博文
This "editor" is not that "editor"
精选
||||
There are many types of editors. In English language, we say journal editors (chief and associated) who are established scientists, managing editors who actually RUN the journal, English editors who get paid to make the paper more readable, and copy-editors (lowest in terms of “power,” “influence,” and pay but absolutely necessary to have). Let's not get confused about who does what. In this Blog, when I say “editor(s),” I mean journal editor(s), not managing editors, English editors, or copy-editors.
In my view, China needs “talents” in all these four areas, which is probably why not many Chinese journals are “一流的学术期刊” in the world yet. If you agree, you don’t need to read the rest of my article.
First, journal editors should be established scientists, who are willing to put in efforts and are open minded. An editor should NOT reject a manuscript simply because he does NOT understand it. Even a great scientist can make a wrong decision about a manuscript. Here is my own experience, and I will make it brief (or you can go straight to the next paragraph). I wrote a paper to explain why a jet (a narrow ocean current) formed behind the Island of Hawaii (also called the Big Island) is so short, and what determines the length of the jet in a numerical model. The explanation is simple on the hind side: The more mesoscale eddies there are, the more energy is taken away (by the eddies) from the background mean flow, and the shorter the jet (the leftover of the mean flow) would be. I wanted to publish it in the best journal in physical oceanography in the U.S., which is the JPO. Unfortunately, two of its editors who would understand my work are at U. Hawaii where I work. So, I had to submit it to an editor who does observations. She sent out my manuscript to two “theoreticians” who do not have basic knowledge about numerical modeling, at least one of them does not. This reviewer wrote: “If the model blows up, you fix it. This is JPO!” Ok, JPO is great where I have published quite a few papers myself, but in this case the model blows up for a good reason because I was lowering eddy viscosity to find its lowest limit for a particular model resolution (10-km in this case); in other word, the model has to blow up, which is part of the experimental design. I probably could have tried harder to convince the editor, but it took too long for JPO to handle one round of review so I published it in a letter journal instead.
I didn’t know about managing editors until recently, because the journals I use for my papers do not have managing editors. For the JPO, each editor acts as a managing editor in a way, because he has the total responsibility to decide the fate of each manuscript submitted to him; he does NOT have to follow reviewers’ recommendations, even though he generally does. I see the need of having a managing editor, but I do not think the managing editor has to pre-screen each submission himself, which should be editors’ responsibility. Ok, I know JPO editors get help from people: they have their own assistants who handle paper work, emailing, among other things. However, these assistants do NOT help to select reviewers; they contact reviewers after the editors have identified some potential reviewers. So, that’s something to think about, including the cost of having so many assistants and who should pay for it.
English editors are much needed in China, which was why I took the opportunity of becoming one myself a few years ago. I have too many stories to tell as an English editor, but that can wait. What I want to say here is English editing is one of the bottlenecks in English journal publication in China. For readers who are interested in how to solve this problem, please check out my two-part Blogs on “How to eliminate a bottleneck in English journal publication” (id=262563, id=262687). In short, the solution is expensive, because most English editors are freelancers who need the income to support their families.
Finally, China needs good copy-editors. I know some editorial staff is being trained in Beijing. I think typos in the final form of a published paper are the responsibility of the authors as well as the copy-editors who did the proof. I do not agree with some journal’s decision that errors in the proof are authors’ responsibility to catch when the journal does not even provide basic copy-editing service. Most scientists do NOT know basic rules set by MLA (Modern Language Association), so each journal should have a set of rules for authors and copy-editors to follow.
One way to make sure all kinds of editors are doing their jobs is to list their names as a foot note. I know some journals already list managing editor for each issue and “copy-editor” for each paper, something to discuss during this “学术期刊博文大赛.”
https://m.sciencenet.cn/blog-306792-263470.html
上一篇：I Believe 中国可以建设一流的学术期刊: An overseas scientist’s view
下一篇：Reading level of newspapers in U.S.
