Serving as a Handling Editor? Thirteen Simple Messages for Early-Career Editors

Academic research and publications are now a necessity for career advancement in medicine.

Everyone wants to publish, though the underlying motivations may differ. This situation has spawned explosive growth in the volume of published scientific material, from less than a million papers in 1980 to over 7 million in 2014. ¹ The number of scientific journals and publishing houses also has increased exponentially to address the demand-supply gap. One positive offshoot of this development is that there are more opportunities now for early career researchers to serve on journal editorial boards.

The benefits of being an early career editor (ECE) are many and far-reaching. It provides a “vantage point” to oversee the research trends in the field and ideas for one’s own scholarly work. As it helps establish a reputation in academic circles and form networks, it will attract opportunities for collaborative research and further career advancement. It provides an “insider” view on the day-to-day functioning of a scientific journal, helping improve one’s publishing soft skills.

The icing on the cake is that all this is in addition to the professional satisfaction of “learning by doing” and the opportunity to be a part of the success of a scholarly journal.

Notwithstanding the above advantages, journal editing can be arduous, intimidating, and sometimes frustrating. In this article, I reflect on my journey as handling editor (HE) for nearly six years in the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM) and four years in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry (IJP), responsibilities that I accepted when I was still in the early phase of my career trajectory. HE is a person to whom the editor-in-chief (EIC) assigns a manuscript and who is responsible for its end-to-end handling, beginning with editorial screening to determine the suitability for publication, stewarding the peer review and revision stages till a satisfactory outcome is achieved, and providing a final recommendation to the EIC. This editorial, which I was summoned to write for this last issue of my tenure, summarizes the key lessons I learnt as an HE at IJPM and IJP and is intended to sensitize aspiring ECEs, especially HEs. None of these is meant to be diktats or recommendations but only suggestions that any aspiring HE would do well to keep in mind. The primary target of this article is the aspiring or incumbent ECE who would work as HE; however, editors with varying levels of experience may find useful suggestions here.

1. Accept the Role Only If   You Have the Time

The job of an HE can be time-consuming because it involves several steps, as described before. This may mean more than an hour of work on a single submission, and for a high-traffic journal, this may mean sacrificing several hours of personal and family time, if not your own research time. And all this is essentially a pro bono service for others: you are helping to improve others’ submissions, not your own. Hence, when you receive an invitation for editing, you must make your own decisions based on your career stage and curriculum vitae needs.

2. Inform the EIC of Your Areas of Interest

Usually, it is the EIC’s discretion to assign articles to an HE. The assignment is usually based on the HE’s areas of interest and current workload. It is not necessary to have an in-depth understanding of the topic because peer reviewers are there to assess the technical details. Nonetheless, if the topic is too far from your area of expertise, decline to handle it. Clear and ongoing communication with the EIC about your preferences and areas of expertise would help.

3. Maintain Anonymity

Often, you will have to take difficult decisions on submissions from senior academics. Maintaining anonymity will allow HEs to function honestly without fear of compromising future working relationships, losing collaborations and opportunities, repercussions on departmental promotions, or being hassled, outside journal channels, for clarifications on negative decisions. Many journals permit all communications with the author through a single, named administrative editor (usually the EIC), who serves as a conduit for communicating the HE’s decisions. Ask for this option and use it; it allows you to function with better mental clarity. If you are bothered by not receiving credit for work, you can request the journal to stop anonymizing in case of a positive decision; then all acceptance emails will be sent with the HE’s name and not the EIC’s.

4. Set Your Timelines for Work

Timely decisions on submissions are important for the journal’s reputation and for attracting good submissions. Setting flexible timelines for journal editing and balancing other commitments is important. To clear the dashboard, a reasonable and more efficient schedule would be twice weekly than daily logins. This is because you build momentum across a work session, and a twice-weekly schedule allows you to leverage that momentum to be more efficient. A lesser frequency of logins may leave you with too much to do during a work session, risking hurried, erroneous decisions; this is particularly true for high-traffic journals.

5. Be Fair and Objective in Judgment and Decisions

A seasoned, distinguished researcher may submit a poor paper; conversely, it is also possible that an amateur author submits a very good paper. Hence, do not get swayed by the names of authors or institutions but give a fair trial to everybody. Nobody writes a bad paper intentionally, and your work’s underlying theme is to respect everyone.

6. Recognize and Declare Conflicts of Interest

Before deciding to handle an assigned manuscript, assess any conflicts of interest. Do you work closely with the authors as part of collaboration or mentoring? Are you working on a similar paper? Have you handled this manuscript in another journal? Nobody is 100% neutral, but all these situations make it difficult to retain neutrality and objectivity. When in doubt, it is better to err on the side of disclosure and recuse oneself from handling such submissions.

