This module focuses on the section editor’s task of making the editorial decision. This decision is often made in consultation with the editor.
We’ll see how the section editor uses OJS to record her decision about a submission, after synthesizing the specialists’ feedback provided to her in the reviews. (We saw how to access and read these reviews in the previous lesson.) As an example, we’ll look at how the section editor interacts with the author if the paper is accepted with revisions required.
Since our model journal uses double-blind peer-review, it’s important to look carefully at this step in isolation. We’ll see how the section editor takes care not to reveal the identity of the peer reviewers to the author. Fortunately, OJS automates much of this task, but it’s important for the section editor to check carefully that all personally identifying information is kept confidential.
While the section editor’s decision to publish or decline to publish is easy to carry out in OJS, it embodies a host of responsibilities – to authors, reviewers, the research community, and the owner of the journal. The course Becoming an Editor examines these responsibilities in greater depth.
Go ahead and make your editorial decision. You can see the variety of choices available to you. For the sake of this activity, choose Revisions Required.
0 of 2 questions completed
Start the quiz!
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading...
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:
0 of 2 questions answered correctly
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)
Question 1 of 2
If the section editor makes the selection “Revisions required,” then the paper must undergo an additional round of peer review.Correct
Correct! This option is for cases where the manuscript is acceptable but requires minor changes. If the paper has serious flaws that require major revisions and then additional peer review, the section editor chooses “Resubmit for Review.”Incorrect
No. This option is for cases where the manuscript is acceptable but requires minor changes. If the paper has serious flaws that require major revisions and then additional peer review, the section editor chooses “Resubmit for Review.”
Question 2 of 2
In double-blind peer-review, the section editor might use OJS to easily email to the author (select all true answers):Correct
No, that’s not right.
You are at the halfway point now — congratulations! Are you still finding all of the modules useful? What would you change? I would really like to hear what you think!
What do you think would make the difference between Revisions Required and Resubmit for Review? What would you consider minor changes vs. major changes that would require another round of peer review? Do you have any examples you can share?
If you are following along with the lessons in order — congratulations! — you are half way through the course. At this point, if you have any comments about the course itself — what works well, what is unclear, what you think should be changed — please note it in the comment section below (or, if you’d prefer, send to me privately via email). All of your feedback, both positive and more critical, will help us ensure the course continues to get better.