Abstract
The job of the journal editor, or editor-in-chief depending on the nomenclature favored by the publication, is to serve as the highest authority to guide the delivered product. Similar to the function of research ethics boards, the position should be authorized and supported by the highest level of the parent organization and then allowed to operate without political pressure. Journals must deliver credible and meaningful content to sustain an intelligent readership, and they should not be burdened by political or financial metrics that can compromise scientific integrity.
Journal content will vary widely from issue to issue, reflecting the freeform nature of scholarship. Science tends to progress in fits and starts, with individuals working on a dizzying array of topics and delivering a wide range of quality, applicability, and construct. Some manuscripts may be expected to draw a good audience, but many defy expectations. It is difficult to know which will capture interest now, in the future as community focus evolves, or not at all. Topic diversity can be useful in stimulating critical thought and new research directions.
Some journals promote specific content through invited pieces, but many will rely on unsolicited submissions. The best approach in any case is to assess each submission objectively. There should be no preconception of outcome prior to evaluation. Some pieces may be rejected after a “first look” if essential criteria are not met. Issues may involve subject matter and/or construct elements. Construct standards will typically evolve with the publication record. New journals will often have to be more flexible, but as the perceived value and submission quality increase, the tolerance for construct errors and perceived ill fit will usually decrease.
Editors set the bar for submission standards, and monitor and revise them to balance the trajectory of the journal with community expectations and tolerance. Attention to detail in meeting submission guidelines should not be the most challenging part of manuscript preparation, but it can be a substantial barrier for some authors. Egregious violations might prompt immediate disqualification from peer review, but there should be some flexibility for manuscripts worthy of nurturing. Editors have to be mindful of the time reviewers will spend, and the frustrations they may feel in working with poorly crafted manuscripts, so decisions on what should or should not go out for review deserves careful consideration.
Editors must also strike a balance between encouraging and discouraging authors. Summary dismissal is appropriate for truly inappropriate submissions, but if there is hope for the current offering or future efforts, authors need to know what to expect and where their efforts are going wrong. Time must be protected when the submission tempo is high, but thoughtful insights can have positive effects on career development.
Reviewers need to feel respected if they are to support a journal. Some will accept invitations to review only for manuscripts closely aligned with their expertise. Others will be more flexible, accepting invitations and applying their best efforts on a wider array of submissions. Reviewers should be able to focus on the scientific content as much as possible, and their recommendations heard even if not accepted. Editors should not be obligated to agree with the recommendations of any reviewer, but resentment can be minimized and consistency of vision enhanced if the reasons for disagreement are made clear. The minimum standard in this should be sharing all reviews and editorial comments with all reviewers. Clear language justifications for editorial decisions can help both authors and reviewers.
Editors also need to be prepared for reviewers who make statements viewed as wholly inappropriate. These may result from not understanding journal standards, misreading manuscripts, or simple errors. Leaving conflicting comments in place can frustrate and confuse authors. Editors can add explanatory remarks to counter inappropriate comments, but this might make reviewers feel targeted. The alternative is for editors to edit or remove inappropriate content in the comments to author fields. If this is done, editors should document all changes in separate notes to reviewers to avoid concerns of inappropriate manipulation. The best approach is to provide the exact text changes with a written justification for the action. Reviewers may be unhappy if they feel their point remained valid, but they are less likely to feel disrespected. In some cases, they may even be appreciative if the revision eliminates something that could adversely affect their credibility.
The variety of submissions to a journal can lead to the need for many hundreds of reviewers. A major task for editors is to ensure recruitment of reviewers with both solid subject matter expertise and a willingness to deliver high-quality review efforts, typically on a reasonably demanding schedule with no direct compensation. Building a network of strong reviewers and releasing weak reviewers is important for the long-term success of a journal.
Editors need to look for the most effective reviewers to advance through engagement. Invitations to join editorial boards should go to the most promising. This stepping stone can lead to invitations to take on section editor or even associate editor roles. It is very possible that those who begin as authors or reviewers can end up having career-long commitments to journals they value.
The need for specific section editors will usually evolve as journals develop. Posts may be created to draw attention to new areas of interest, but they will often be established simply to reflect submission patterns. Recruiting the best subject matter expert section or associate editors will expand an editor’s ability to identify and recruit the best reviewers, and can increase the interest of subject matter authors.
