Page 116 - How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 8th Edition 8th Edition

Page 117

Page 117

Chapter 18
the Review Process (How to Deal with Editors)

Many editors see themselves as gifted sculptors, attempting to turn a block of marble into a lovely statue, and writers as crude chisels. In
actual fact, the writers are the statues, and the editors are pigeons.
—Doug Robarchek

Functions of Editors and Managing Editors

Editors and managing editors have impossible jobs. What makes their work impossible is the attitude of authors. This
attitude was well expressed by Earl H. Wood of the Mayo Clinic in his contribution to a panel on the subject "What
the Author Expects from the Editor." Dr. Wood said, "I expect the editor to accept all my papers, accept them as they
are submitted, and publish them promptly. I also expect him to scrutinize all other papers with the utmost care,
especially those of my competitors."
Somebody once said, "Editors are, in my opinion, a low form of life—inferior to the viruses and only slightly above
academic deans."

And then there is the story about the Pope and the editor who died and arrived in heaven simultaneously. They were
subjected to the usual initial processing and then assigned to their heavenly quarters. The Pope looked around his
apartment and found it to be spartan indeed. The editor, on the other hand, was assigned to a magnificent apartment,
with

Page 118

plush furniture, deep pile carpets, and superb appointments. When the Pope saw this, he went to God and said:
"Perhaps there has been a mistake. I am the Pope and I have been assigned to shabby quarters, whereas this lowly
editor has been assigned to a lovely apartment." God answered: "Well, in my opinion there isn't anything very special
about you. We've admitted over 200 Popes in the last 2,000 years. But this is the very first editor who ever made it to
heaven."

Going back to the first sentence of this chapter, let us distinguish between editors and managing editors. Authors
should know the difference, if for no other reason than knowing to whom to complain when things go wrong.

An editor (some journals have several) decides whether to accept or reject manuscripts. Thus, the editor of a scientific
journal is a scientist, often of preeminent standing. The editor not only makes the final "accept" and "reject" decisions,
but also designates the peer reviewers upon whom he or she relies for advice. Whenever you have reason to object to
the quality of the reviews of your paper (or the decision reached), your complaint should be directed to the editor.

It has been said that the role of the editor is to separate the wheat from the chaff and then to make sure that the chaff
gets printed.
The managing editor is normally a full-time paid professional, whereas editors usually are unpaid volunteer scientists.
(A few of the very large scientific and medical journals do have full-time paid editors. A number of other journals,
especially medical journals, and especially those published commercially, pay salaries to their part-time editors.)
Normally, the managing editor is not directly involved with the "accept-reject" decisions. Instead, the managing editor
attempts to relieve the editor of all clerical and administrative detail in the review process, and he or she is responsible
for the later events that convert accepted manuscripts into published papers. Thus, when problems occur at the proof
and publication stages, you should communicate with the managing editor.

file:///C|/...0208%20Books%20(part%201%20of%203)/How%20to%20write%20&%20publish%20scientific%20paper/18.htm[4/27/2009 1:09:12 PM]