Fooled by the Job Description

As people who know me well are aware, I do not always think things through carefully. When first approached in 2015 with the idea of becoming editor in chief of the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (JVIB), I agreed, primarily based on what I saw as an opportunity to be forced to read all of the articles I wanted, but could not find the time, to read. I certainly recognized the honor of taking on a role previously held by people I had always admired—Jane Erin, Alan Koenig, Duane Geruschat, and Diane Wormsley—and it may have also crossed my mind that being in this role might provide me with something to keep me busy if I ever retired from my “real” job at Florida State University (FSU). Mostly though, I just wanted a legitimate reason to read everything published in JVIB.

What I did not spend much time thinking about was what I was agreeing to do. Over the past 9 years, JVIB has published 54 issues; I have written editorials for 40 of them. To fill those issues, we have received a steady flow of manuscripts, and each of those papers has had to be prepared for peer review. Luckily, most of that work has been done by Assistant to the Editor in Chief Sandy Brien, a person to whom I cannot express enough appreciation for her careful attention to detail and steady, capable presence. Just since 2020, more than 2,900 authors, working alone or with others, have submitted 884 papers to be considered for publication—and the “other Sandy” has, in some way or another, dealt with all of them.

It has been my good fortune to have been responsible for working with the authors of 98 of the papers that were accepted for publication. Acknowledging the efforts—the hours of research planning, data collection and analysis, and writing (and rewriting)—of these authors has certainly been the most enjoyable aspect of the editor in chief job, even though I had not really thought about that benefit in advance.

But I also did not think about the authors who would not receive these positive letters. The policy at JVIB is that letters rejecting manuscripts are sent under the name of the editor in chief, not the associate editor who managed the paper. I have sent well over 750 such letters since 2015.

The fact that colleagues with whom I did and did not have personal relationships would see my name and be distressed did not cross my mind until I was at the 2016 Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) conference in Jacksonville, Florida, when I saw an author to whom I had recently sent a letter rejecting her manuscript walking toward me. I reversed course in hopes that she had not seen me, fearful that this valued colleague would be angry. Later, when our paths crossed again (and there was no easy escape, though goodness knows I tried), she confirmed that the decision letter that I had sent was on her mind, too. What she said, though, surprised me. Instead of being disparaging, she thanked me for the thoughtful and constructive feedback that she had received, stressing her appreciation that the associate editor and peer reviewers involved had taken the time to provide valuable ideas of ways that she could improve her research and writing. That colleague's response is probably one of the reasons why I have stayed at this role so long.

Another reason for this longevity has been the opportunity to collaborate with the thoughtful and conscientious individuals who have served as associate editors over the years. There is no more impressive group than the following: Susan Bruce, Maureen Duffy, Jane Erin, Carol Farrenkopf, Greg Goodrich, Stacy Kelly, Steve LaGrow, Tessa McCarthy, Rona Pogrund, Derrick Smith, Janet Szlyk, Rob Wall Emerson, Bill Wiener, and Diane Wormsley. The quality of JVIB over the past 9 years has been entirely due to their contributions, along with the guidance and leadership of Rebecca Burrichter, the journal's senior editor. Every article you read has been shaped by their commitment to JVIB and all it represents. To have been able to join with them in this endeavor has been like winning a prize.

And JVIB won a prize in getting Robert Wall Emerson to agree to take on the editor in chief role. In addition to being the author or co-author of at least 14 papers since I have been at the journal, Rob has regularly authored the Statistical Sidebar column, in which he expertly—and comprehensibly—explains complex information about research design and statistical analysis so that readers can better understand the research they read. Rob has published research related to braille literacy, orientation and mobility (O&M), technology, and other topics, so will bring an expertise rivaled by few. JVIB will certainly be in capable hands.

For years, I kept a cartoon panel by Charles Schulz, the creator of Peanuts, taped to my computer. In it, Lucy asks Snoopy why he became a dog; his response: “I was fooled by the job description.” I do not know why that cartoon struck my fancy, but it does seem to describe my propensity to jump first and ask questions later. I have found that if I think too hard—if I get too much information—about a new path in front of me, I’ll decline the offer. For me, being fooled by thinking that the primary benefit of taking this job was getting to do something I did not have time to do already has only led to new chances to grow with and learn from others. I hope that not being entirely sure of the job description for being retired works out just as well.

Sandra Lewis, EdD

Outgoing editor in chief, JVIB