Authors, reviewers and editors at The EMBO Journal

Abstract

![Graphic][1] In this internet era, it is reasonable to question why we bother with scientific journals instead of just posting research data in accessible formats on the web. One reason is obviously that we use the scientific journals as a way of evaluating science (both at publication and after). A second equally important reason is that we use them to draw our attention to papers ‘worth reading’ outside our specialties. As scientists, we need to publish our findings, preferably in a venue that we think reflects the merit and importance of our contribution, and that reaches the intended target audience. To make the process work, journals must critically evaluate the submitted science, which means that scientists, in turn, act as authors, reviewers and editors and thus ‘wear different hats’ in the process. As authors, we are naturally excited about, and attached to, our work. As reviewers, we are critical keepers of scientific standards, usually anonymously. Wearing the third (editor's) hat involves overseeing the whole process and making decisions. Working at EMBO Journal as the Executive Editor, it has become abundantly clear to me that the world—and specific tiny pieces of it—can look very different depending upon which hat you are wearing. Evaluating a manuscript is often complicated and the process often not an ideal impersonal scientific discourse. In the following, I will describe how we do things at The EMBO Journal and why, as well as provide my personal views on some issues that come up. For prospective authors and readers, it might be of interest to know how the editorial process is structured at The EMBO Journal . The EMBO Journal is owned and run by the European Molecular Biology Organization, and is housed in the EMBO building in Heidelberg. The daily editorial work is carried out by 4–5 full‐time … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif