Abstract
In charge of a journal, the Editor 1 is responsible for articulating its vision and operationalizing it through appropriate structures, systems, processes, and people. She/he must set up and ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the submission and peer review systems that are most closely associated with a scientific journal. In addition, the editor must manage the activities before and after the review process to promote the creation and dissemination of rigorous and relevant research in the journal’s field (Anderson, 2014). She/he serves as the main contact of the journal for all stakeholders, 2 including its publisher and owner, 3 current (and potential) members of the editorial team and board(s), authors (potential and published), reviewers, readers, media, or anyone else interested in the journal. Despite the centrality of the editor in a scholarly journal, rarely do we reflect on the realities, subtleties, and dilemmas of this job. This article attempts to demystify the roles and responsibilities of a journal editor with a hope that such clarity will be useful for aspiring editors and others interested in understanding the parts and processes that must come together in the making of a scientific journal.
In management, most scholarly journals are owned by either an association (e.g., Academy of Management, Academy of International Business, Family Firm Institute, Society of Advancement for Management Studies) or a publisher (e.g., Elsevier, Palgrave Macmillan, SAGE, Wiley). The owner appoints the editor, typically for a limited term. 4 A new journal can be established by an association, a publisher, and/or one or more scholars. The vision of a new journal is set by its founder(s). For an existing journal, the new editor starts by critically reviewing and evaluating the alignment of the stated vision, mission, objectives, aims, scope, and description of the journal with the overarching vision of its owner, the current position of the journal in the field of study, and the editor’s aspirations for the journal. In modifying these anchoring statements, thoughtful attention needs to be devoted to balancing a respect for the journal’s history, its current status, and the desired future of the journal. Articulation of these statements needs to be clear so as to keep the existing scholars engaged while attracting new authors to help grow the field of study. The focus of the journal and its differentiation from other journals must be maintained. Too narrow a scope could lead to insufficient submissions of high quality, making the timely publication of issues challenging. In comparison, too broad a scope could lead to dilution of focus and identity so that not many readers can relate to a majority of articles published in the journal. When a right balance is struck, a community of scholars begins to coalesce around the journal. The impact of the journal begins to increase as the articles published therein are widely read and cited. In turn, such growth encourages more scholars to consider it a desirable outlet to publish their best work in and contribute to the journal as authors, reviewers, and editorial team members.
In his classic book, The Nature of Managerial Work (1973), Henry Mintzberg reports the findings of a study aimed to understand the work life of a manager. After following five managers closely for a week each, he identifies 10 managerial roles. The first three are interpersonal roles that arise from formal authority: figurehead, leader, and liaison. The second three are the informational roles—monitor, disseminator, and spokesperson—that arise by virtue of being the nerve center of the organizational unit. The final four roles are entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator; these are decisional roles that are a consequence of being the key decision maker of the unit. These roles have largely stood the test of time though recent studies reveal a much larger workload, more contact with subordinates in group settings, lesser focus on administrative work, and lesser fragmentation of time (e.g., Tengblad, 2006). In this article, the job of a journal 5 editor is examined with respect to these 10 roles.
1. Figurehead. Managers must perform “ceremonial duties” to represent the organization to external and internal stakeholders (Mintzberg, 1973, 1975).
Typically, the editor represents his/her journal in “meet the editor” forums sharing the vision and scope of the journal with researchers, hoping to inform and to attract relevant and rigorous work to the journal for publication consideration. Practically, this means active contributions at scholarly conferences aimed to encourage and support research on the topical domain of the scientific journal. In rapidly growing fields of study like family business, there are several conferences and scholarly gatherings to which the editor is invited. Mindful planning is needed to ensure that despite the time limitations of the editor, the journal is well represented in different forums. Many editors prepare regular updates and spread the job of representing their journal among members of their editorial team.
2. Leader. Being responsible for the performance of their unit, managers hire, train, motivate, encourage, evaluate, and as appropriate promote, continue, or fire their employees (Mintzberg, 1975).
The performance of a journal is indicated by metrics such as the impact factor, number of submissions, turnaround time, quality of feedback provided to authors, acceptance rate, rigor of published research, and stature of scholars associated with the journal. In FBR, for example, three subteams handle different aspects of the journal. These are described below:
Processing of submitted manuscripts to identify publishable articles. This core task is led by the associate editors who work with members of the Editorial Review Board and ad hoc reviewers to evaluate and provide timely and developmental feedback to authors, while identifying articles to be developed for publication in the journal. The nature, scope, and volume of work necessitates the involvement of a large number
6
of researchers in this primary aspect of the journal. Inevitably, this leads to the typical dilemmas caused by dividing, coordinating, and integrating work to operate as a unified system to accomplish the goals of the journal. It is the responsibility of the editor to appoint,
7
train, support, and rotate editorial team members,
8
with an aim to uphold the standards and expectations of the journal. For an anchoring journal of the field, the responsibility extends out to providing developmental opportunities to ensure a strong cadre of future editors, reviewers, and authors, who will continue to generate usable knowledge and find effective ways to disseminate it to interested scholars and practitioners. The editor handles all interactions with the authors and provides oversight on all interactions with the reviewers. The task of the editor extends beyond monitoring to also include managing the varying quality levels among associate editors and reviewers. Systems and processes must be set up to ensure that similar standards are followed for decisions on manuscripts, even though many action editors are involved in processing received submissions to a journal. Similarly, while there may be over a hundred scholars involved in providing reviews on manuscripts submitted to the journal, the guidance provided in decision letters to the authors must be comparable in timeliness, depth, and quality. Many journal editors develop template letters for different decisions so as to provide a starting point to all action editors. Editorial retreats are organized to build a collective understanding of the standards and expectations of the editorial team. But, perhaps, the most important and pragmatic way to establish and maintain quality of a journal is through very careful selection of the members of the editorial team and review board. In doing so, editors soon realize that the strongest authors may or may not be the best reviewers or associate editors. The skill sets needed for the three roles of an author, a reviewer, and an editor are quite different despite some overlaps. It also becomes clear that with mindful efforts, most scholars can develop the skills needed to become fine reviewers and editors. When all is moving along well, there is not much to do other than being a vigilant silent observer. But this rarely happens. Inevitably and without warning, delicate instances emerge that need careful handling. Often, it is these nonroutine matters related to authors, reviewers, or members of the editorial team that consume the most time and energy of the editor. For example, an author may not accept a negative outcome well and lash out at the editor, associate editor, reviewer, processing system, or otherwise. At times, the editor may have to deal with a case of intentional dishonesty or unintentional plagiarism where previous versions of a manuscript may be available on conference websites or other easily accessible places. Some reviewers may not deliver their review on time or of a quality expected by the journal. Others may submit their reviews on time and make good points, but these points are expressed in unduly harsh language that the editor fears will detract the authors from the substantive points being made by the reviewer. A member of the editorial team may feel conflicted about a manuscript and needs another opinion. Other challenges include having to deliver a negative outcome to a friend, or worse still to a member of the editorial team knowing fully well the many contributions this individual makes to the journal, or to a highly regarded scholar who may have published successfully for a long time in most well-respected journals. The fear of losing a friend, or hurting a team member, or upsetting a senior scholar in the field is very real. It is in instances such as these that the editor must intervene in a timely manner with a calm and open mind to resolve the issue. Dissemination of accepted research into practitioner communities. The perennial challenges of bridging the knowing–doing gap have been discussed by several scholars such as Adler and Harzing (2009), Pfeffer and Sutton (2000), and Vermeulen (2007). Journal editors in fields of study with a strong link to practice such as management not only carry the responsibility of knowledge creation but must also concern themselves with dissemination of this knowledge into professional communities. Each editor tries to accomplish this challenging task in different ways. In FBR, for example, one member of the editorial team—the Assistant Editor—works closely with thoughtful practitioners and scholars on the Research Applied Board (RAB), the publisher, and the owner to prepare and disseminate practitioner-focused précis and podcasts with authors of articles published in FBR. The editor is responsible for the appointment and support of scholars and practitioners involved in this work that is carried out independently from the submission and peer-review processes. Identification of best published research. Members of the Advisory Board (AB) are seasoned scholars who provide guidance to the editor on strategic issues. A subcommittee of the AB identifies the winners of the annual FFI awards for the best paper(s) published in FBR. The journal’s owner and publisher provide organizational and financial support for the awards and aid in disseminating the award-winning research papers into scholarly and practitioner forums.
