An editor or reviewer can have an outsize impression on the profession of a scholar, notably within the early levels. The stakes will be excessive for an creator. A unfavorable evaluate or edit can set again a analysis plan by months and hurt a scholar’s probabilities for tenure or promotion. This actuality creates an influence imbalance between an editor or reviewer and an creator that may be abused.
Graduate faculties supply few tips on how you can navigate editor and reviewer relationships. Our purpose on this essay is to debunk the method and supply ideas and observations for editors/reviewers and authors on how you can method the duty in a extra considerate and environment friendly approach.
Understanding the Reviewer and Editor Roles
First, you will need to word that whereas reviewers and editors participate in an analogous course of—assessing the work of an creator—the duties are totally different. The editor isn’t an knowledgeable within the particular topic of an article and essentially must depend on neutral reviewers to position the work in context. However, the editor—and, at occasions, an editorial board—is the decision-maker on this equation. Having a transparent and clear line of communication between the creator and the editor is important.
The duty of the reviewer is to position the work in its scholarly context and to weigh its advantage. Is the work breaking new floor? Is it difficult a long-held interpretation throughout the academy? Are the sources up to date and probably the most related? Does the work match the topic space of the journal or press? Can or not it’s revised to make it appropriate for publication?
It’s our sturdy perception that reviewers want to satisfy the authors the place they’re—that’s, to grasp the purpose of the creator, decide whether or not the work is appropriate for the journal or press in query and, if that’s the case, assist them attain the promised land of publication. Merely put: The reviewer ought to weigh the creator’s case in opposition to the creator’s intent.
Sadly, this doesn’t at all times occur: It’s generally the case that reviewers stray from this path and insert ideas that they want to see addressed however that aren’t central to the submitted work. The dreaded “reviewer quantity 2” has develop into the bane of many an creator’s existence. On this kind of evaluate, the reviewer raises so many questions and objections that an creator is left to ponder whether or not the 2 are studying the identical textual content. And, it should be mentioned, simply as on social media, anonymity can at occasions result in incivility. As a substitute of being useful, generally a reviewer is unkind and merciless.
The position of the editor is to referee between the objectives of the creator and the wishes of the reviewer. Egos and politics typically come into play on this course of as a result of reviewers in lots of instances are colleagues of the editor and contributors to the publication in query. Our expertise suggests there are two main sorts of editors. Authors might want to regulate their method based mostly on which of those two sorts finest describes their editor:
- Sympathetic editor: That is the perfect. This editor will work with an creator to publish a submission if the analysis is robust and can permit them to maintain their very own voice. They don’t search to impose their imaginative and prescient on the e-book or article. They don’t permit their private politics to affect the decision-making course of. They’re pushed by one central query: Does the creator accomplish what they got down to do? This kind of editor tries to find out whether or not a reviewer is appearing out of hubris by suggesting tangential and substantial adjustments or whether or not they’re addressing core points. On the alternative finish of the spectrum, they’re alert to the two-paragraph, lackadaisical reviewer who learn the work over lunch whereas answering emails.
- Visionary editor: It could sound counterintuitive, however an editor with their very own imaginative and prescient for another person’s work can imply frustration and finally rejection for an creator. This kind of editor sees another person’s work as a possibility to discover a facet of a subject that pursuits them. They impose their very own imaginative and prescient on another person’s work quite than figuring out whether or not the creator has achieved the purpose they set for themselves. This sometimes takes the type of a prolonged response asking an creator to basically rethink their piece. The response comprises so many critiques that to stick to the ideas would quantity to writing a very totally different piece of scholarship. This editor additionally tends to increase and even impede the method virtually endlessly.
For example, upon the loss of life of Fidel Castro in November 2016, the Latin American historian of this writing duo (Argote-Freyre) was requested by a journal editorial board member to creator an article evaluating the profession of Castro with that of the prior dictator of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista. The ensuing piece concluded that the 2 political figures shared extra similarities than variations. The editor, though agreeing to the idea, was sad with the conclusions reached by the essay. The editor struck out paragraph after paragraph; a lecture on tone and thesis ensued.
