Editors undoubtelly are a keystone in science. They decide what is published or what not. In other words, they decide what is science, and what not. Their job is hard, time-consuming, difficult, sacrified, and undoubtelly unpayable. Most of editors do a good work, many of them do an excellent work (e.g., Christian Erard, Revue d'Ecologie Terre Vie), but some of them do a bad job (I prefer not put examples here, although some names come to my mind).
Bad editors do that we lose our time and energy, and I think that researchers could gain from information from other scientifics. It would be good to have an EditorAdvisor, as a TripAdvisor to avoid a waste of time submiting our papers to editors or journals where they will be treated disrespectfully. I invite to the scientific community to share their concrete experiences (good or bad) with editorial processes (as authors or reviewers). Obviously, a good editorial experience is not synonymous of "paper accepted", or bad one of "paper rejected". One may have the paper rejected, but be happy with the editorial treat, or have the paper accepted having had an unpleasent editorial experience.
This experience could help researchers to decide where to submit their work, rewarding to good editors, and impelling bad editors to do a better job. Perhaps, it would be great to create a web in which journals are scored according to the editorial treat received. We have information of impact factor and so, but not on how well we and our work is treated.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor