The Editorial Board

Firstly, apologies for the delay in posting. Since my last post, I've had a trans-continental move and adopted a new office assistant. She’s a border collie mix who has strong feelings about footnotes vs. endnotes and the Oxford comma.

But I digress.

A few months ago, we had the spring editorial board meeting for the journal I'm currently managing. I’m usually enthusiastic about these for one reason – there is always cake. But the more I think about it, the more I thought that it might be something worth explaining. What goes on behind those closed doors? What does a board of editors discuss? Do they talk about specific authors? So, as I usually do, I decided to blog about it.

Clearly a group of embryonic professors engaging in their
first official academic reaction to cake at a meeting. 

So what do we do in those meetings?

Here’s a typical agenda:

 A.) Welcome and Apologies

Yes, this is a ubiquitous part of any meeting. But for a national editorial board, it allows us to talk about the research interests of any new members, chat about any new developments with the expansion/contraction of the editorial board, and reacquaint ourselves with each other’s specialities, positions, and research centres. 

B.) Minutes from the last meeting

Another uniform item. Usually the bit where I realise I’ve forgotten to do something. Oops. Also a great way to see what’s developed since the last time we all met for cake. 

C.) Editor’s Report 

Paperwork from the Editor/Editorial Manager about the journal from an editing perspective.

D.) Publisher’s Report

Paperwork from the Publisher about the journal from a publishing and marketing perspective.

E.) Events, Seminars, Conferences, Award, etc. 

Pretty much just anything else project-wise the journal has going 

F.) Any other Business 

More ubiquitous meeting jargon. Though this can get interesting with a group of academics…I’ve seen everything from future meetings to interesting conferences and scholarship ideas to resignations happen in this part of the meeting.

So, basically, paperwork. It seems to be mostly papers.

Actual image of someone preparing for  an editorial board meeting giphy.com

We talk about submission trends and rejection rates. It’s basically a forum for the Main/Executive/Head editor to report to the wider editorial board what’s happening. How is the journal fairing? What does the backlog look like? Where does the journal need to focus its attention? What sort of papers is it receiving? How is the reviewing process going? 

Exactly what answering that random statistic question feels like

This includes looking at statistics of where the authors are from and who they are – is there a significant number of papers coming from a certain country? If so, why? We also try to find problems like a high number of submissions from a country but an extraordinarily high rejection rate for these papers – why are we getting such low quality submissions? What can we do to encourage higher quality papers from this audience? This is one reason why when you submit a paper, you have to provide so much information about your institution and country – the information gets separated from the paper and goes into our reporting. It’s also why you usually have to provide X number of keywords.

Side rant: Don’t get me started on keywords. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL ADMINISTRATORS AND EDITORS EVERYWHERE, follow the instructions on keywords. If it says pick from a list, PICK FROM THE LIST. If it says to type them in, type them in. And use as broad keywords as possible. Why? Well, we use them to match reviewers (the better and more uniform the keyword system, the faster we can find a broader pool of reviewers, which means the faster your paper goes through the system, which means the faster you get a decision and the quicker our turnaround time). We also use keywords to compile listings and reports about what topics are being submitted and what areas are being researched. It’s an important part of the system with which most people just get frustrated. With theEditor, I once trimmed down an inherited system that had thousands of keywords to 125. And then we were able to get the turnaround time down to 21 days. THAT. IS. FAST. (And I might be seriously proud of it).

Seeing your turnaround time work plotted on the publisher's line graph giphy.com

What else do we do at these meetings?

Some smaller, specialist journals rely heavily (or even solely) on their editorial board for reviewing. If that’s the case, then specifics are discussed about papers and whether they should be accepted. If that’s not the case, then the speed and quality of reviews usually comes up. Why? Because one of the single most visible parts of a journal’s reputation is the reviewing experience. [shameless plug alert] Check out this post – and this one! – on what journals face with reviewers. We suggest new reviewers if we have a need for an area, and new board members if we have a significant omission in research interests.

Money. We talk about money too. Not the publisher’s money (that’s another debate for another time), but the trends in royalties, which is a good way to see changes in subscriptions and circulation. Some journals are owned by the publisher, so this is less of a discussion point. Some are owned by societies or institutions, so this forms an important part of the editorial board’s role – allocation of funds to events, awards, scholarships, and other development endeavours. It’s usually a section that varies from paint-dryingly boring to hotly contentious.