The editor advised a chunk analyzing the revisionist historiography on Batista—a topic exterior the contours of the unique task and one that may take many months to finish. The creator made a rookie mistake in assuming {that a} member of the editorial board was vested with the authority to make assignments. Looking back, it appears as if the task was foisted upon the working editor, who then needed to steer the piece in a very totally different route. The creator withdrew the piece; the one constructive was that just a few months had been misplaced within the course of.
The visionary editor is the kind who isn’t glad. They neglect that the piece is the creator’s, not theirs. Sure, the editor is a gatekeeper for the journal or press, but when it isn’t an excellent match, they need to say so and transfer on. This choosy editor sends a revision again to a brand new third (or fourth) reviewer, who’s prone to ask for one more, totally different spherical of revisions. That is nothing apart from shifting the goalposts. Certainly one of us had this happen with an editor who mentioned, “As you recognize, we frequently ship articles to a number of rounds of reviewers.” Nicely, we didn’t know, as a result of the journal’s web site didn’t say that. Such a course of might go on without end and, to our eyes, is senseless. The editor ought to determine on his or her personal whether or not the creator has revised sufficiently: It’s clear from the reader studies what wanted to be completed, so simply verify and see. The editor must be decisive.
On the level a piece is about to be despatched to an extra set of reviewers, an creator must withdraw the article or e-book from consideration. Run as quick as you’ll be able to searching for one other editor and publication. Don’t let somebody waste your time, particularly in case your clock is ticking for tenure and promotion.
The way to Make Relationships Work— and When to Stroll Away
The author-editor relationship ought to be a dance, not a duel. An creator will not be on the mercy of the method; you’re a companion. If you’re not clicking with the editor, stroll away. A foul first date hardly ever turns into an excellent second date. That is notably true when engaged on a e-book venture, given the numerous steps and lengthy timeline concerned.
For a revise-and-resubmit, we advise strongly that you simply be professionally assertive. Ask concerning the evaluate of the resubmission earlier than you do it. If the editor says it would go to new readers, withdraw the piece. This by no means goes properly. Editors ought to be clear concerning the steps concerned. It’s our expertise that some editors are hesitant to reveal their course of. If that’s the case, the creator must reassess the integrity of that course of.
Being totally clear permits you to ask for transparency in return, whether or not you might be an editor or an creator. If, as we’ve skilled, two peer critiques are available which might be fairly opposed, the editor ought to get a 3rd earlier than returning to the creator. If there are two or three critiques, the editor ought to synthesize them with a memo hooked up to the studies. The abstract ought to go one thing like: “All reviewers agree chapter 4 must be revised with this materials, however there may be disagreement about chapter six.” There may be additionally nothing flawed with asking the creator to make the powerful name on a contested level of interpretation. As soon as once more, it’s the creator’s scholarship, not the editor’s, the journal’s or the press’s.
For authors: Have a dialog with the editor. If it’s a name, observe up with a written abstract. When responding to reader studies, particularly after they disagree, say what you’ll and won’t do. Don’t say you’ll revise whenever you disagree—however don’t be cussed. Give just a little to get what you received’t compromise. If you happen to disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion, say why, and ask the editor for approval to not make a particular change advised in one of many reader studies. Get that approval. If the editor says the revision will return to 1 or each unique readers as an alternative of creating the ultimate name himself, politely insist that the written alternate between the creator and editor be despatched alongside, too.
It could not at all times work. Not too long ago, one in every of us did simply what we described and the editor mentioned the plan sounded good, solely to have the journal reject the revision. The editorial board mentioned a particular change was not made although the editor agreed that change wouldn’t be essential. Poor communication and coordination between an editor and an editorial board mustn’t penalize an creator.
Lastly, we’d prefer to briefly weigh in on the argument that professors ought to reject peer reviewing as a result of it’s an unpaid process. If you don’t want to do it, don’t—however there are compelling causes to jot down accountable peer critiques. First, unpaid labor will not be with out advantage. Even when your tenure and promotion committees may not worth the duty, that doesn’t imply it isn’t worthwhile. You’re not paid to volunteer at your native meals pantry, however you continue to do it. Second, individuals do that for you; it’s time to be beneficiant in return. Third, reviewing supplies insights into the method in your personal work. Peer reviewing retains you present on developments within the subject. Modifying and peer reviewing make you a greater author and produce higher scholarship. Isn’t that what all of us need?
