The publishing game: reflections of an editorial team

Abstract

The close of a 5-year editorship gives opportunity to reflect on the highs and the lows of an editorship. The goal of such reflection is to assist both authors and reviewers in interacting with a biomedical journal, and to foster interest among individuals contemplating an editorship. Among the highs was the privilege of publishing high-quality original scientific work within the scope of the journal; in this instance mechanistic studies of disease. Although review articles and editorials have their reward, it is the publication of original peer-reviewed work that constitutes the true basis for advancing biomedical science. This is the heart of journal publication. Second, the editorial interaction with submitting authors in bringing their work to publication is itself highly rewarding, and can lead to longer-term collegial working relationships between editors and authors. The anonymous expert reviewers also play a key role in bringing outstanding scientific work to successful publication. Collectively, authors, editors, and reviewers constitute an important ‘community of science'. Third, working together as an editorial team, especially through the weekly ‘journal clubs' that a regular editorial meeting affords, is commended as a key reward of any editorial group taking on journal management. The lows included sifting through submitted manuscripts in which the rigor of science was not satisfactory, and encountering specific instances of compromised scientific integrity—fortunately rare. In both instances, the editorial commitment is to publish high-quality original science; a necessary corollary is identifying those submissions, through rigorous but fair review, which do not meet journal standards. In the end, editorship is a highly rewarding experience, and very much conducive to sustaining the wonder of science that drew us to this profession.