Other than the Editor reporting to the editorial board, the meeting serves as a place for the Publisher to report their end of the process. The Production schedules, statistics, queries, and results all come out. We receive a Confidential Publishing Report every meeting with lots of fancy graphs and charts. It lets us know where the journal sits in context to other journals in the field. For example, we might have identified that our submission rates are down, but the Publisher’s Report tells us if it’s a cross-discipline dip or just us. It also compares subscription rates and downloads to our past as well as other journals in their catalogue. This can be really helpful in providing the context behind whether the journal needs to be more proactive in approaching authors or whether the rejection rate is about to jump because we simply don’t have room for all the papers on a given topic. Speaking of rejection rate, we usually breakdown the rejection reasons and have a whole section of statistics that separates papers rejected for non-research based reasons listed here, here, here, and here. It’s hard to evaluate the quality of the papers if we add in ones that get rejected for things like being totally the wrong subject area.

Journals usually also discuss their rankings and impact factor, if relevant to the discipline. These are statistics usually associated with citation rates rather than readership. I’ve always considered them 50% statistics and 50% magic, but they get discussed ad nauseum since every few years, academics and promotion committees seem to be obsessed with journal rankings.

And then we talk about development opportunities – conference attendance, scholarships, awards and prizes, and the like. This can be an interesting brainstorming session for new ideas on how to use these opportunities to develop the journal and reach a broader audience. Would having a graduate/postgraduate conference sponsored by the journal help to reach a new group of early career researchers? Or are we already getting plenty of ECR submissions? What can we do to encourage better papers from ECRs? Could we plan a workshop on the art of reviewing?

And that’s pretty much it. There’s always topics of interest or institutional politics to discuss, but these usually happen over coffee at the end. Some meetings are plain and simply a very boring waste of time. But some are really interesting, and some are highly political and highly contentious. It all depends on what’s going on with the journal, the academics and publishers involved, and the state of affairs in the academic world. But mostly, I go for the cake.

So, when you are invited to be on an editorial board for the first time, it’s safe to say that it probably won’t be exactly as you are expecting. Except for small journals, you rarely discuss individual papers, and it’s more about management. It can really be eye-opening and transform your perspective on academic publishing to see it so bluntly discussed from a management point of view. It can also help with your own submissions to hear a group of editors discussing why they reject papers and what, exactly, they are hoping to find in a submission, especially from ECRs.

Anyway, I hope this helped enlighten the area around editorial boards a bit. If you’re ever asked to join one, make sure you ask exactly what is expected of you because as with everything in journal publishing: each journal is different.

Take care

-theAdmin

Tweet

Further thoughts on Choosing the Right Journal

In my last post, I gave a list of things to consider when choosing a journal. After a few conversations, I've decided to expound on this a bit and add in some more thoughts. So this is just an extension of my previous post, really. It can be accessed here: Choosing the Right Journal.

1) Have a look at the articles that you use in your research – in which journals do they appear? How long ago were they published and is that journal still following the same aims & scope? Journal practices change over time, especially with an editor or publisher change. {“my” journal, for example, has changed drastically due to a change in editor}

 Aims & Scope are really, really important. I've mentioned these several times before in previous posts. They are usually only a paragraph or so long, so take the time to read through them. Editors don't write these for fun, and they can spark quite a heated debate at editorial board meetings. The Aims & Scope of a journal will tell you what the editors want to publish and who makes up their audience. You will normally find out how often the journal is published, whether they accept proposals for special issues, and what their review policy is. 

As well as the published Aims & Scope, you should look at the most recent volumes of the journal to see what sort of articles and papers are being published by the current editorial team. Looking at what was published in the early 2000s is often no longer an indication of what is going on with the editorial direction or even the publishing house. Journals can change publisher, which can change several aspects of the way the journal is administered.

2) Really think about your audience. Who is your target? Theorists, practitioners, researchers, policy makers..? Who reads this journal and why?

I go into a bit more detail here about this. Your best chance of getting published is to target a specific journal. This means ensuring your paper is targeted to the journal's specific readership, or submitting to a journal that targets the audience for whom you are writing. You can normally find this information in the Aims & Scope.

3) Who is the editor? Also take a look through the editorial board – are they relevant and active?

You might be surprised how many people neglect to glance at the editor and the editorial board. How relevant are the journal's advisors to the subject area and your field? Some editors have been editing the same journal for eons. Whilst in some cases, this works out well, in other cases, a journal will lose relevance if it doesn't keep up with trends in the field. So just do a bit of research. All this information should be available on a journal's website and in the print copies. 

