Understanding the Editorial Decision Process: A Journal Editor’s Perspective
by Teck Yong Eng, PhD, Editor in Chief of the Journal of General Management
As Editor of the Journal of General Management (JOGM), I would like to comment on how I go about making decisions on papers, why it can take time to make decisions on certain papers, and reasoning surrounding those decisions. I hope that my perspective will encourage researchers to submit their work to JOGM as well as be of use to those who review for the journal or mentor fellow researchers to publish in the field of general management.
Some of my main decisions for the journal revolve around:
Desk review – whether to desk reject or send out a new manuscript for review
Invitations to revise and resubmit based on reviewers’ recommendations and my overall evaluation
Accepting or rejecting a paper after one or two rounds of revise and resubmit
Inviting special issue proposals
Developing and updating the journal’s pool of reviewers and editorial board members.
I try very hard to desk review new papers within 5 days. This allows authors to find a different publication outlet when their papers do not fit the journal, saving authors’ and reviewers’ time.
It takes time to choose the right subject matter expert before I send a paper out for review. If a reviewer’s interests and competencies match the paper, they are more likely to give constructive feedback and review the paper. This process is very important, so as not to abuse or waste a reviewer’s time. Once a paper is under review, I have less direct control over time spent. Reviewers are volunteers and they may not always be able to return reviews within three or four weeks for a variety of reasons. For example, they may withdraw from the review process because of unforeseen personal circumstances, ask for more time to review, or move to another institution. In some cases, I may have to start a new review process all over again, or when appropriate seek help from the editorial board members.
Authors can play a part in increasing the odds of fast turnaround of review and in turn, speed up the decision on their papers. From my experience, papers with thought-provoking ideas, and that are timely and relevant for the journal are often reviewed in shorter time than a conventional topic. However, this does not imply that such papers are accepted for publication. If your manuscript title and abstract are interesting and well-written, it can give a good first impression. A well-written title appreciates the reader’s standpoint; trial on fellow researchers may be helpful. An abstract must include the key message as to why your paper fits the journal in terms of theory and practice. In short, an imprecise title and vague abstract may lead to your work being sent to wrong reviewers, which would lengthen the review process.
Few sections are as important as a paper’s introduction. I read this section to determine suitability of a paper for the journal and assess its contribution to the literature. Papers with badly written introduction such as ambiguous contribution and confused implications are often desk rejected. A good introduction will explicitly state the topic or research question, why it is interesting and important for general management, how it contributes to theory and practice and also explain how the paper accomplishes the research goals. Clarity is crucial, especially how authors position their paper in the context and structure that are typical of past general management research and current general management debates.
I encourage reviewers to take a developmental approach to reviewing in terms of providing constructive feedback and helping authors to refine their contribution. Although not common, if reviews are technically inadequate, it can delay the review process. It then takes time to read the reviews and absorb the content while framing the decision in an optimal way for the journal. Manuscript decisions are not just based on reviewers’ recommendations. As editor, I have the vantage point of knowledge and understanding gained from reading different reviews, e.g., a reviewer missed a flaw that I see or the reviewer critiqued from a particular perspective that is too narrow for general managers. This involves reading the reviews and the paper to highlight key areas from each review, and additional areas for improvement based on my own assessment. Time is taken to write decision letters, for which my goal is to turnaround within 5 days after receipt of the last review.
Every editor depends on the cooperation of their editorial board members, the journal’s pool of reviewers and ad hoc reviewers, the journal’s support team as well as the authors for their continued support. I thank the reviewers for their willingness to give back and the authors for their contribution to the field of general management.
Author bio
