Academics generally have many responsibilities by default - being an editor of a journal should not be one of them because it helps only publishers.
For a moment, think back to when you decided to embark on the journey of becoming a researcher. When you were accepted into a grad school program, full of excitement about what the future in research might have in store for you. The aspiration to become a researcher uncovering the breakthrough discoveries, advancing humanity towards better days, having your name resonate in the ears of the whole planet. Just like Feynman, Einstein, or Newton.
And now, honestly, did that vision include being an editor of an academic journal? Being a manager of research reporting, settling author disputes, or being simply overwhelmed by the sheer amount of work it takes and that is barely recognized by anyone outside the hiring committee for your next academic position?
If you can answer yes, you belong to the few percent of researchers who already at the dawn of their career knew what the academic world demands from professors today. If you are like the rest of us, journal editorship most likely came to you because of one or more of the following reasons:
- It’s something academics do
- It’s a service for community
- I was told it will advance my academic career
- My supervisor was doing it and left this honorable position for me
Certainly there is a merit to altruistic work for the community, no doubt. Nevertheless, the workload of a professor today is quite overwhelming by default. Adding editorial work to the pile of other tasks in your schedule just seems unfair.
If anything, academics should be focused on research first and foremost. Yes, there are always support and managerial tasks to deal with in any job that requires an advanced degree or managing a team. But the ever-green trio of research, teaching, and service can get you anywhere beyond 50 hours a week spent on work. Here, the ‘service’ tasks are not defined very clearly or exhaustively. Also contributing to a rather uncertain amount of work one can end up doing.
Since there is no coincidence, someone must benefit from academics investing their precious time into editorial work. In this case it is easy - publishers. If you think about it, it is a perfect solution to a big challenge at absolutely no cost. On the contrary. Turned into a virtuous activity for the community, many academics eagerly assume editorial positions. Being an editor of a journal can be enjoyable too - keeping informed on the latest advances in your field before anyone else, or the great feeling of facilitating science reporting are real.
But publishers are the real winners here. Their astronomical profit margins come from several sources. One of them being the fact that the same people who pay for publishing and access to the work they do also do all the editorial work completely free of charge (in most major engineering journals to say the least).
The awareness of this quadruple win (including peer review done for free) for publishers among academics is growing. Increasingly putting publishers at odds with the very community they claim to serve. Lots of other types of publishing systems are available and many academics call for the complete opposite of the current system - community driven / managed ‘journals’ with diamond open access publishing model.
Arguably, this kind of solution would be ideal. But, this does not remove the work to be done. That is, the reviewing, editorial work, and necessary infrastructure. I believe in a ‘great middle way’ type of solution here. Considering a model where authors pay for publishing in a gold open access model, other authors review the work, and the ‘journal’ (or platform if you will) is run by a dedicated team of professionals, not professors.
This way, everyone wins - the professors get rid of the additional editorial workload, while at the same time, the publishing platform is maintained and those who uphold it get adequate reward for the work. The diamond open access model is another extreme. Since the work of running a publishing platform has to be done by someone, it often ends at the shoulders of academics. Leaving them with even more work to do than in the current system. Idealist initiatives like that often die out because it is not the main work academics focus on or are rewarded for.
Therefore, a great middle way of leaving some incentive to publishers in the form of payments for publication makes perfect sense. Let’s be honest - it is a lot of work to manage journal submissions and the review process. Despite being simple work, it still takes time and is necessary. Which is why I say:
Professors - do not accept an editor position at a journal.
Rather publish on platforms with gold open access and professional editorial staff. Academics should be part of the advisory body to such platforms though. Such that the platforms keep in touch with those they serve. This way academics will remain actively involved, but not to a degree that would take away significant time they can dedicate to things that matter more - doing research, supervising students, or teaching.
#GradSchool #ECRchat, #research, #AcademicLife, #PeerReview, #AmReading, #PhDchat, #MakePublishingGreatAgain #Frelsi #EchoChamber #justdoingmywork #toomanypapers #editors #professor
You can comment when you sign in.