In the research circles, an early career researcher often imagines a Publishing Editor as a stiff, stern looking figure of authority, sitting behind an enormously large desk, spending their day throwing sub-standard manuscripts into a shredder and looking at everything with a vibe of distaste.
The above description is of course far from reality. Publishing editors are normal, happy people who have the formidable task of overseeing that every research article that comes to their desk upholds the highest value of integrity and quality.
Publishing editors are highly aspirational and want the best for their journals. They also want to bring out the best in you. An editor wants content that will help increase relevance, quality, research impact, and journal metrics of the journal.
The Editorial Workflow
Let us first understand and agree that the journal editors are busy people. They might also be active researchers, editing and managing a journal alongside a never-ending list of research tasks.
Therefore, they take very kindly to researcher’s who know how their research will contribute to their journal’s readership and at the same time be relevant, read and cited.
First, let us understand the main job that a publishing editor has. Every editorial workflow of a journal goes through two milestones. These are the editorial screening and the peer-review process.
Every manuscript received by a publishing editor is typically screened in two stages.
The first stage is the preliminary check. At this point, the editor is looking at basic criteria’s such as the article’s suitability for a journal and its adherence to its aim and scope. Your article is most likely to be accepted if:
- it falls within the scope of the journal
- aims to advance research in its field
- has a clearly created cover letter
- encloses a comprehensive abstract
- is of the length asked by the journal
- will be of potential interest to readers
- has a clear and concise style of writing
- adheres to journal’s instructions
They usually make the initial decision based on the significance of the paper and its impact on readership based on the above criteria’s.
If your manuscript relays a scientific message that clearly explains the importance of the study, it is most likely to be accepted and sent ahead for Peer review.
Papers that fail these tests are ‘rejected’ without review. Other papers, as you must have guessed by now, are sent ahead for Peer Review. The editor selects reviewers (usually 2–3 of your peers) and they are sent the paper.
The second stage is the final check, when the paper comes back to the publishing editor from the Peer Reviewer. The reviewers review the paper and provide the editor with comments, suggestions, and a recommendation (reject, revise or accept).
Now is the time for the editor to look at the comments of the Peer Reviewer. They analyse if the comments are valid and forward the same to the author(s) with any additional guidance to revise in the manuscript.
The author then resubmits the paper after addressing the comments raised by reviewers. The Publishing Editor again checks if the revised version addresses the concerns.
In some cases, the author may not accept the comments raised by the Peer Reviewers. In that case, they should submit adequate justification of their reasons for not accepting some of the suggestions made by the reviewers.
If the paper is accepted, it moves into production and is published.
If you follow the requirements outlined in the article, you research should pass through effortlessly.
So, what are editors of academic journals looking for? The quick – and slick – answer, is that it depends on the journal. And any intending author should certainly do their research to make sure not only that the topic fits a journal’s editorial philosophy, but also that they understand its quality variables.
Before you go, do not forget to cheer these very capable bonds of journal and article publishing!