The Editor's Role as a Harriet Shaw Weaver

Abstract

Two weeks ago visited Dublin, Ireland, where summer meeting of Anatomical Society was held. A literary walk was included in conference program, and it began just after poster session. About 50 participants attended in two groups. It started at a famous pub on Duke Street, and an actor guided each group. In pub, we were guided to a small private hall where found a picture of James Joyce and a framed letter he had written (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Photograph of James Joyce and his letter to Harriet Shaw Weaver. Taken at 'The Duke' in Dublin The actor told us that letter was written to a magazine editor, Harriet Shaw Weaver, and when Joyce could not find anyone to publish his major work, Ulysses, Weaver set up Egoist Press for this purpose at her own expense. It is thought that without editor's help, great novel would never have been published, and thereafter Joyce would not have become a world famous writer. On my way home, thought about how much reviewer's recommendations to a journal editor should be taken into account. Should editor rely upon a reviewer's opinion or does he have right to accept or reject paper against reviewer's recommendation? Should he play role of one who 'plucks a pearl from mud' as Weaver did? A recent paper shows that journal editors tend to place considerable weight on reviewers' recommendations. If all reviewers recommended not rejecting an article, editors still rejected manuscript 20% of time. If all reviewers recommended rejection, editors rejected piece 88% of time. Further, if reviewers were divided, editors rejected manuscript 70% of time (P=0.001) [1]. It is noteworthy that if all of reviewers recommended rejection, editors still accepted paper 12% of time. The publication process involves author-editor interaction for which both get credit once article gets published-the author directly, editor indirectly [2]. However, process of peer review can be prone to biases towards ideas that affirm prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas [3]. In reviewing process, peer reviewers should avoid intellectual suppression due to Matthew effect and Heider's assimilation-contrast theory. The Matthew effect is phenomenon in which the rich get richer and poor get poorer. In case of academic publication, it means that manuscripts of famous researchers have a greater chance of being published even if they are inadequate, while unknown authors' work may be required to meet a higher standard or even rejected simply due to lack of an established reputation [4]. Heider proposed distinction between two types of affective reactions in relation to emotional expressions of others. He argued that we experience concordant affective reactions to ideas of persons who belong to our in-groups and discordant affective reactions to those with whom we do not identify [5]. The role of editors is to comprehend degree of concordance of reviewers and determine whether to accept or reject an author's work on its own merits. Sometimes they should be a 'devil's referee' [6], and sometimes they should be a Harriet Shaw Weaver. At pub, two actors performed a portion of 'Waiting for Godot' by Samuel Beckett. Two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, waited endlessly and in vain for arrival of someone named Godot. Godot's absence has led to many different interpretations. For me, as an author, after submitting a manuscript to a journal, decision letter can be a figurative 'Godot' that feel am waiting for endlessly. Until that letter finally arrives, wonder whether editor will truly be my advocate. Editors should remain sympathetic to fact that authors who have submitted a manuscript to a journal are waiting for a letter that begins I am pleased to inform you that… While enforcing strong standards of rigor and ethics, best editors will be on lookout for unconventional ideas that should be published. It is such ideas that will move science and clinical practice forward most.