Last month I attended the joint meeting of two societies for scientific editors (EASE and ISTME) that took place in the seaside resort town of Blankenberge in Belgium. Two days filled with presentations, discussions and networking attracted about 85 participants from around the world. Most were scientific editors who occupy a variety of positions in the public or private sector or work as freelance editors. But there were also consultants in the publishing field, translators, and an internet content expert.
I was particularly inspired by the presentation of Dr Irene Hames (member of COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics) who was the opening keynote lecturer. Dr Hames spoke on peer review: what is it? what problems does it face? how to improve it? what does the future hold?
Here I will focus on just one aspect of her presentation, adding some of my own views (the full presentation can be viewed here).
Quality peer review, highly valued by authors, depends on reviewers and editors working together. The time and effort furnished by voluntary reviewers are indispensible for the good functioning of the peer review system. Editors expect reviewers to be able to judge the quality of a manuscript, and ideally to give an opinion on the suitability of the work for the particular journal that has sent it out for review. But this is a lot to ask for! It is indeed difficult for any reviewer to master in detail the editorial policies of all journals that they review for so as to determine what is a suitable manuscript for a given journal.
An editor who knows his or her journal well is the best placed to judge what is suitable for publication in the journal. An editor who simply counts “votes” is abdicating their responsibility towards their journal. Editors need to read the manuscript, fashion their own opinion, then analyse the reports they receive to make a decision that takes into consideration their journal’s scope and editorial policy. Reviewers give advice and recommendations, but the final decision rests with the editor, who needs to fully shoulder that responsibility.
The dedication of scientific reviewers allows the peer review system to function. The skill, insight and judgement of the editor are essential factors in making it function well. Peer review does not absolve an editor from taking responsibility for the editorial decisions that she or he makes.
NJC‘s editors all strive to offer fair and impartial peer review of high quality to our authors, while respecting the work of the voluntary peer reviewers.
“Reviewers advise, editors decide.”