3. Liaison. Managers have been found to spend as much time with those outside their unit of operation as they do with those within their unit. Mintzberg (1975) reported with surprise that managers spent only a tenth of their time or less interacting with their superiors. Subsequent research has reported an increase in managerial time being spent with groups of subordinates (Tengblad, 2006).
For an academic journal, the identification of those within and outside is not as clear cut as it may be in for-profit firms that were the focus of Mintzberg’s study. Perhaps, those discussed in Point 2 above can be considered insiders. And, the outsiders could be scholars not involved in research within the domain of the journal. Interactions with such groups are discussed in the “spokesperson” role of the editor.
In terms of “superiors,” the editor of FBR is appointed by and serves at the discretion of the owner of the journal and works closely with the publisher. Regular interactions occur with both these entities. Liaising with the owner includes getting approvals for key appointments such as associate and assistant editors, and major changes like instituting the best paper award or RAB; preparing and presenting an annual report for the board; and supporting the mission of the owner.
The editor spends significant time liaising with several members from the publisher’s end. For example, in FBR’s relationship with its current publisher—SAGE—includes interactions with the Peer Review Assistant who conducts the initial checks on submitted manuscripts and helps maintain the journal’s systems; the Production Editor who handles all processes once an article is accepted for publication to its appearance in the print and online issues; the Marketing Manager who manages the journal’s website and dissemination of news concerning the journal such as special issue announcements; and the Publishing Editor who is the main contact person for all journal-related matters that are not handled by other publisher appointed contacts.
While most management journals have some form of evaluation of the editor and members of the editorial team, the degree of formality, who conducts the evaluation, and how it is conducted varies significantly.
Next, we turn to the three informational roles as a consequence of the editor being in a pivotal position in a field of study. Mintzberg (1975) notes that by virtue of being at the center of information flow, the manager generally has easier access to information than other key stakeholders in the unit and is often connected to the managers or the nerve centers of other similar groups. According to Mintzberg (1975), “in large part communication is their work.”
4. Monitor. The journal editor is often in the pathway of several conversations inadvertently gathering information through formal and informal channels. Perhaps one of the most rewarding yet invisible opportunities for an editor is the access to the tiny data points that coalesce to provide a deep understanding of the important players and issues in a field of study. These data arrive unceremoniously, in different forms through varied channels, often only requiring vigilant listening and observation of the editor. For example, a researcher, new to the journal, may send an inquiry asking whether a research question or a paper might be of interest to the journal. At FBR, such routine inquiries are generally handled by the SAGE-appointed Peer Review Assistant. However, the editor is often consulted and always copied on these responses that go out on behalf of the journal. Without any direct communication with the inquiring researcher, this interaction leaves behind a data point with the editor. Over time, such inquiries might lead to an idea for a special issue knowing the growing interest in a topic; or may suggest a topic for an editorial; or the need to refine the statement of the scope and vision of the journal; or to modify any confusing language in submission guidelines.
The review process is another important source of information. A reviewer’s response to an action editor’s invitation for a review leaves a data point with the editor and the action editor, who may learn about this individual’s availability, expertise, interests, and manner of communication. Although blind to each other, the authors and reviewers are not blinded to the editors involved, who learn about the idiosyncratic behaviors and strengths of all participants in the process.
At FBR, the editor works closely with 10 associate editors who act as action editors on submitted manuscripts. In addition, guest editors of special issues may be scholars not on the editorial team of FBR. Each action editor has a distinctive yet effective way to handle manuscripts and communicate with reviewers and authors. The editor is uniquely positioned to learn from every communication of each action editor, author, and reviewer.