7. Be Smart and Respectful in Communicating Desk-Rejections

A standard desk-rejection template message will always be available. However, it is encouraged to add specific reasons for rejecting the paper whenever possible; it reassures the author that the HE has read the paper. However, if the rejection reasons are not strong enough, the authors may write back requesting resubmission after necessary modification. Hence, if there are strong reasons, mention them in the rejection letter. Else, generic reasons such as lack of journal space may be mentioned. A guiding principle here is to respect the authors and provide feedback on the manuscript without criticizing them.

8. Peer Review is the Biggest Time Sink

The selection and management of peer reviews is the biggest time guzzler for an HE who relies heavily on peer reviewers’ recommendations to decide on submissions. However, peer reviewing is an expert’s job, and experts are busy. Given the relatively unrewarding nature of peer reviews, regardless of the journal’s reputation, every HE will face situations when the reviews are not submitted promptly. During such times, do not hesitate to contact reviewers personally; it usually works. Interested readers are referred to an earlier paper that outlined several suggestions for getting peer reviewers invested in this voluntary activity and improving the quality of submitted reviews. ²

9. Act Not as a Postman but as a Journal Editor

It may be tempting to cut corners; an HE can pass on the peer reviewer’s comments to the authors, and the author’s responses back to the reviewer, without reading any of it. Or take revise/reject decisions based on the reviewer’s final recommendation rather than spending time reading through their comments and evaluating the merit of the recommendations. To understand why an HE should not function like a postman, consider the scenario where a manuscript has received mixed reviews (with two reviewers recommending rejection and another, minor revision, for example) and you send a negative decision based on the “simple majority” principle. After reading the reviewers’ comments in the decision mail, the authors write back saying they can address all comments satisfactorily if given a chance. If no fatal flaw(s) has/have been pointed out by the reviewers, then the negative decision will reflect badly on the journal. This situation could have been avoided by a nuanced reading of the reviewers’ comments and applying one’s judgment. The bottom line is that a journal’s reputation depends on its efficiency and quality of decisions, and HEs are an integral cog in the wheel of a journal. On a related note, not every paper needs to be sent for a re-review after revision as it may delay the process and consume valuable reviewer time. I suggest deciding on a revision yourself or discussing it with senior editors unless the topic is too far from your area of expertise.

10. Communicate Regularly with EIC or Mentoring Editors

Clear, regular communication with the EIC or designated senior editors is helpful for troubleshooting queries that may arise at any stage of an article’s editorial life cycle. A few common queries pertain to reviewer selection, feedback on review reports, and adjudicating on mixed reviews. When in doubt, HEs should discuss their decisions with the EIC. Concerns about a reviewer or author or suggestions for improvement of the journal can also be shared; most EICs would welcome such suggestions.

11. Do Not Communicate With Authors Outside of Journal Channels

Often, HEs may face odd requests or unfavourable reactions from authors who may escalate their ‘grievances’ to the EIC. In such cases, having a single digital trail of all communications between the editorial team and authors will be helpful to the EIC for verification of facts. For this to work, all manuscript-related communications must be made through the journal system. Adhering to this rule consistently is also important to maintain the neutrality of the review process, which is central to the journal’s reputation. Many of our colleagues may think their paper deserves priority treatment and want it jumped above others in the queue; politely defer all such requests to the EIC, who will consider such requests based on their merit and extant editorial policies.

12. Be Accountable for Every Decision

With great power comes great responsibility. HE must be able to explain every decision made on a manuscript, sometimes even after a time lag. Remember that authors have the right to appeal against any decision made on their submission at any stage. When the EIC receives such an appeal, they will ask the HE for an opinion. Not being able to justify the decision will adversely impact the journal’s reputation, apart from the loss of face and credibility for the HE. Readers will now understand why it is advisable to avoid doing journal editing work when feeling exhausted. For those who feel intimidated by this requirement, remember that you don’t have to feel constrained to take difficult decisions alone, as explained in point 10. Queries on manuscript decisions can be raised not only by the authors but also independently by the concerned peer reviewers or the EIC, who may track your work periodically; an HE is answerable to all stakeholders.

13. Enjoy Your Work

Being a journal editor, in general, is an enviable position to be in and brings considerable appreciation and respect for your work. HE is in a privileged position to influence science, and only a few will get the opportunity to be one. Do not consider it a burden; instead, enjoy your work; the work is the reward.

After reading the above, you may wonder why anyone in their right senses would want to be an editor. As I hinted above, it is the most intellectually vibrant and exciting job in academia. It makes you think, learn, and improve your own research.

On a parting note, just like any other skill in life, the more you do it, the better you get at journal editing. For aspiring editors, the message is that you may make mistakes initially, but you will get the hang of them and become more efficient with time. The most gratifying part of journal editing has been witnessing the generosity of peer reviewers and other editorial team members with their time and expertise. Of course, being in a good team helps, and I sincerely thank them for it.