In this part of the series, we focus on the role of the editor and their editorial board in the publishing process. Learn about editor contributions to the publishing process, the types of decisions made, common reasons for manuscript rejections, how to become a journal editor, and more.
To read the other parts of this series, check out:
On the editor's/journal's end, what is the process that a manuscript undergoes from submission to acceptance/rejection?
Once a manuscript is received, the assigned editor reads it and determines whether it should go out for review or if it should be “desk rejected.” With that initial read, the editor will likely make notes about strengths and weaknesses of the paper for future reference. If the paper goes out for review, the editor then identifies qualified reviewers to invite to take on the paper. Factors that are considered for inviting reviewers: their research expertise, whether they’ve reviewed for the journal recently and/or are currently reviewing other papers for the journal, recommended/opposed reviewers identified by the authors. After reviewers submit their recommendations (usually 2–3 weeks after accepting the invitation), the editor then takes those recommendations and synthesizes them with their own to come up with a decision. The editor then issues a decision letter. If the paper receives anything other than a reject decision, the authors can then revise the paper and resubmit it for further consideration, usually within a 30–45 day window. Upon submission of a revision, the process starts again, with the editor reading the revision for its responsiveness, deciding whether to accept as is or inviting reviewers (typically those who previously reviewed it and depending on the level of revision requested) and then deciding once reviews come in, if applicable.
How do editors get assigned to a manuscript?
This will vary from journal to journal. Typically, a paper comes to the editor-in-chief who then chooses to manage the paper directly or assign the paper to an associate editor by expertise/content area, although an editor-in-chief will also consider workload (e.g., number of papers any given associate editor is handling) and conflicts of interest in making their assignments.
How do editors make manuscript decisions? How do reviewer recommendations contribute to the decision? What type of decision-making approaches are used when reaching a decision? Do editors have “veto” power over reviewers’ recommendations?
Editors weigh recommendations from reviewers and their own opinions of the paper to come to a decision. Often, reviews are concordant (e.g., all reviewers recommend revisions), but when reviews are highly discordant (e.g., one reviewer recommends a minor revision, another recommends rejection), editors will typically seek out an additional reviewer for input. If it appears that a reviewer is inaccurate in their review, it is the editor’s job to inquire further and perhaps ask the reviewer to edit the review. Once all reviews come in, the editor will read those, consider any additional concerns they have identified and make a decision. It’s important to note that decisions don’t necessarily reflect a consensus decision among the reviewers. Editors will weigh all reviewer input in making a decision, but there are times when one reviewer’s input will figure more heavily into the decision-making process. For example, if one reviewer identifies a fatal flaw that other reviewers did not, it is likely that the editor will side with that first reviewer and issue a reject decision.
Editors have discretion in how they consider and weigh reviewers’ input including the freedom to disregard reviewer feedback. However, it’s not an advisable, common practice to entirely disregard reviewers’ recommendations. If an editor disregards reviewer feedback too frequently, that weakens the peer-review process and can contribute to difficulty in identifying reviewers.
Editors develop their own approach to deciding about manuscripts. It is critical for an individual editor to be consistent in making decisions, treating authors and reviewers fairly and thinking about how each paper fits with the scope and profile of the journal.
In order to stay consistent and fair, editors will apply heuristics to the decision-making process but they are not always formal ones like vote-counting.
Is there standard guidance given to the editorial board?
Response: At Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology and many other journals, editorial board members often serve as reviewers. The editorial board receives guidance on how to approach papers they are reviewing, but they do not typically make editorial decisions.
Why do some editors provide guidance for incorporating reviewer feedback but others do not?
Response: Some editors feel it is important to provide detailed and specific guidance about how to incorporate reviews while others prefer to leave it to authors to decide how best to approach reviews when revising papers. Some take a mixed approach, especially if reviewers provide some conflicting input on how to revise a paper. Regardless of approach, most editors are willing to guide authors when they have questions or are uncertain about how to incorporate reviews into their revisions.
What are some of the main reasons why psychological and social science journals reject manuscripts?
Response: Common reasons for rejection include a poor fit with the journal’s scope, limited sample size and other methodological or analytical flaws (e.g., lack of an appropriate control condition).
What are ways to increase a researcher's chances of publishing their manuscript? Rigorous methods, polished and succinct writing, novel findings, etc.? I imagine this is journal specific, but learning about what makes a good and publishable manuscript would be helpful.
Response: All of these things contribute to the success of a manuscript. Other things to consider: fit with the journal’s scope, the target audience for your paper, ensuring you follow the instructions for authors, citing appropriate foundational literature (and attending to diversity, equity and inclusion in your citations).
How much “veto” power does an editor have over reviewers? Is it the same in both directions - could an editor override reviewer’s reject decisions as well as accept decisions?
Response: Editors have discretion in how they consider and weigh reviewers’ input. However, it’s very important that editors not completely disregard reviewers’ recommendations. Yes, editors have discretion when it comes to both reject and accept decisions.
How does actually becoming an editor work? Do researchers get approached by the journal if they need more editors? Do you ever have to apply?
Response: This also varies by journal and publisher. Editors-in-chief are typically solicited, reviewed and selected by journal publishers. Some publishers have very formal, lengthy and staged processes that involve broad searches and review/selection by committees, others are less formal involving simpler application and decision processes and still others fall somewhere in between. Associate editors are typically selected by an editor-in-chief and may be chosen through some formal application process or simply by the editor-in-chief identifying and asking that person to serve.
Expert insights on key topics and best practices in publishing.
APA Publishing Insider is a free monthly newsletter with tips on APA Style, open science initiatives, active calls for papers, research summaries, and more.