Tagged:  Editor profiles

Professor Charles Sheppard is Editor-in-Chief of Marine Pollution Bulletin.

Q. What aspect of being an editor do you find most rewarding?
A. I suppose seeing some neat, new and important results. In the field of marine environment there is a lot of need in many places. Finding a way to proceed with a difficult issue is always rewarding.

Q. Can you describe how it feels when you come across a groundbreaking paper?
A. I get a couple of new papers every day but every once in a while you get a Eureka moment. Things that would be helpful not just to other scientists but to governments as well. It’s really gratifying because my field might have been wrestling with a problem, perhaps a pollution event, and it feels good that they’ve selected my publication to submit their paper to. It is always nice when we find something good.

Q. What advice would you give to a new editor?
A. Always be friendly to your authors. Don’t be arrogant and build up a good and reliable network of reviewers. A journal is only as good as its reviewers. They need to be able to distil out of the manuscript to find out if the core of the science is good and worthy of publication.

Q. When you were a child, what did you want to be when you grew up?
A. I was going into a medical stream but I started to go scuba diving. I was able to change at the beginning of my PhD to a marine biology stream instead of a clinical stream. It’s just a cliché to say that it’s another world, but it is. I was brought up in the tropics. It was a kaleidoscope of colors. I suppose I could have become a diving instructor but I wanted to know more about it. It’s always a challenge and it’s always interesting. I think probably the variety is what is so appealing.

Q. Tell me about collaboration. What is the secret to success?
A. There is more than one thing. You aren’t always going to agree, a good scientist is willing to keep his mind open to changing their view. You have to be prepared and possibly happy to say: “I’ve been wrong all these years.” You have to be as enthusiastic about finding things that are wrong as much as proving things that are right. The coral reefs that I personally study, no one would be happier than me to find out that I’m wrong when I say that they’re undergoing a collapse. The other thing is fairness. The person who did the most work should be the first author. I am really thrilled when one of my students gets published. That person is the first author and I’m absolutely delighted for him or her.

Q. What gets you up in the morning?
A. It’s enthusiasm. I enjoy things. Right now I’m planning a field trip to the Indian Ocean where there’s a reef that hasn’t been impacted by direct forms of pollution, only by climate change.I use these trips as my reference control to compare with damaged reefs.

Q. What is your biggest achievement?
A. Undertaking my direct, own research. In my own small way, the work on reefs and their decline I think is important. The other one is turning the journal into one that people really want to publish in. When I do an editorial, I am aware that I am increasingly meticulous in what I write because I realize that it is widely read.

Q. What would you like your legacy to be?
A. In the scientific context, it is always nice to be thought of as a good scientist but more than that, a useful scientist. It’s also very important to me to encourage young scientists.

Q. What do you like to do for fun?
A. We have a sailboat and I like to go sailing with my wife in many parts of the world. It’s not that it’s restful. It requires careful planning and it feels really good when you pull it off well. If you get the sails right, it’s a miracle. Even the experts say they’re learning all the time.

Previous Editors in the Spotlight

• Karl Shell
• Erik Maskin

Professor Maskin is the Editor-in-Chief of Economics Letters and was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2007.

Q. What aspect of being an editor do you find most rewarding?
A. Shepherding good work into print. The job of the editor is to identify good work, see that it gets published and occasionally make some suggestions for improvement.

Q. Can you describe how it feels when you come across a groundbreaking paper?
A. That’s what every editor is hoping for, to publish something truly groundbreaking. Of course, such papers come along only rarely. But it’s a great feeling when it happens.

Q. What advice would you give to a new editor?
A. Pick your team well. You shouldn’t think that you can do everything yourself, particularly if you’re editing a general interest journal like Economic Letters, which covers a broad spectrum of areas. Make sure that the editors on your team are people you trust and who have good judgment. The same is true for the referees you pick.

Q. How do you balance your role as editor with your other roles?
A. There’s a certain amount of editorial work that has to get done every week, so I set aside specific time to do this. But a lot of journal work, unlike research, can be picked up and put down when I have a spare minute. It doesn’t require the same type of sustained effort that research does.

Q. Why did you choose Economics as your field of study?
A. When I was a kid, what I wanted to be when I grew up kept changing all the time. Sometimes I wanted to be a lawyer like Perry Mason, sometimes a scientist, sometimes a musician. I got into economics almost by accident: as a math major in college, I wandered into an "information economics" course taught by Kenneth Arrow, one of the founders of modern economics. I got hooked immediately by the material in the course.

Q. Tell me about collaboration. What is the secret to success?
A. Collaboration for me has always been a pleasure. It's always useful and fun to be able to talk over a research topic with someone who's just as interested in it as you are. Your co-author is likely to have lots of good ideas that never occurred to you. And it’s nice to be able to share the burden of actually writing the paper.

Q. What is your biggest achievement?
A. Well, I recently received the Nobel Prize, but it was the work for which the prize was awarded, not the prize itself, that was the real achievement. The work was in Mechanism Design theory. I should emphasize that the development of this theory has been very much a community effort. The Nobel committee is restricted to naming no more than three prize winners. But in this case, there were many other people who could have been recognized besides the actual winners. I’m hoping that mechanism design can help us solve some of the major economic and social problems of the day. It gives you a set of tools for designing mechanisms or institutions for achieving specified social goals. So, for example, if your goal is to have cleaner air, mechanism design will indicate how that can be accomplished in a way that imposes the least economic burden on your community.

Q. What is your favorite quote?
A. Einstein once wrote that: “Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” The goal of simplify without over-simplify is something we can all strive for.

Q. Who or what is your biggest inspiration?<
A. It would have to be my teacher, Kenneth Arrow. He’s one of the great economists, and I was very lucky to be his student. A lot of my research, particularly that in welfare economics, was inspired by his classic work. He is also a great role model as a person. He’s a very honest, modest, and patient man. He spends a lot of time with students, is very open-minded, and avoids dogmatic views on anything. I’ve tried to live up to his example.

Q. What is the biggest lesson you've learned in your career?
A. Not to worry too much about whether other people will find what I'm doing interesting. Chances are, if I'm interested in it, then somebody else will be too.

Q. What would you like your legacy to be?
A. I’d like to be remembered for two things. First, my students – I’ve been lucky enough to have some remarkable students over the years – I’d like to think that I helped get them started. And second, I hope that some of my papers will continue to be read and used.

Q. What gets you up in the morning?
A. What is better than getting up to spend a day thinking about a question that really fascinates you? Of course, such a question also keeps you awake at night: it's hard to stop thinking about it.

Q. What do you like to do for fun?
A. I’m very serious about music. That’s my primary non-academic activity, both as an active player and as a listener. I play the clarinet and piano and I particularly like chamber music. If I had to pick a single favorite piece it might be Schubert’s B-flat piano sonata – I can’t imagine more beautiful music than that.

Previous Editors in the Spotlight

• Karl Shell
• Charles Sheppard

Karl Shell, Thorne Professor of Economics at Cornell University, New York, is the founding editor of Journal of Economic Theory – also known as JET; one of the most prestigious journals in the field of economics.

He started the journal at the end of the sixties, at a time when the economics field began to expand and differentiate and the general journals were unable to absorb the increasing research output in the profession. Despite the emergence of competitors and more specialized theory journals, Karl Shell has managed to preserve JET’s position as the leading journal in economic theory for more than 40 years.

JET is a bi-monthly publication, typically publishing five regular issues and one topical symposium issue. Last year, the journal received more than 750 regular paper submissions. Of all submissions, only between 10% and 15% tends to be accepted for publication.

Q. What does being a journal editor mean to you and what do you find most rewarding about this role?
A. I am fortunate to have the opportunity to work with JET authors, associate editors, referees, and symposium organizers -- top economic theorists from around the world. This is the basic reward for editing.

Q. What are your biggest challenges as editor of Journal of Economic Theory. How do you overcome them and what extra support can Elsevier provide? In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer-review system. What do you think the solution to this problem is and how do you see the peer review process changing in the future?
A. The biggest challenge comes from the phenomenal growth in the sheer size and quality of the community of researchers in economic theory, and the corresponding growth in the number of competing journals.

In the early days of JET, serving as a referee or an associate editor was considered to be at least an economic theorist’s duty and even an honor for the younger theorist. These sentiments still exist, but not for everyone.

I think that it might be useful to return to a system in which the editors-in-chief and the publisher strive to show that the opinions of the associate editors are taken seriously. If well done, some informal gatherings of editorial board members (during scientific meetings) might be helpful. At one point, we discontinued these gatherings because of differences between the associate editors and the publisher. Times have changed for the better, so we might very cautiously rethink these gatherings.

Q. We have observed a recent trend that researchers are increasingly accessing journal content online at an article level, i.e. the researcher digests content more frequently on an article basis rather than a journal basis. How do you think this affects the visibility of your journal among authors?
A. This is an important downside to the generally very positive advantages of online publication. New authors are less likely to be discovered since browsing of the paper versions of journal issues is now rare. It might also be that researchers are less likely to read outside their narrow sub-fields, given that search engines will efficiently point them to their intended destinations. Short-run efficiency is not always optimal.

Q. The move from print to electronic publishing has stimulated a broad discussion around alternative publishing models. These models are often termed as ‘open access’ and include:

• Author Pays Journals
• Sponsored Articles
• Free access to archives
• Open-archiving

What is your opinion about the ‘open access movement’ and how does it affect your journal?
A. Open access has not so far provided serious competition. Author page charges are rare in economics. Sponsored articles are rare, but JET might – after advice from our editorial board -- consider sponsorship of appropriate symposium dispatches by university departments and central bank research groups.

Free access – or access at a nominal charge – exists among economics journals, but it is not a big factor since most researchers have university access to JET. There is some open archiving currently. More serious potential competition might come from the online reading-lists (of current un-refereed working papers) recommended by some leading research economists on their websites.

Q. Researchers need to demonstrate their research impact, and they are increasingly under pressure to publish articles in journals with high impact factors. How important is a journal’s impact factor to you, and do you see any developments in your community regarding other research quality measurements?
A. Impact factors are important to JET and other journals. Impact-factor measurement has been extensively researched, but in my opinion these studies lack depth.

Q. As online publishing techniques develop, the traditional format of the online scientific article will change. At Elsevier we are experimenting with new online content features and functionality. Which improvements/changes would you as an editor find most important?
A. JET is a theory journal; so technical appendices are less important than they would be in an applied journal. Nonetheless, technical appendices are essential for JET. We have an obligation to provide as Supplementary Material: data, computer code, computations, proof of results where proof is not in the article, and related work etc… Graphs and dynamics could be provided in interactive format in the online version.

Q. Do you use social media or online professional networking within your role as an editor or researcher? Has it helped you and if so how?
A. No, but we might consider doing so.

Q. How do you see your journal developing over the next 10 years? Do you see major shifts in the use of journals in the future?
A. JET aspires to be the top journal in economic theory – broadly defined. This is a tough task, since several society journals are vying for this space.

Refereeing in economics is too slow. I worry about the day when major scientists post what they consider to be must-read working papers, thus short-circuiting the journals (except for their role in university personnel validation).

The online nature of journals has severely weakened the journals’ role in identifying new promising authors. In the hard copy days, when one looked for an article by an established figure, one often stumbled on a nearby article by a “new” person. Now if one is looking for (say) “Kenneth Arrow”, one is less likely to stumble on a path-breaking note by a relative unknown on (say) monetary theory.

Q. Do you have any tips or tricks to share with your fellow editors about being a journal editor?
A. A fun part of being an editor is to try to keep up with the science and sociology in your area but outside your narrow sub-field. This is more than fun! This is essential for successful editing.

Previous Editors in the Spotlight

• Charles Sheppard
• Erik Maskin

We know from editor feedback during conferences and webinars that many of you are keen to attract Asia-based editors on to your boards.

We also know that some of you are unsure how to begin the important task of recruitment. Who should you approach? What qualities should you look for? Are there any pitfalls you should be aware of?

In this article we chat to two of The Lancet’s regional editors; Beijing-based Asia Editor, Helena Wang, and New York-based North American Senior Editor, Maja Zecevic. They reveal the positives, the challenges - and the surprises - they have experienced since Wang’s appointment to the team 18 months ago.

Helena's story 

Helena Wang

I had been working for three years on the Chinese version of The Lancet to develop various editorial projects when I spotted the advert for an editor on the English-language journal. I thought why not try?

That was one and a half years ago and the role has turned out to be beyond my expectations. It is my dream job...The Lancet is my Mr Right.

I am a member of the fast track team, which involves peer reviewing manuscripts submitted globally to enable publication within four weeks. I am also responsible for peer review of normal track papers from Asian countries such as China (including Hong Kong), Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.

My role includes writing editorials in English commenting on research and health policies, many of which relate to China, and that has been so interesting for me. One of my editorials focused on the predicament of Chinese doctors - their thoughts, feelings and doubts - and it received a lot of feedback and support.

I also work on The Lancet’s ‘China’ issues, which feature submissions of high quality research from Chinese authors or research teams working in China. The number of submissions from China is increasing fast. However, the methodology and novelty of the research undertaken by most Asian countries, including China, are still of major concern.

Bridging the cultural gap

During my time on The Lancet I have noticed a number of differences between myself and the editors in London. In Asian cultures, people do not express their thoughts as openly and directly as westerners. Instead we read between the lines and believe that ‘silence is golden’. That is why, compared to westerners, some Asians appear quieter in discussions.

That difference also applies to management styles. In Asian countries, staff are often more happy to listen and let their boss tell them what to do. They can be more unwilling to make suggestions and speak their mind. My boss on The Lancet is always helping and encouraging me to express my own thoughts more freely and openly to the editorial team.

Another difference I see is in the standard of research papers submitted. Western countries have adapted very well; they know the research as well as the submission rules. They know how to present their ideas clearly and strongly to the editors. But in Asian countries, gaps in understanding remain. Part of my role is to educate. I give presentations at universities, research institutes and seminars to try to overcome those gaps. If you play football or basketball you have rules and if you don’t follow the rules you won’t score. It’s the same principle with submissions.

Two-way street

The Lancet Chinese edition

I don’t believe that exchange of knowledge has been only one-way. At the beginning of this year I travelled to London to give a presentation about The Lancet in China and my colleagues were very impressed by the journal’s influence here. The Chinese really respect The Lancet very much. If a Chinese doctor publishes with us he will be headline news and receive a large financial reward. The Lancet’s interest in China has made the Chinese admire the journal even more. My colleagues were also surprised by the huge investment in research in China and the ambitious goals of that research. China is quite open-minded these days and has invited many editors from top journals in western countries to share their knowledge.

Another issue I’ve encountered is the time difference. When we finish work in China, the London office is just beginning. I need to pay attention to the emails that flow in then to make sure I don’t miss any urgent tasks. Sometimes, I need to work or join telephone editorial meetings at night.

The other challenge involves living and working in different cultures. It goes far beyond the differences in languages – English or Chinese - which I understand very well. The challenge is that when you work with colleagues in the UK or US, you need to think and act as westerners do, while when you contact Chinese government or doctors, you must act in a very traditional Chinese way.

Opening doors in China

I think The Lancet is a very good fit for China. The name can mean a window letting in light or a surgical scalpel. Things are changing in Asia and so are health policies. We need to cut off the bad policies and shine a light on what we are doing well. We can learn from Western countries; understand their advantages as well as the lessons already learned.

I feel very appreciative of The Lancet, which has also provided many valuable training opportunities, including English language polishing and clinical statistic courses.

Another thing I have learned at The Lancet is to think globally. I now say to researchers to think outside of the box when they are preparing their papers - think about the global perspective!

Maja’s story

Maja Zecevic

Things in Asia work very differently. If one wants to succeed in those countries, one must adjust to the local customs and culture. It is very important to have someone who has local connections and respect; someone who knows the mentality and local language and who speaks fluent English. In my experience, experts in India, for example, often speak very good English but that is not always the case in China.

We are a medical journal and for us the Asian market is really evolving; China and Japan are two of the biggest funders of basic science research and are responsible for a substantial number of clinical trials. Sometimes these are run by local companies, but Asia is also really attractive for Western pharmaceutical companies who carry out trials in both Caucasians and Asians. Differences in genetic make-up can influence the side effects and efficacy of the drugs being tested. Asia also offers a population of ‘therapeutically naive’ patients who have not taken drugs before. Add to that the large population base and the low costs and one can see why it is so popular.

It is also important to note that some diseases are simply more prevalent in Asia, for example gastric cancer in China, so naturally a lot of related studies are conducted in China or use Chinese subjects.

Improving standards

One of Helena’s roles is to look into how we can ensure this research is done ethically. She has been visiting institutions and medical centers to educate authors and principal investigators on how to properly carry out and report their research. The other main goal is to attract high-quality clinical research content from China for the journal.

Interestingly, she picks up on things we aren’t aware of here, for example, how the media in China reports items in The Lancet. That helps us understand what aspects of our content other world regions find important.

A 'China' issue of The Lancet

We also produce special issues of The Lancet focused on China because their health reforms are educational and of interest to our global audience. Those issues give us the opportunity to highlight advances made in the right direction and to emphasize areas that currently need to be addressed in China. They can also help to focus the existing diverse health priorities and improve funding.

Authorship is often an issue with regard to submissions from Asia. The same goes for copyright regulations. They are still discovering the ways these things are done properly and ethically. The pressure to publish there is much higher; guest authorship is very strong and the top people, who have a lot of influence, want their names on high-impact papers. That means young researchers can feel compelled to include authors who actually had very little to do with the reported research. There is also the perception that an important name on a paper makes it more likely to get respect and be published.

Finding the right qualities

Journals wanting to attract Asia-based editors on to their boards should bear a few key things in mind. Working in a side editorial office has its challenges and advantages - that’s something both Helena and I have experienced – and I like to say we are often the ‘face, eye, and ear’ of the journal in our respective regions.

Editors working alone must have an independent mind, be flexible, and be happy to interact on your journal’s behalf. It’s not only about the editorial side, we also have a role raising awareness and promoting the journal. It is also important that we communicate and interact frequently with the journal’s main editorial team.

Journal boards should find someone who is outgoing and approachable because this is very much a networking and out-of-office role. The job is to interact, react and field what is important in the local region and convey this to the main editorial office.

The addition of Helena to our editorial team has enormously benefited The Lancet. She is doing a truly wonderful job. We are all so very fond and proud to work with her and have learned so much from her.

Author Biographies

Helena Wang

Helena Hui Wang
ASIA EDITOR, THE LANCET
Helena took on her current role in 2010 and focuses on reviewing manuscripts, writing editorials, and developing The Lancet’s presence in Asia through outreach, conferences, and themed issues. She is also The Lancet’s first point of contact for authors in Asia. She is the only China-based editor for the journal. She holds a Master’s degree in Pathology and Pathophysiology and a Bachelor degree in Clinical Medicine from Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology in China. Before taking on her current role, she looked after The Lancet’s Chinese edition and was involved in various journal publication projects in Elsevier’s China office. Prior to that, she worked as a peer review editor for a local general medical journal.

Richard Primack, Professor of Biology at Boston University, has been an Editor of Biological Conservation since 2004, and was appointed Editor-in-Chief in 2008.

Since its launch in 1968, Biological Conservation has become one of the leading journals in conservation. It publishes research in the discipline of conservation, spanning a diverse range of fields contributing to the biological, sociological, and economic dimensions of conservation and natural resource management. Biological Conservation publishes 12 issues per year and is covered by the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports for 2010 with an Impact Factor of 3.498. Last year, the journal received almost 1,300 submissions of which around 25% has eventually been published.

Richard Primack’s research group is investigating the impact of a warming climate on the flowering and leafing out times of plants and the spring arrival of birds in Massachusetts, Japan, and South Korea.

Q. What does being a journal editor mean to you and what do you find most rewarding about this role?
A. Being a journal editor for Biological Conservation means being able to maintain the quality of research in my field, and being aware of the latest developments before they are published. I get my greatest satisfaction from helping new researchers to publish their first article. Also, I have enjoyed the friendly and cooperative interactions among the editors of our journal, all of whom work together to improve the journal.

Q. What are your biggest challenges as editor of Biological Conservation? How do you overcome these challenges and what extra support can Elsevier provide?
A. The greatest challenge is the increasing complexity of the job, including managing editorial workloads, dealing with authors, ethical issues, and the diversity of articles. A further challenge is that the current online submission system (EES) is nearing the end of its lifetime, and is showing its age. At present, the Elsevier representatives provide excellent and rapid advice and assistance. However, an early release of the new online system will be of great benefit.

Q. In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer-review system. What do you think the solution to this problem is and how do you see the peer-review process changing in the future?
A. At Biological Conservation, we are experiencing a steady growth in the number of high-quality submissions. In order to reduce the workload on editors, we are appointing another handling editor. We have been able to find enough reviewers as long as we send out multiple invitations so I don’t see a serious problem with the present system. We are also increasing the percentage of submissions that we immediately reject without peer review. A recurring problem is what to do when handling editors do not want to accept new papers for a while, such as when they are sick, having a baby, travelling, on vacation, involved in intensive work projects, etc... At those times, I must give the other editors more work.

Q. We have observed a recent trend that researchers are increasingly accessing journal content online at an article level, i.e. the researcher digests content more frequently on an article basis rather than on a journal basis. How do you think this affects the visibility of your journal among authors?
A. The whole process of online access is changing the way that people think about scientific literature, especially journals. In the short term, it means that people all over the world can have access to a wider range of journals, at the cost of a more narrow focus. The long-term consequences are less certain. One specific response we have made to the issue of online access to single articles is to make sure that articles state on the first page that they are part of a Special Issue or Special Section when that is appropriate.

Q. The move from print to electronic publishing has stimulated a broad discussion around alternative publishing models. These models are often termed as ‘open access’ and include:

• Author Pays Journal
• Sponsored Articles
• Free access to archives
• Open-archiving

What is your opinion about the ‘open access movement’ and how does it affect your journal?
A. This is something that we have not yet addressed, but we may have to soon. At present, Biological Conservation and the other leading journals in our field are still peer-reviewed, regular journals.

Q. Researchers need to demonstrate their research impact, and they are increasingly under pressure to publish articles in journals with high Impact Factors. How important is a journal’s Impact Factor to you, and do you see any developments in your community regarding other research quality measurements?
A. Impact Factors have confirmed and quantified the ranking of journals that experienced researchers were already aware of. We did a study two years ago and discovered that large numbers of papers that we rejected were later published in journals with somewhat lower Impact Factors than our journals, but none were published in higher-ranked journals. So clearly Impact Factors are describing something that is affecting the publication process. Right now it is not clear which other quality measures would replace or compete with the increasingly important Impact Factor.

Q. As online publishing techniques develop, the traditional format of the online scientific article will change. At Elsevier we are experimenting with new online content features and functionality, we call this project the Article of the Future. How do you think changes like these will affect your work as an editor?
A. I will have to see what this means. However, features that make an article easier to use, such as PowerPoint slides and colorful graphics that can be incorporated into presentations and lectures, would add value to the article.

Q. Do you use social media or online professional networking within your role as an editor or researcher? Has it helped you and, if so, how?
A. I don’t use any social media or online networking at present. If it appears necessary or useful I will learn it, but so far it has not come up in any interactions. Currently, email, electronic bulletin boards, and electronic mailing lists work fine. I also still see great value in visiting other universities and scientific organizations and attending local, national and international meetings to meet new people in person and develop collaborations.

Q. How do you see your journal developing over the next 10 years? Do you see major shifts in the use of journals in the future?
A. One of the most obvious developments is the ever increasing number of papers from China, India and other developing countries. At present, the quality of these papers is uneven, and the rejection rate is high. However, the quality will almost certainly improve over time. In response we will need to appoint new members of our editorial team from those countries.

Q. Do you have any tips or tricks to share with your fellow editors about being a journal editor?
A. My most important strategy is to keep working steadily, so that the amount of work does not overwhelm me. I set aside a regular time to work on the journal at least once each week, because if I don’t send manuscripts to handling editors and authors in a timely manner, then they can’t do their jobs. For manuscripts that are hard to find reviewers for, I keep a small reserve of close colleagues, often in my own department, whom I can call on to provide reliable reviews on short notice. And finally, I always remember that authors are people, and I try to treat them the way I would want to be treated: fairly, clearly, and in a timely manner.

Previous Editors in the Spotlight

• Jackie Ying
• Karl Shell
• Charles Sheppard
• Erik Maskin

Phil Martin | CSIRO Materials Science & Engineering, Australia | Editor, Surface and Coatings Technology

I joined Elsevier as an Editor for Surface and Coatings Technology in January this year and so I am relatively new to the EES system, at least from the Editor perspective.

I have been a member of the Editorial Board since 1987 and also a reviewer for several other Elsevier journals, so have had some exposure to the system. Having now been in the deep end of the pool for two months I am still on a learning curve but maybe some early impressions and experience may be of interest to others starting out as Editors.

Elsevier provides an excellent on-line introduction to the EES system, which Editors can try at their leisure and familiarize themselves with the aspects that are new to them. The real-time training is invaluable and I would say critical in getting up to speed. There is quite a lot of information to absorb first up and it is necessarily hypothetical, of course, until you are actually working in the EES system for real.  I had a second session using my actual Editor’s work list and practised on real cases, which then closed the loop on many questions that I had.

The main task essentially reduces to finding appropriate reviewers, of course, and this can be a little daunting for the first time.  However, the Scopus system is excellent and my experiences with the searching process to date have been very positive. The system as it works for SCT has some foibles though.  For example, if a potential reviewer is identified and emailed with the standard automated invitation there is no guarantee that the email address is still valid.  By the time you find out that it isn’t, at least five days have been lost. Apart from this issue, which I understand from the EES support office is an internal setting at the journal end, the system works extraordinarily well.  Reviewers that decline are generally very helpful and suggest alternatives although one did suggest the actual author?  When the numbers start to build errors can occur and I have invited an author to review their own paper on one occasion also!

It has been a rewarding experience to date and a great insight into the other side of the fence for a publishing scientist.  The main message I would like to convey to my colleagues in the scientific community is the importance of participating in the reviewing process for scientific journals in order to maintain the high standards we all expect for published scientific literature.

Cell Reports is not only the latest addition to the Cell Press suite of journals, it also holds the honor of being the group’s first open access journal and the first Creative Commons journal published by Elsevier.

Authors in Cell Reports retain full copyright over their articles and are able to choose between two Creative Commons licenses for publication, one of which is the most permissive license offered by Creative Commons.

Cell Reports Editor, Boyana Konforti, spoke to Editors’ Update about why the journal chose this particular open access path.

“Cell Press has always placed a high priority on access to its content; each of the journals offers free featured articles and the sponsored article option*, and all content is freely available after 12 months. Cell Reports goes further by providing authors with an opportunity to publish in a prestigious journal with immediate and unrestricted access.

Why Creative Commons?

“It was important for Cell Reports to be able to offer authors Creative Commons licenses. The most permissive license allows end users to share and adapt the paper, both commercially and non-commercially. The other option allows the article to be copied and distributed, but it cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

“I’m not sure how much time our authors spend deciding between these two licenses. However, I do know that for open access advocates, the fact that we offer the most accommodating Creative Commons license, and that copyright is retained by the authors, is a big deal.