My personal bit of advice is to look and see if the editor is research active. This has to do with knowledge transfer as research is quite an intangible thing - how can you recognize valuable research if you don't know what research is and endeavor to keep your research methods and practices relevant? 

4) Ask your supervisors, mentors, and peers for their opinions and advice. Supervisors are especially helpful in this area, as are academic mentors for those past the PhD stage.

Somewhat self-explanatory. Supervisors and mentors are meant to have more experience than you. Use it. Mentors are an extremely important resource for early career researchers. Don't have one currently? Find one. I have several who I've picked up along the way.  Not all of them are in my field, but they are equally knowledgeable and have encouraged (and challenged) me in different ways.

What it's like when you find the right mentor (Despicable Me/giphy.com)

5) Look for calls for papers – this will often be around special issues and special topics, so it’s worth keeping an eye out and signing up for announcement emails from publishers.

Calls for papers go out every now and then, usually through publishers and on journal's websites. Conferences are an equally important resource for finding these. If you think your paper might be relevant for a special issue, then submit it!  It might not get in, but you'll have a good chance of getting some very good and specialized feedback from the reviewers.

6) Is the journal international or just regional? Is this important?

There is a misconception that it's "easier" to get accepted in a regional journal. This is not always true. Both international and regional journals, such as The International Historical Review vs. The Small Country Journal of History, will require going through the same processes. It can be the difference between a general and specialist journal, or it can be a matter of volume.

7) Is it peer-reviewed? How long will this take?

Peer review is always going to be a bit of a hot topic. It varies by discipline what the favoured method is at any given point. It's in your best interest to make sure that a journal does undertake peer review though. Again, this should be mentioned in the Aims & Scope. How long will it take? This also varies depending on the number of submissions and the time of year. I've previously done two posts on peer review here and here. You can always ask the administrative contact, but you should expect a few months at least.

8) Who publishes the journal? 

Publisher's policies and practices vary. So do their software and interfaces. It's always good to know who publishes the journal you're submitting to so that you know what to expect after publication regarding marketing, copyright, and embargoes. Also, it'll be much easier to find the open access policies if you know which publisher.

9) What are the Open Access and repository policies? This is why it's important to know who actually publishes the journal.  How does this affect your options (grant requirements, etc.) ?


Open Access is a minefield. I'm putting together a post on some common questions about Open Access that I hope will be of help. You should be aware of the policies for any journal you are considering, especially if you are funded and your funder requires that you publish in an open access journal. Many journals are currently offering a hybrid policy, which is traditional publishing methods unless you opt for open access and pay the fee. Others are purely open access, and some offer no open access. Don't leave it until your paper is accepted and about to be published to find out that you have to pay for open access that is required. Most publishers have their policies posted on their websites and have contact details for queries. To be blunt, it's usually considered the fault of the author not to ask about access until the very last stage.  I get very, very annoyed when published authors badger me for weeks or months about when they can publish in a repository or when they can publish on their own websites when the policy is clearly articulated.

10) Is the journal ranked? Is this important to you? How does your discipline rank journals?


Each year, there are rankings released for journals. These are done by discipline and show where they sit amongst comparable journals and concern citations. Does this matter to you? Some "top" journals are lower ranked than expected because impact factors are an imperfect measurement. Specialist journals tend to have higher rankings. It's important to find out how your discipline ranks journals and then decide if this is important. 

11) Is it available online and/or print? How important is each of these? Some publishing markets still heavily rely on print journals.


Yes, there are specific markets that still heavily rely on print copies of journals over electronic copies. Most will be electronic these days, but some journals don't have the resources to host an archive. Alternatively, some journals are solely online as they don't have the resources to print and distribute hardcopy. Online publishing is becoming the norm and electronic versions of practically all journals are becoming common. Just be aware of how accessible your article is. It will affect the ways in which you can disseminate your research.

12) Impact Factor – does this make a difference?


Another problematic factor. Importantly, not all disciplines use impact factors, which are released every June and compare citations from the preceding two years against the number of total papers published in a journal. That being said, there are clear pro- and anti- Impact Factor camps out there. If you are in a discipline that uses IF, then you need to research and decide if this is important to you and your career. But keep in mind that IF are just statistical comparisons, which can actually be manipulated by the way journals place highly citable papers. 


I'll post something original next time. Promise.

-theAdmin

Tweet