Most journal editors make efforts to keep the information on their masthead current, and most scholars like their information to be current. Thus, the editor is informed of changes in the affiliation of scholars on its banner page. While such conversations involve factual data sharing, they often leave some insights about the institutions and people involved in such changes.
The publisher and the owning association are another important source of information for the editor who interacts regularly with these key stakeholders of the journal. Their world view and scope of information is often remarkably different than that of an academic editor. For example, SAGE publishes more than 900 journals spanning the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Science, Technology, and Medicine. More than 400 of these journals are published on behalf of learned societies and institutions. Not only is SAGE privy to conversations in the publishers’ networks, their vast experience seeps into the journal through the editor. In turn, this knowledge proves useful in improving the journal, its processes and decisions.
5. Disseminator. This role is simply a consequence of being a monitor in the pathway of information flow, as it allows a manager the ability to share some difficult-to-access information with members of his/her unit (Mintzberg, 1975).
A journal editor is frequently called upon to review an application for an open position, and at times provides input on draft calls for such positions. Invitations from deans or funding agencies to provide an external review on a promotion package of a candidate or application for funding a study appear regularly, too. Other journal editors may reach out for recommendations of reviewers or special issue editors in family business. Conference organizers or those eager to develop family business programs, particularly in regions new to family business research, may ask the editor for suggestions of speakers or guest lecturers. Perhaps, such inquiries are more prevalent in the rapidly growing family business field. Nevertheless, journal editors tend to become the “go to” people for such questions. Although time consuming, each inquiry endows the editor with some information about possible developments and opportunities. Thus, the editor is well positioned to match opportunities with the talents and interests of the players in a field of study.
6. Spokesperson. In this role, the manager sends information about the unit to important influencers who control the unit (Mintzberg, 1975).
For FBR, important influencers include the leadership and board of FFI, which financially supports the journal and considers the performance and reputation of FBR as being central to FFI’s overall strategy in the field; the publisher who is keen to ensure high ethical, professional, and quality standards for the journal; deans and department heads who need timely information to gauge the journal’s quality and the contributions of their faculty members; journal ranking agencies such as Thomson Reuters or Financial Times who are attentive about the timeliness and quality of a journal.
It falls upon the editor to keep all key stakeholders informed of developments concerning the journal. For example, an understanding of the perspectives and mission of the owning association enables the editor not only to align the journal with the goals of the association but also to explain to interested individuals the rationale behind major decisions and choices being made by the journal’s leadership. With a large array of journals under their purview and electronic processing systems, the publishers have accurate data on each journal and access to comparative data across journals. This helps the publisher gauge the performance of an editor or a journal. However, as a field expert, the editor is well positioned to explain some of the unique features of a field of study, thereby helping the publisher understand the choices being made by the journal. Impact Factor is a key metric that is noticed by scholars, publishers, and the owners alike. Journal editors are expected by several stakeholders to understand and articulate the reasons for movement in this metric from year to year.
The manager is not only the nerve center of the unit and most endowed with related information but also has the formal authority to commit the unit to a specific course of action. The four decisional roles identified by Mintzberg (1975) are elaborated upon below as they apply to a journal editor.
7. Entrepreneur. As a voluntary initiator of change and progress, the manager continues to adapt and reinvent the unit based on changes in aspirations and internal or external conditions. Rather than making a single large decision or even a unified cluster of decisions, Mintzberg (1975) found that chief executives made a series of small incremental decisions on multiple projects they juggled simultaneously. From time to time, current projects were given a boost of attention while completed projects were laid to rest. Some others lingered only to be eventually discarded, while new projects were initiated. The manager absorbs new ideas from outside and within the unit, with an aim to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the unit.
