Abstract
It is a pleasure and a privilege to serve as Editors-in-Chief of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly—almost all of the time. Some of the most rewarding parts of the position include observing a good manuscript blossom into a great one through the peer review process, learning from authors and peer reviewers, helping authors to succeed, and watching NVSQ grow in stature and contribution to the field. Great stuff!
On occasion, though, this job is more stressful than rewarding: when a manuscript must be rejected. Popular (mis)conceptions notwithstanding, editors of academic journals do not take on this responsibility to say “no,” or to stand in the way of publication. No journal editor signs on to give rejection decisions. Instead, editors are motivated by the desire and the expectation to help authors achieve journal standards for publication. Along the way, they have to make some hard decisions.
Sometimes the publication standard cannot be met in a particular manuscript, and the editors must act accordingly. We distinguish two types of reject decisions: the more usual type in which the decision is reached with the benefit of reviews provided by expert peers in the field, and the “Desk Reject” when the Editors-in-Chief collectively come to the determination that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal. Here we focus on the reject decision made through the peer review process.
For some manuscripts the reject decision is ours only indirectly, although the result is no less painful for the author or for us. The peer review process is a mechanism to bring significant knowledge to bear on an author’s work, and the peer reviewers may concur on a negative outcome. As editors, we feel a strong obligation to take into account the opinions of the peer reviewers, who are selected because of their knowledge or expertise in the area of the manuscript. As we ask the experts to weigh in on a manuscript, we feel ethically bound to take their recommendations seriously.
Inevitably, for some manuscripts the burden of this advice, and our own reading, is that the manuscript cannot be accepted or revised successfully for publication. Together with the negative decision, we share with the authors the collective wisdom of the peer review reports, and wish them every success in revising the manuscript for publication in another respected outlet. Let each flower bloom—and if the manuscript has the quality the author believes and intends—it likely will by finding a home in another journal.
By contrast, often the review process yields at least initially a more encouraging decision that the manuscript has potential and can be revised for further consideration by the journal. What then? Certainly, the probability of a successful outcome has increased. However, authors should not confuse a “revise and resubmit” decision with an “accept pending” determination. The offer to revise and resubmit is not a commitment to publication, but instead the opportunity that most scholars seek to improve a manuscript so that it will have greatest impact and contribution to the field. The editors and the reviewers cannot know whether the revised manuscript will eventually meet journal standards for publication, although the revise and resubmit decision reflects confidence in that possibility. The author can and should evaluate the prospects for success based on the peer review reports, guidance from the editor, and the effort required for revision. The manuscript cannot be accepted until the revised study meets the journal standard and fulfills the expectations of the reviewers in a second round of peer reviews.
Satisfying the editor and the peer reviewers may take more than one round of manuscript revision, perhaps two or three, and on occasion more. Authors have every right to make a determination to stick with it or to withdraw their manuscripts from further consideration by the journal. As before, multiple revisions indicate the (increasing) potential of the manuscript to meet journal standards and to make a contribution, and the advice needed do so usually becomes sharper and more focused as the process proceeds. Journal editors do not wish to convey false promise, yet authors sometimes misinterpret an extended review process and the effort that goes into it as an acceptance. The manuscript may still end with a rejection decision if the authors do not meet the standards of the journal after successive rounds of revision and resubmission.
Thus, sometimes the final result of the peer review process is not a happy one and ends with failure of the manuscript to reach journal standards of publication. As we noted at the outset, it is at such times that the responsibilities of the editor are least rewarding.
Normally and hopefully, though, revision pays off in the acceptance of a different manuscript than the one originally submitted for publication in NVSQ. Congratulations! The final manuscript sometimes may bear little, if any, resemblance to the initial submission, and that result is usually a good thing as the manuscript has been improved significantly. Author, editor, and reviewers feel exhilarated. The articles published in this issue—and every issue—of NVSQ have traversed this sometimes arduous journey. Helping them reach this milestone supplies our motivation and makes our job fulfilling.