year or two of publications to point out the highlights of the journal. In a fairly sneaky shift, by pointing out those publications the editorial often sites articles published in the journal and therefore increase the impact factor. Also, this is a mechanism by which you support your authors by increasing their citation rates.
Press releases. I have recently begun asking authors of manuscripts that have general interest to write a brief press release. I have a form that authors complete. Then I send it to newspapers, blogs, other news sources, radio stations, and other media outlets. I tend to focus on outlets near where the authors reside. However, some papers deserve national attention and may go to larger and more diverse networks. In this fashion, a press release allows the authors to communicate their findings in their own words and choose whether to promote the article through popular media or professional newsletters and websites.
Scan preprints. With the growth of preprints, I found it to be a good idea to do quick scans and searches of preprint articles related to the topic of the journal. Should I find an interesting paper that is a good fit with the journal, I will write and ask the author to submit their paper. Many authors who use preprints are simultaneously submitting to another journal. However, some are not and are looking for a good outlet for their article. Preprint servers are excellent spaces to find wonderful papers and a chance to curate and shape the journal in the editor’s vision and mission.
Special issues. Special theme issues are mechanisms for lazy editors. It is so nice to have an entire issue guest edited so that the editor can work on other activities. Special issues often receive more citations than do single papers. There needs to be care in selecting a guest editor because this person is required to be reliable and share the values of the journal. A guest editor is much like an associate editor in that their values reflect heavily on the journal. Sometimes as editor I have invited papers and created my own theme issue. This is a good way to curate the values of the journal, but do not save that much time or energy.
Review articles. Review articles and meta-analyses can often be difficult to evaluate and eat up a lot of pages. Few people know that most journals have a maximum number of pages they can publish and long papers, such as reviews, take up a lot of space. As an aside, page limits are often a reason why publishing qualitative articles is difficult for some journals. Luckily, many journals have a space on their website for supplemental materials such as transcripts, interviews, and details of search strategies that may not fit into a regular article. Review articles and meta-analyses are cited far more than the original research and can increase the impact factor significantly.
Solicitations. Soliciting articles is a big part of being an editor. Sometimes it is helpful to have big names in the field submit papers. I frequently invite people I know to submit papers. When I learn about a large and relevant grant or an ongoing project, I am often the first person to contact the scholar and ask if I can be the recipient of their firstborn research baby. Solicitations are also direct action that editors can take to increase diversity of voices and ideas, create outlets for underrepresented groups, provide opportunities for ECRs to publish in scholarly outlets.
Social media. Social media is extremely valuable. Twitter, Facebook, podcasts, YouTube, and other sites are excellent ways to increase readership and citations for the articles. Use the new tools available.
Make it better. The main purpose of the review process is to help others make their work better. Even if the paper is not suitable for publication, the decision letters and reviews should make future work better. I typically try to suggest a few points even in a desk reject. A little thing I try to do is suggest citations from preprints, early career researchers, international scholars, and research by scholars from underrepresented groups. Likewise, I ask the authors to dial back a few too many self-citations.
Impact factor and other metrics. Yeah, these are things. They are not everything. Interpret in context.
Secrets
· No big deal if you cannot review a manuscript. Editors are used to it. It is nice if you decline quickly. Nicer if you recommend alternatives.
· It is completely fine with me if you want me to reconsider an editorial decision. Often, I will ask an AE to look just to make sure I am not being biased or missed important points. But at some point, it is best to let it go. There are thousands of journals. Move on if the journal just isn’t that into your paper. Don’t make it weird.
· If reviews or decisions are late, I don’t mind reminders.
· I usually do not look at the names of the authors on unsolicited submissions. I only notice when I try to send the manuscript to a potential reviewer for their expertise, but that potential reviewer is the author. The work is what counts, not the author. Students, ECRs, and big-time researchers have about equal probability of acceptance.
· Some big-name researchers are shockingly terrible writers.
· Advanced grad students, post-docs, and early career researchers typically provide higher quality and more useful reviews than big-name scholars.
· I often ask reviewers for more details if their points are not completely clear or productive.
· I spend a lot of time on methods and analysis. Tables and complex modeling are so easy to mess up. I admit to being skeptical when I get the impression that the author is attempting to cover up flaws with blizzards of numbers and statistical esoterica (aka bullstats).
· Different cultures and scientific traditions have different ideas about what constitutes plagiarism. There is rarely an intent to be unethical. Usually these are teaching moments.
· The elements of a publishable paper are conceptually easy: tell a story with a beginning, middle, and end; make the story a contribution that is important; justify your findings; be clear; have a logic; and did I mention that you need to be clear.
· A favorite complaint from authors is about formatting. I’m sorry you are too busy to format your paper. Proper formatting is a professional signifier. And I prefer working with professionals. You can submit the paper in crayon if you wish. I doubt it will get a completely fair. The reviewers are also too busy to review a sloppy paper. Be a pro.
· I have a personal issue with right justification. Reading quickly is extremely difficult with unequal spacing between words.
Conclusions
If you know what you want to accomplish as an editor, then do it. It’s a cool gig that can be fun and rewarding. There is little better than helping a good idea move from a rough presentation to an important contribution to scholarship. And it is a real chance to make a positive change in the small and often disagreeable and grubby corner of academia and science.