Juggling multiple projects at different stages is integral to a journal editor’s job. At any point in time, multiple journal issues at different stages of development must be managed. For example, while one issue may be taking shape with the acceptance of each article, another may be in production waiting for pagination or the advertisements from the publisher or the owner to be integrated into the issue. At the same time, a special issue might be receiving proposal submissions, while another awaits its introductory editorial to be completed. The submission and review system and the journal’s website may need some tidying up from time to time, as the appointment, training, monitoring, and renewal of the editorial team and boards continue. The practitioner-oriented article summaries or podcasts with published authors are ongoing. Due dates and deadlines, self-imposed or set by the publisher and/or the owner, help split the job into a manageable sequence of small steps. Nevertheless, the relentless time pressure is a norm in the job of a journal editor.
Three particularly effective mechanisms for editors to influence the direction and growth of a field are special issues, editorials, and specialized conferences. Special issues may be used to expand the topical scope, methodological or theoretical arsenal of a field and journal. If a field in general, or a particular topic of study, is experiencing rapid growth, synthesis of the literature in the form of review articles could be encouraged. Editorial essays by highly respected scholars can be effective in encouraging research in new directions (e.g., Shepherd, 2016). When used thoughtfully, editorials can effectively guide the development of a field of study and raise its expectations, while providing pragmatic guidance to authors for their work. 9 Specialized conferences to develop high-quality research for publication in a journal or a special issue are another effective means to build new content and engage new scholars in a field of study. The best editors think of new ideas and try new initiatives in their effort to continuously improve and build their journal and grow their field of study.
8. Disturbance Handler. In this role, the manager responds to uncontrollable issues that emerge (Mintzberg, 1975).
The number of pages to be published by a journal in a year (Volume), the number of issues in a Volume, and thus the number of pages per issue are determined by a contract between the owner and publisher of a journal. The editor is hired to provide the content to ensure that each issue comes out on schedule. This is necessary to avoid stringent sanctions against the journal by indexing and ranking bodies. Thus, the expectations of output to be delivered by the editor are clear and quite inflexible. On the supply side, however, the number, quality, and timing of manuscripts received is largely beyond the control of the editor. Nor, is it possible to predict with certainty the reactions of reviewers and decisions of action editors. The nature of knowledge creation is such that despite page length guidance on articles, inevitably some accepted articles are longer while others are shorter. Working in this context of high uncertainty, the editor must find ways to deal with “disturbances” such as “copy flow problems” that occur when there are not enough accepted articles to run an issue on schedule; or an associate editor or reviewer needs time off for personal or professional reasons when the manuscript flow is high. Other disturbances emerge in the guise of ethical issues or honest mistakes in processing a manuscript.
Building some slack in the systems helps overcome unexpected contingencies, but taking such preemptive steps requires an understanding of challenges that may emerge. Good publishers and other experienced editors are often extremely helpful in guiding a new journal editor through such challenges. Once a course of action becomes evident, the editor is reliant on the support of the scholarly community to rise above the disturbance to deliver timely, strong journal issues of research in the field of study. Among the more rewarding experiences of an editor is getting to know the amazing scholars who go the extra mile to support a journal. These individuals can be counted upon to take on additional work load of processing manuscripts as action editors; or as authors to turn around a manuscript under revision much faster than they had originally planned; or serve as emergency reviewers turning in a thoughtful review within a day or two; or help engage new strong scholars to a journal.
9. Resource Allocator. In this role, the manager decides who will get what and when, including managerial time and attention (Mintzberg, 1975). Often decisions to allocate scarce resources must be made before the costs, benefits, or outcomes of such investments become clear. Under such conditions of uncertainty, managers have been found to pick people over proposals, authorizing projects presented by trusted people (Mintzberg, 1975).
