Is it right that editors decide which articles are sent out to peer review, or does this distort what type of research gets published?
It is understandable that editors apply certain criteria to select from a large number of articles, including the scope of the journal, the quality of the data, or the formal structure of the manuscript. However, it appears that in many cases, the editors' decisions are based on criteria that are less well defined, such as the perceived relevance of the study. Should this not be judged by the reviewers who are experts in their field?
As both an editor and a reviewer for a range of journals, I see the division between editors and reviewers as follows:
editors guard the scope of the journal (which they know much better than occasional reviewers), and do a first sifting regarding quality (as you do not want to annoy your reviewers with truly poor work, and obviously poor work will also be hard to find reviewers for)
reviewers guard quality. As they are supposed to be true experts on the specific topic of a manuscript.
Relevance is indeed a bit tricky. It covers novelty (which might be judges by both editors and reviewers), niche-ness in relation to overal readership of a journal (editor), expected durability (test of time, both editor and reviewers).
A risk is that journals only assess based on expected number (and speed) of citations, in light of IF optimisation. that would be sad.
Part of the limitation is due to limited space in printed issues. This limitation is getting less and less relevant. several e-journals have completely dropped the expected impact as a criterion and solely look at soundness.
Dear Renee,
thank you for your reply. I agree with your view that editors should guarantee the scope of the journal, and referees ensure the quality of the published articles. Of course the perceived novelty of a study is equally important, since it potentially changes our understanding of a scientific problem. But is this not also a matter of diversity? Is it not the responsibility of scientific editors to advance new research topics, even if they are not necessarily cited as often in the short term as 'trending' topics?
As an example, Nature published an average of 1.6 articles per year about coronaviruses between 2010 and 2019. Since January 2020 the number of Nature articles about coronavirus increased to 450 per year. Even if we assume that the majority of these articles are of top quality, this also means that the space available to other, equally relevant topics has been squeezed by the same margin.
Final editorial decisions have always been left to the editor. His/her brief is always wider than the specialist reviewer as they have also to address both the commercial and reader membership of the journal as well as the academic quality of items (usually informed by the specialist reviewers). Not often the two parties disagree but editor has final say
Actually, it depends on the level of the journals. In top journals, sometimes editors make a decision to reject a paper which is received three major revisions from three reviewers. There are several reasons for making such hard decisions such as a large number of submissions in the pool, or lack of the available number of reviewers and so on.
I believe that the current model is going to be changed in favor of preprints and reviews that will follow the publication. Journals and editors will have less influence on what will be lifted by the scientific community as relevant and useful.
I believe the current model is flawed. Why it is assumed that peers, no matter how many, are eligible to ok a paper passing regarding credibility. A paper that is based on empirically falsifiable methodology should be revisited to ensure the results and conclusion stack up, I.e., a paper where original data is not available denies its audience the ability to retest the original hypothesis according to the scientific method. If the data set is not part of the paper it must be made available before publishing and peer reviewing in my opinion. If not it could still be published in non-peer reviewed literature, e.g., science magazines, etc. We definitely need more minds involved in scientific research or the process follows a orthodoxy to nowhere. One only has to think back to the likes of Gregor Mendel. His peers were inadequate regarding his agency. A papers relevance and validity needs to be tested by empirical methodology not academic standing in my view.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism