Module 12: Making the Editorial Decisions

Objective
Video
Readings
Activity
Quiz
Evaluation
Discussion

Objectives

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.

Video

Readings

OJS User Guide: Editor Decision

Activity

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.

Quiz

Start the quiz!

Evaluation

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!

 

Discussion

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.

2 Comments on "Module 12: Making the Editorial Decisions"

  1. Profile photo of Greg Chan Greg Chan says:

    The article must have some inherent strength–a compelling thesis, a unique approach to the CFP, or cutting-edge research–for it to warrant major changes in another round of peer review. Is it worth the time and effort to mentor this author in order to produce a publishable article? I would say yes, but much of this depends on the reliability (and patience) of your reviewer and copyeditor.

  2. All changes are important, do not leave anything of information so that the author can improve your article.

Here's your chance to leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.