Perhaps the most critical resource decisions made by a journal editor pertain to (a) the selection of the people who are involved in the journal, particularly the associate editors, assistant editors, and board members; and (b) the allocation of journal space, including the space devoted to special issues. The short cut of trusting people over proposals applies as much in a journal editor’s decision making, as it does for chief executives studied by Mintzberg. However, such trust must be earned by excelling as a reviewer by consistently providing timely developmental feedback that guides both the authors and the action editors. Strong reviewers are not only adept at identifying and articulating the flaws in an article but are equally skilled at suggesting pragmatic solutions to further develop a manuscript. Trust in readiness to be appointed on an editorial team may be built by demonstrating editing abilities by delivering high-quality special issues. For journals with a global orientation and a multidisciplinary focus, geographic and knowledge-based diversity of the editorial team and the boards play an important role in the resource allocation decisions of an editor.
10. Negotiator. Managers were found to spend a significant portion of their time negotiating with key stakeholders (Mintzberg, 1975).
In comparison to managers, the negotiations by a journal editor are narrower in scope. It is the responsibility of an editor to attract and retain top talent on the editorial team, the journals’ boards, and encourage strong authors to submit their work to the journal. However, the available resources to deploy are rather limited as only a few management journals currently offer stipends for editors, associate editors, or reviewers, though more are following suit to attract and retain top talent. A high-stature scholar may be able to negotiate a lighter work load with the editor in lieu of lending his/her name to a journal. An editor may be able to negotiate a lighter teaching load and within-institution service load with his/her dean when taking on demanding and highly visible professional service responsibilities like editing of a major journal.
In a fast growing discipline such as family business studies, such negotiations are virtually nonexistent given the high interest of researchers in serving on an editorial team or as reviewers, and submitting their works to the journal for publication consideration. In a context of ideas and rigor, manuscript decisions are guided by the outcome of the review process and the strength of comments by reviewers and authors. Although the editor provides input to the publisher and the association, the scope of direct negotiations is limited.
Overall, the editor is the leader who sets the vision and personality of the journal. As with most leaders, this individual is largely invisible when all systems are functioning properly. However, a malfunction brings the editor into focus. For example, authors notice when the submission system is unclear or inefficient, or when a decision on a manuscript is inappropriate or delayed. Advisory or review board members notice an error in their name or affiliation, or when they are assigned an incorrect manuscript to review or asked to review too frequently. Publishers notice an inadequate copy flow when there are not enough accepted articles to produce issues on schedule, or when the turnaround time slips, or when the number of pages assigned to a journal per year are not adequately managed. Readers notice difficulties in accessing an article. Everyone notices a change in the “Impact Factor”! The editor must balance the needs and demands of each key stakeholder interested in the journal with integrity, grace, and tenacity, while working to support the production of usable knowledge in its domain.
The inflow of manuscripts is quite unpredictable and mostly beyond the editor’s control. Yet the expectation of the owner, publisher, and readers is that all journal issues must be published on time. The job is simultaneously rewarding and challenging. On the positive end, the editor enjoys a unique opportunity to make a meaningful long-lasting difference in shaping the field and enabling the development of scholars interested in it. On the negative end lies the incessant pressure on an editor’s time, necessitating careful attention to sustain ones’ own publishing career (Aguinis et al., 2010). Yet some of the most successful editors find that their proximity to the field and its players links them to some of the most interesting research projects and wonderful scholars, which in turn, helps their own ideas blossom and grow. An exposure to the reactions of reviewers and action editors on the work of others is a great way to learn how to better craft ones’ own manuscripts (Wright & Sharma, 2013).
Mintzberg (1975) was clear about the inseparability of the 10 roles, and the variation in time and attention devoted by managers to each role. He asserted that an understanding of the pressures and dilemmas of their job would help improve their effectiveness, challenging managers to find systematic ways to codify and share privileged information. It is hoped that this article has shed some light on the complex, subtle, and multidimensional nature of the job of a journal editor.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Helpful comments and encouragement from Jim Chrisman, Eileen Fischer, Judy Green, Mike Hitt, Nadine Kammerlander, Jerry Kaplan, Alessandro Minichilli, Cynthia Nalevanko, Tyge Payne, Allison Pearson, Trish Reay, Becky Reuber, Carlo Salvato, Lloyd Steier, Wim Voordeckers, Justin Webb, and Mike Wright on earlier drafts of this article are acknowledged with gratitude.