“It is still early days - we published our inaugural issue at the end of January and we publish new articles weekly – but as time goes on it will be interesting to see whether authors favor one license over the other.

“The aim of Cell Reports is to publish high-quality papers encompassing all scales of biology, from the organism to the atom, with a focus on short papers.   There are, of course, other open access journals – in fact, quite a number have launched just in recent years – though few have the high standards and prestige of the Cell Press brand. There are also other journals that publish short papers, and still others that have a broad remit. But it is the unique combination of these features that will distinguish Cell Reports within Cell Press and beyond. I like to think of the old adage of the sum being greater than its parts.

The peer review process

"So far, we have been very pleased with the number and breadth of papers we’ve been receiving. The in-house editorial team of Cell Reports, which consists of me and Sabbi Lall, are responsible for reading all the papers and deciding which ones go out for external review. In making that decision we have the good fortune to be able to call on the extensive editorial expertise available across all the other Cell Press journals.

"We also ask our Editorial Board for advice. This unique board consists of up-and-coming scientists who are the new leaders in their respective fields and will help shape the journal from the ground up. They are passionate about their subject areas and enthusiastic about the journal.

"Even for those papers that do go out for review, the reviewers are holding the bar high. That way we can ensure we maintain the high quality and selectivity you would expect from Cell Press. As part of the Cell Press family, we also benefit from the manuscript-transfer system between journals, so one review process can serve for consideration at more than one journal.

First impressions

"I have been an Editor for many years and yet it is very exciting to start a journal from scratch – especially a high caliber, broad, open access journal at Cell Press. I am especially proud of the fact that the moment the paper is published it is available to everyone, everywhere.

"I’d like to say a big thank you to all the reviewers and our Editorial and Advisory Boards but especially to our authors who helped us get the journal launched. It’s always a big leap of faith to get involved with a new project like this so I’m very grateful. I look forward to further expanding the scope of Cell Reports so that it truly covers all of biology."

* Cell Press journals permit sponsored articles only in accordance to agreements with funding organizations.

Author Biography

Boyana Konforti

Boyana Konforti
EDITOR, CELL REPORTS
Boyana earned her PhD at Stanford University with Ron Davis, studying the mechanism of DNA recombination. She then did postdoctoral studies on the mechanisms of RNA splicing at Rockefeller University with Magda Konarska and at Columbia University with Anna Pyle. Boyana has been a professional Editor for more than 13 years, and she brings a wealth of experience in scientific journal publishing, as well as a deep understanding of biology and the communities that Cell Press serves.

Professor Steve Saxby is Director of the Institute for Law and the Web, and Professor of Information Technology Law and Public Policy at the School of Law, Southampton University. He is also founding Editor and Editor-in-Chief of Computer Law and Security Review - The International Journal of Technology Law and Practice (CLSR).

Published six times a year and now into its 28th volume, the international journal focuses on  technology law and practice, providing a major platform for publication of high quality research, policy and legal analysis within the field of IT law and computer security. The journal receives circa 200 papers per annum, of which around 30% are eventually published.

Steve Saxby’s current research interests lie in the public policy issues in public sector information; both its use and exploitation as well as new forms of information such as geospatial data. In 2011, he updated his research with a paper examining the politics and process of policy development in public sector information over the past three years. He is presently a member of a research team involving seven universities/research groups taking part in a £1.85m Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funded project examining ways to improve understanding and authentication of identity in the digital environment.

Q. What does being a journal Editor mean to you and what do you find most rewarding about this role?
A. It’s immensely rewarding. It’s my window on the world; it keeps me on my toes and up to date with what’s going on. You accomplish more in the working day if you are an Editor as you have to keep up. So long as you have the drive to do that it is a great position to hold. I also love to give folk the opportunity to break through if they have a good paper on a new topic. Finding these gems and getting them out there is a real buzz. As Editor, I can maintain contact with the profession and academic community all over the world. It is better than Facebook for keeping in touch!

Q. What are your biggest challenges as Editor of Computer Law and Security Review?
A. You cannot let your standards drop and for that reason you have to put in the time to get reviews done, improve papers, work with authors and make sure that you keep track of what’s new. You have to love what you are doing. As CLSR was founded back in 1985, it was around during the period when critical legal thinking was taking place to upgrade the law from the offline to the online world. So, from its early beginnings when there was - quite frankly - not much ‘computer law’ about, it now embraces a field in which the scope of legal development and change is immense and fast moving. My biggest challenge then is to keep up with what’s going on and there’s no easy way to do that.

Q. How do you overcome these challenges and what extra support can Elsevier provide?
A. My eyes and ears are my colleagues serving on the Editorial and Professional Boards and my colleagues here at the University; I value their opinions very much.  I found the Elsevier Editors’ Conference in Budapest in May 2011 a real eye opener. It was great to engage with other Editors and to see all that Elsevier is doing. Being an Editor for a long time certainly helps too, as does being a specialist in the overall field - after a while you get an instinct for a topic and an idea gels. It also helps to know where the major research centres are in the field.

Best paper award winners at a CLSR international conference

With regard to competitor challenges, one must always be prepared. Hard work and being open to a regular review of your methods is important. Getting out into the field is vital too and CLSR does this through its sponsorship of www.lspi.net. I think it is also important to bring new people on to the Boards of CLSR from time to time. That does mean saying goodbye to existing Board members, but it is important that the journal keeps refreshing its advisory team so that the impetus for new ideas and advice remains.

Q. In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer-review system. What do you think the solution to this problem is and how do you see the peer-review process changing in the future?
A. I don’t have easy answers. You just need to keep your network going and bring in new people when you can. You have your tried and trusted reviewers and folk who in the past have published papers and have the expertise to advise. You have to value these reviewers and try to keep them on board.  It is also vital to keep talking to the wider community of authors and researchers, for example at conferences and workshops. The rewards for reviewing are usually intangible - most folk do it because they want to stay on the cutting edge. If you are interested, researching or practising professionally in a field, then you are naturally interested in a good paper. No half measures, hard work and commitment is all I can suggest but I do believe the peer-review process is vital to maintaining quality.

Q. We have observed a recent trend that researchers are increasingly accessing journal content online at an article level, i.e. the researcher digests content more frequently on an article basis rather than on a journal basis. How do you think this affects the visibility of your journal among authors?
A. The key thing for me is that the papers are published in CLSR. If they don’t carry that seal of approval then the reader is not aware of the provenance of the paper. It has to be linked to the journal and to an issue. Of course, folk will download but they will do so because they know from whence the paper comes. It is the hallmark of peer reviewed quality if it comes with the CLSR imprint on it. That link must not be lost.

Q. The move from print to electronic publishing has stimulated a broad discussion around alternative publishing models. These models are often termed open access and include:

• Author pays journal
• Sponsored articles
• Free access to archives
• Open-archiving

What is your opinion about the open access movement and how does it affect your journal?
A. Open access after publication and in the author’s imprint on peer to peer sites like SSRN is fine with me. There are plenty of folk out there who will also want the added value of SciVerse ScienceDirect and the tools available for finding papers. I have no problem with that at all. I would never go down the path of making CLSR an Author Pays journal – to me that would undermine the independence of the journal’s content and its position as an academic journal of repute.

Q. Researchers need to demonstrate their research impact, and they are increasingly under pressure to publish articles in journals with high Impact Factors. How important is a journal’s Impact Factor to you, and do you see any developments in your community regarding other research quality measurements?
A. The Impact Factor is not used in Law journals nearly as much. Lawyers tend to use primary sources when they write, rather than cite other authors. It is not a factor that will be used directly in the forthcoming academic review of legal research known as the REF – Research Excellence Framework.

Q. As online publishing techniques develop, the traditional format of the online scientific article will change. At Elsevier we are experimenting with new online content features and functionality. Which improvements/changes would you as an Editor find most important?
A. Lawyers want embedded web links to primary sources and whatever added value can go with that. The new online content features you mention are probably going to be more useful in the scientific, rather than the legal community. However, I am always open to suggestions.

Q. Do you use social media or online professional networking in your role as an Editor or researcher? Has it helped you and, if so, how?
A. I do belong to LinkedIn but do not use it yet as much as I should. I think it could be useful for informing users about content as well as finding folk out there with expertise who might like to write or review for CLSR. Pressures of work have prevented me getting stuck into professional networking and social media yet, but it is on the agenda.

Q. How do you see your journal developing over the next 10 years? Do you see major shifts in the use of journals in the future?
A. Since 2005, I have linked CLSR to the series of International Conferences that Professor Sylvia Kierkegaard of the CLSR Editorial Board and I run together. I think this is an excellent way to connect CLSR to its readers and the author community. CLSR sponsors best paper awards (see photo) and I lead an annual CLSR seminar at the conference. It has been a great success, especially as it brings early career researchers from all over the world into face to face contact with me and some of my board. I will continue to build on that connection and to ensure that CLSR also uses its capability to contribute to policy debates and to government and EU consultations. This is where journals have to go in the future.

Q. Do you have any tips or tricks to share with your fellow Editors about being a journal Editor?
A. You have to be an early starter - getting into work early helps, e.g. 6.45am. You build experience over time and that helps in the day to day management of the journal. I juggle many tasks each day and knowing when to prioritize a task is vital and I have never been short of copy for an issue or missed a deadline in 28 years as Editor. The secret is keeping on top of everything and being flexible too. I don’t let things pile up. When a new paper comes in I try to sort out the reviewer fairly quickly and then chase things up if need be. I negotiate with my authors and use the reviews to improve papers wherever possible, even if we are not taking it. You build up a relationship that way. It is a privilege to be an Editor and the responsibility one carries is high, but I have loved every moment of my 27 years so far. I may get into the Guinness Book of Records one day for my length of service. Roll on the 200^th issue in 2018!

Clinical Simulation in Nursing launched with Elsevier in 2008 and became Elsevier’s first-ever, online-only nursing journal. Just this year its frequency increased from six to nine issues annually. Elsevier publishes the journal on behalf of the International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation in Nursing (INACSL). Suzie Kardong-Edgren, PhD, RN, is the second Editor and was instrumental in seeking out a major publisher for what had been a members-only journal. 

Upon launch, the journal moved from a hand-to-mouth manuscript acquisition style to enjoying a backlog of articles, which positioned it to be more selective, to publish higher-quality content and to prepare for the ISI application process.  On average, Clinical Simulation in Nursing (Clin Sim) receives more than 100 non-solicited article submissions a year; the current rejection rate is nearing 40%.

Q. What does being a journal Editor mean to you and what do you find most rewarding about this role?
A. I think that for me there is a dawning recognition about how important the Editor position actually is, how lucky I am to be an Editor, and the responsibility the Editor shoulders for moving a discipline forward.  It is so gratifying to see a new author published and then see the author cited in another journal. It is like a seal of approval, an endorsement of, “Yes, that was a good paper.”

Q. What are your biggest challenges as Editor of Clinical Simulation in Nursing? How do you overcome these challenges and what extra support can Elsevier provide?
A. My biggest challenge as Editor is letting authors and researchers know the journal exists and then convincing them to publish their work in our journal, rather than a more well-known education journal. It is like an arrow through my heart when I read a simulation article in another journal and the author states, “There is nothing in the literature about…” and Clinical Simulation in Nursing has five excellent articles published on the topic that were neither found nor cited. I also understand, as a newly tenured associate professor, that publishing good work in well-known journals with high Impact Factors is necessary. My job is to sell an author or tenure-track faculty member on the fact that their work, if published in Clin Sim, will be read by the experts in the field rather than education generalists.

I attend both big and small simulation conferences to build journal awareness and recognition. Some of the best and most creative simulation work is done in small schools and simulation centers where there may be no incentive to publish. Yet folks are doing amazing things. Convincing people to try writing and coaxing them to consider themselves as authors with something important to say is a very important part of my job.

My Elsevier publishing manager has helped guide us through the applications for MEDLINE listing, which will lead eventually to an Impact Factor for the journal.

Q. In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer-review system. What do you think the solution to this problem is and how do you see the peer-review process changing in the future?
A. This is an acute but opposite problem in simulation, which is an emerging field. Many of the most creative minds in the field work in associate degree programs where there is no incentive to publish. If one is working in a large simulation center, simulation use is exploding so there is little time to write. Paper submissions are growing as we encourage folks to write and the journal is discovered. There is a lot of mentoring of both peer reviewers and writers at this time. It is an ideal time, however, to get in on the ground floor as an emerging writer or a reviewer. I have heard about the open peer-review process, which allows a paper to go online as it arrives at the publisher for active online critique by readers. What an interesting experiment and instructive for all concerned.  I would try it.

Q. We have observed that researchers are increasingly accessing journal content online at an article level, i.e. the researcher digests content more frequently on an article basis rather than a journal basis. How do you think this affects the visibility of your journal among authors?
A. It helps Clinical Simulation in Nursing as an online-only journal. Researchers will find our content when conducting a search if they do not know we exist, and many of them do not. This means we need to have good content for them to find, which will then encourage them to seek out more information about the journal and potentially submit to us. I, too, search for what I want to read in a database like ScienceDirect or CINAHL; I rarely read an entire journal anymore.

Q. The move from print to electronic publishing has stimulated a broad discussion around alternative publishing models. These models are often termed open access and include:

• Author Pays Journal
• Sponsored Articles
• Free access to archives
• Open-archiving

What is your opinion about the open access movement and how does it affect your journal?
A. As someone who just received tenure, I can say that the open access journal movement in the nursing education and simulation field is not big and probably would be frowned upon by my colleagues at this point in time. There are very few government-funded simulation studies that would qualify for mandatory open access right now. I do like the idea of free access to archived journals and articles after a certain point in time. Open access has its place also. There are too many struggling scientists in parts of the world where mailed print journals will never arrive or there is no access to a library. The web is everywhere. Open access might help the next Watson and Crick emerge from some less-developed country.

Q. Researchers need to demonstrate their research impact, and they are increasingly under pressure to publish articles in journals with high Impact Factors. How important is a journal’s Impact Factor to you, and do you see any developments in your community regarding other research quality measurements?
A. I am told frequently by authors outside the US that they cannot publish in Clin Sim because it does not have an Impact Factor...yet. Many international authors choose to publish with us, however, as they want the experts in the field to see their work. Publishing a simulation article in a general nursing education journal gets more readers perhaps.  But that work is read by whom?  Simulation is still fairly new at the moment; many people who read general education journals are still hoping simulation is just a fad and do not necessarily appreciate an outstanding simulation article. Wise nursing simulation experts read Clin Sim.

I know that there is discussion that tenure and promotion boards may start considering blogs as publications, as one can count the number of hits and followers. There are new ways to calculate impact in a field besides research publications and speaking engagements.

Q. As online publishing techniques develop, the traditional format of the online scientific article will change. At Elsevier, we are experimenting with new online content features and functionality. Which improvements/changes would you, as an Editor, find most important?
A. We have actually used some of those new features like embedding videos of simulations in our articles and author interviews. Both our readers and authors like this ability.  Having looked closely at Elsevier’s Article of the Future video, I personally look forward to the active links on the right hand side of the page to article citations. As an active researcher myself, I will love having the search taken care of for me. I can work much faster with those links if I need to locate something or I want to read further.

Q. Do you use social media or online professional networking in your role as an Editor or researcher? Has it helped you and, if so, how?
A. I have both ResearchGate and LinkedIn accounts, neither of which I have actively thought about for professional networking. I tweeted several years ago at a conference, using tweets to take notes that were apparently pretty good. Many folks started following me based on them. Then I lost my Twitter password and never followed up. As an Editor, I think tweeting has some real possibilities for advertising important upcoming articles, which I need to consider and pursue.

Q. How do you see your journal developing over the next 10 years? Do you see major shifts in the use of journals in the future?
A. Since we began with Elsevier, the journal has nearly doubled its readership every year. I hope that in less than 10 years we are listed in all the major databases and achieve that very important Impact Factor. As an online-only journal, I look forward to Elsevier’s’ enhanced online article interactive format possibilities.  Perhaps many print-only journals will adopt an interactive online format.  There are too many opportunities for media online to not actively explore what can be done with a web publication for articles.

Q. Do you have any tips or tricks to share with your fellow Editors about being a journal Editor?
A. I’m too new to know any tricks. I have a lot to learn. I just try to stay ahead and on top of things. I do think an Editor has a remarkable influence to shape ideas in a field and that influence should not be taken lightly.