Section or associate editors should review manuscripts and look for material gaps in the work of reviewers. They can add comments to the authors, secure additional reviews, and make disposition recommendations. Editors should look for and address material gaps in the work of all others before rendering their decisions.
Identifying as many issues as possible in the first review cycle will help authors deliver revisions more likely to advance quickly. It must be clear to all, though, that invitation for revision does not guarantee acceptance of a manuscript. Anyone involved in the review process can uncover flaws at any point that provide cause to remove a manuscript from consideration. The editor is responsible for ensuring that the evaluation in every cycle is sufficient to render the appropriate decision.
Ongoing debates consider whether single-blinding, double-blinding, or no-blinding is the best approach for fair reviews. It is possible that knowing author names can produce bias for or against a manuscript, or that being identified as a reviewer may hinder honest evaluation, but there is no simple solution. True blinding is often difficult to achieve in specialized fields, and speculation can be as disruptive as knowledge. In reality, author names should not matter in objective evaluations. Each submission should be evaluated on its intrinsic strengths and weaknesses. The best authors can write great papers, but they can also have their names attached to poor ones. Similarly, unknown authors can produce manuscripts of any level of quality. Editors must be secure enough in their professional and personal positions to be unfettered in making honest evaluations and rendering any appropriate decision.
Editors, like any good manager, should take a little less than the credit deserved for good work, and a little more of the blame deserved for missteps. They need to be diligent to keep the balance on the positive side. It is a practical reality that standard peer review does not include evaluation of the original data used by authors. Reviewers may have different levels of trust in the skill, diligence, and integrity of authors, but editors should always be a bit more skeptical regarding the work of both authors and reviewers. The best outcome is to avoid errors, but they must also be managed directly if they do occur. Honest errors of material consequence can simply be handled through errata, with the corrections published quickly with no assignment of blame. Discovery of fraudulent practice is much more serious, but quick action with clear explanations is the best course. Authors may be invited to voluntarily retract offending works, but editors should move forward with dispatch in any event. The negative impact on the journal and leadership is likely to be lessened by timely and open action.
Letters to the editor are an important avenue through which the community can flag emerging issues or perceived problems in recent publications. Editors should embrace letters without defensiveness. The bar for acceptance of letters should be meaningful, but generally lower than for primary submissions to protect the voice of letter writers. The authors of any work being questioned should be invited to respond in written form, but letters can proceed even if they do not contribute. Ultimately, editors should view engagement in letters as a positive factor.
Editors working for credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals should not prioritize publishing content, but prioritize publishing sound content. Editors do not have to be interested in or even agree with everything published in the journals they shepherd, but they must ensure that every piece meets all reasonable standards for publication as valid and appropriate content. There should be no concern over the direction of findings for valid and meaningful research.
Editors should not expect to win popularity contests. They enforce standards for authors and reviewers, and they provide candid feedback and decisions that will sometimes sting. Their methods may not always be appreciated and their decisions will not always be welcomed. They should be open to compromise when warranted since peer review is a negotiation, but they are also expected to stand by sound decisions. Errors will be made in the review process, but a solid foundation of well thought out process, objective evaluation, and documentation can ensure a robust system. Sustained efforts can help journals grow in a positive direction. Editors have to navigate confidently but also cautiously. Increasing the rigor of a journal requires some shared pain, and editors have to apply enough pressure for progress to occur, but not so much as to promote insurrection. Evolution is slow, but strong leadership and collective effort can make it happen.
Wilderness & Environmental Medicine has advanced in recent years, seeing substantial increases in submission numbers and impact factor, and good numbers in handling time. The manuscripts least likely to advance are identified as rapidly as possible to allow more time for those with greater promise. The demands put on authors is substantial, with a goal of helping to ensure the best product possible reaching the readership and as an investment to build skills in the community. Continued success relies on the skilled and committed effort of many researchers, authors, reviewers, and editors. Seminars have been delivered regularly at Wilderness Medical Society meetings to help authors and reviewers to refine their skills. The reviewer-in-training program was developed to enhance the pipeline of reviewers, with the expectation that it would also help to build writing skills. Reviewer scores are used to issue reviewer awards and to identify candidates for editorial board membership. Strengthening research and science communication skills can pay dividends in many ways.
Supporting the efforts of a credible, medical society-based, peer-reviewed journal ensures a high-quality literature record, provides a training ground for interested professionals, and serves as an anchor for many shared passions. Please stand and be counted.