Chapter 1: Understanding the Editorial Process

For 17 years, I served as a professional editor for a weekly journal focused on life sciences. Unlike many academics who volunteer on editorial boards or juggle research with editing, my role was entirely devoted to overseeing the publication process. After stepping down, I took to social media to discuss various aspects of scholarly publishing. Some of the feedback I received from scientists and authors surprised me, revealing a disconnect in understanding what occurs once a manuscript is submitted. Perhaps my experience at Science Signaling, where we genuinely cared about helping authors, was not the norm.

We didn't approve every paper. Our goal was to publish research that not only fit the journal's scope but also met our rigorous standards and addressed reviewers' concerns. We provided comprehensive guidelines to reviewers to ensure fair evaluations, particularly regarding methodological flaws and biases that could affect conclusions.

Yet, I don’t think Science Signaling is an anomaly. I believe that most editors, whether in professional roles or as volunteers, strive to support authors, journals, and the overall scientific community. Unfortunately, negative experiences with a few journals have led many to generalize these issues across the entire industry.

It's important to recognize that different journals have varying criteria for assessing submissions. Some focus on the journal's profile, while others consider the scope and volume of submissions. High-profile journals often require significant advancements in research, adherence to specific formats, and the use of cutting-edge methodologies. Conversely, less prominent journals may adopt a broader perspective on what constitutes novelty or significant findings.

Nevertheless, across the board, limitations exist in how many submissions can be thoroughly reviewed. Factors like the size of the editorial team and the workflow for processing accepted manuscripts play a crucial role. Consequently, many journals reject submissions either before in-depth review or after receiving feedback from reviewers, even when the authors could potentially address the comments. Such constraints can lead to delays in the review and publication process, which ultimately affects the authors negatively.

When an author submits a manuscript, a professional relationship is formed between the author and the journal. Both parties are expected to adhere to ethical standards. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has outlined these standards for editors, providing guidelines for handling ethical dilemmas involving authors and reviewers. One key responsibility of editors is to act as gatekeepers, ensuring the integrity of the publishing process by identifying and addressing ethical breaches. Authors, on their part, are expected to submit original work to one journal at a time, avoid plagiarism, declare conflicts of interest, and comply with authorship and data-sharing norms.

Editors must evaluate manuscripts fairly and promptly, keeping authors informed about the status of their submissions and the criteria necessary for a decision, whether acceptance or rejection. In my experience, I never accepted a manuscript without at least one round of revisions. Most manuscripts underwent two rounds: the first to address experimental shortcomings and the second to refine presentation.

Some authors perceive this as their manuscript being "held hostage," a sentiment I can empathize with. To mitigate this, we would sometimes reject manuscripts that required extensive additional work. In those cases, we would offer authors the option to resubmit after making improvements. Ultimately, authors were free to submit their work elsewhere, regardless of whether they addressed reviewers' feedback.

Editors should not hold manuscripts captive. When a submission fails to meet the journal's acceptance criteria, it should be rejected, allowing authors the freedom to submit their work to other venues. If a manuscript is rejected due to significant technical flaws, editors should inform authors of these issues to prevent them from resubmitting the same flawed work elsewhere.

What happens when a manuscript is not rejected but is instead sent back for revision? Sometimes, authors hesitate to address the requested changes. If they believe the revisions are unwarranted, they should reach out to the editor via email to explain their stance. It's worth noting that an editor might reconsider some of the reviewers' suggestions. Authors should remember that a request for revision indicates the journal’s interest in their work, aiming to ensure that it meets methodological standards and the journal's criteria for publication.

If an author chooses to withdraw their manuscript, it is important to inform the editor, allowing for proper record-keeping and ensuring compliance with ethical guidelines regarding simultaneous submissions. Authors should be aware of when their manuscripts are still active at a journal to avoid violating submission rules.

During my editorial tenure, I witnessed instances of authors withdrawing their manuscripts shortly after submission due to misjudgments about their chosen journal or readiness of the manuscript. These reasons are acceptable and do not raise ethical concerns.

However, I also encountered authors withdrawing manuscripts post-peer review, particularly when they were asked to revise. In one instance, an author withdrew their submission without communicating their reservations. Had they reached out, it’s possible we would have adjusted the revision requirements in their favor. Their withdrawal wasn’t unethical, but it may not have served their best interests.

I have also seen cases where authors submitted manuscripts elsewhere while they were still under consideration with our journal. This is unethical. In one situation, a manuscript was pending revisions, and the authors informed us they had submitted it to another journal and it was accepted. Although we could have addressed this ethical breach with the other journal, we chose not to intervene.

This experience highlighted that not all authors understand that a pending manuscript is still active with the original journal. Consequently, we revised our communication to clarify the status of submissions, ensuring authors are aware of their obligations when withdrawing.

Another unethical practice, which I did not personally encounter, involves using a journal merely to obtain peer reviewer feedback without the intention of publishing. When submitting a manuscript, authors should genuinely intend for it to be published in that journal, rather than merely seeking a review service.

A manuscript that passes through peer review without significant issues should not be withdrawn to submit to a different, potentially more prestigious journal. Similarly, a manuscript facing reviewer concerns should not be withdrawn simply because revisions are requested.

In the life sciences, it’s rare for manuscripts to require no changes after review. Authors should expect to address some issues following a thorough evaluation. If they find the reviewers' requests unreasonable, they should communicate their concerns to the editors.

In my view, editors have a responsibility to limit revision requests to those that address methodological issues, reproducibility, bias in citations, and unsupported conclusions. By sending a manuscript for in-depth review, editors indicate that the study aligns with the journal's scope, and authors must also address criteria for publication.

Authors must also engage actively in this relationship, making a good faith effort to address concerns raised by editors and reviewers. They should recognize that a request for revision signifies that the manuscript is still under consideration and that expecting an acceptance without any revisions is unrealistic.

In my editorial and research experience within the life sciences, I have found that expecting a manuscript to be accepted without revisions is not practical. Other fields may have different acceptance rates without revision.

Only once in my career did I have a manuscript accepted without any additional work or text revisions. This occurred when a manuscript, previously rejected by one journal without review, was accepted by another after peer review. This was a rare event, and I was prepared to address any issues had they arisen.

Chapter 2: Videos on Author-Editor Dynamics

This video discusses the common pitfalls authors encounter in portraying the "enemies to lovers" trope in writing, emphasizing insights from the BookTok community.

In this video, the conversation centers around authors critiquing each other, highlighting the often negative behaviors seen in book reviews and the impact on the writing community.