An Editor’s Role and Responsibility Joseph N. Mait Received 4 October 2013; posted 4 October 2013 (Doc. ID 198950); published 31 October 2013
Following an editorial emphasizing the importance of reviewers, Applied Optics’ Editor in Chief Joseph N. Mait explains the critical role of the editor. © 2013 Optical Society of America OCIS codes: (000.5360) Physics literature and publications; (000.5920) Science and society. http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AO.52.000ED8
After my editorial, “In Praise of Reviewers,” appeared in May a reader e-mailed me and rightly pointed out that reviewers did not decide to reject the manuscripts cited. The reviewers provided their comments to an editor who rejected the manuscripts. In my attempt to emphasize the importance of the review process and reviewers’ efforts, I glossed over the editor’s role, which I will attempt to clarify here. An editor is part of the review process as a matter of procedure. When submitting a manuscript to Applied Optics, an author selects one of three main categories: Information Processing; Lasers, Photonics, and Environmental Optics; or Optical Technology. The division editor for the respective area scans the manuscript and assigns it to a topical editor who has the appropriate expertise. After receiving the manuscript, the topical editor must secure several reviewers. The Optical Society of America recommends (but does not require) a minimum of two reviews for every manuscript. Finding reviewers is the bane of an editor. An editor sometimes has to contact five reviewers before finding two who are willing to review the manuscript. Then, to meet the author’s expectations, the editor must hope the reviewers offer useful and timely comments. Tardy reviews and those that recommend action without justification are pointless— and underscore my message in May: good reviewers, those who consistently provide the requisite level of effort deserve our highest praise. 1559-128X/13/310ED8-02$15.00/0 © 2013 Optical Society of America ED8
APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 52, No. 31 / 1 November 2013
To aid both authors and reviewers, I have tried to make clear my expectations for manuscripts that appear in Applied Optics. My June editorial, “The Tenor of Applied Optics,” describes content that is acceptable. Quite simply, the emphasis is on application. I have also stressed often the quality I expect. OSA’s Prism article tracking system now provides authors with an explicit statement of what Applied Optics considers an “in-depth manuscript.” A complete review helps authors and should make an editor’s decision easier. But even complete reviews may not provide clear justification for acceptance or rejection, especially when reviewers disagree. When an editor receives two good reviews, but one recommends acceptance and the other rejection, the editor can either break the tie based on his or her assessment of the work or seek a third review. Editors, however, are often reluctant to seek additional reviews because it lengthens the review process and frustrates authors. I believe that a meaningful review, as opposed to immediacy, is paramount and I support editors who seek an independent third review. I also support editors who decide to accept or reject an article based on the reviews they have received, as long as they clearly communicate the reason for their decision in their letter to the author or authors. An editor should accept his or her editorial responsibility explicitly, as opposed to submitting a review that makes it appear to an author they have received three anonymous reviews with two in agreement. This last discussion brings me back to my reader’s comment on the responsibility of an editor to make a
decision. In those cases, where the decision is not clear, an editor must exercise judgment and must take responsibility for it. I have made clear to my editors that a manuscript whose highest praise is “there’s nothing wrong with it” is unacceptable. I wish to restrict manuscripts that contribute minimally to the body of knowledge. But, how does one determine what a “minimal contribution” is? Is assessing “significance” or “impact” truly objective? The article on which I based my May editorial indicated that our ability to assess impact is flawed. I do not disagree with that. Sometimes an editor’s decision is subjective. In my opinion, the point of the IEEE article was to snigger in hindsight at
an editor’s failure to divine the future properly. [For a good book on predictions, I recommend Nate Silver’s The Signal and the Noise (Penguin, September 2012).] I reiterate that, as a human process, reviewing is imperfect. But, it works and works best when all parties (authors, reviewers, and editors) execute their responsibilities with conviction and integrity. Authors present a compelling case for publication, reviewers are thorough and substantiate their assessments, and editors make decisions and justify them. Joseph N. Mait October 2013
1 November 2013 / Vol. 52, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS
ED9
Following an editorial emphasizing the importance of reviewers, Applied Optics’ Editor in Chief Joseph N. Mait explains the critical role of the editor. © 2013 Optical Society of America OCIS codes: (000.5360) Physics literature and publications; (000.5920) Science and society. http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AO.52.000ED8
After my editorial, “In Praise of Reviewers,” appeared in May a reader e-mailed me and rightly pointed out that reviewers did not decide to reject the manuscripts cited. The reviewers provided their comments to an editor who rejected the manuscripts. In my attempt to emphasize the importance of the review process and reviewers’ efforts, I glossed over the editor’s role, which I will attempt to clarify here. An editor is part of the review process as a matter of procedure. When submitting a manuscript to Applied Optics, an author selects one of three main categories: Information Processing; Lasers, Photonics, and Environmental Optics; or Optical Technology. The division editor for the respective area scans the manuscript and assigns it to a topical editor who has the appropriate expertise. After receiving the manuscript, the topical editor must secure several reviewers. The Optical Society of America recommends (but does not require) a minimum of two reviews for every manuscript. Finding reviewers is the bane of an editor. An editor sometimes has to contact five reviewers before finding two who are willing to review the manuscript. Then, to meet the author’s expectations, the editor must hope the reviewers offer useful and timely comments. Tardy reviews and those that recommend action without justification are pointless— and underscore my message in May: good reviewers, those who consistently provide the requisite level of effort deserve our highest praise. 1559-128X/13/310ED8-02$15.00/0 © 2013 Optical Society of America ED8
APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 52, No. 31 / 1 November 2013
To aid both authors and reviewers, I have tried to make clear my expectations for manuscripts that appear in Applied Optics. My June editorial, “The Tenor of Applied Optics,” describes content that is acceptable. Quite simply, the emphasis is on application. I have also stressed often the quality I expect. OSA’s Prism article tracking system now provides authors with an explicit statement of what Applied Optics considers an “in-depth manuscript.” A complete review helps authors and should make an editor’s decision easier. But even complete reviews may not provide clear justification for acceptance or rejection, especially when reviewers disagree. When an editor receives two good reviews, but one recommends acceptance and the other rejection, the editor can either break the tie based on his or her assessment of the work or seek a third review. Editors, however, are often reluctant to seek additional reviews because it lengthens the review process and frustrates authors. I believe that a meaningful review, as opposed to immediacy, is paramount and I support editors who seek an independent third review. I also support editors who decide to accept or reject an article based on the reviews they have received, as long as they clearly communicate the reason for their decision in their letter to the author or authors. An editor should accept his or her editorial responsibility explicitly, as opposed to submitting a review that makes it appear to an author they have received three anonymous reviews with two in agreement. This last discussion brings me back to my reader’s comment on the responsibility of an editor to make a
decision. In those cases, where the decision is not clear, an editor must exercise judgment and must take responsibility for it. I have made clear to my editors that a manuscript whose highest praise is “there’s nothing wrong with it” is unacceptable. I wish to restrict manuscripts that contribute minimally to the body of knowledge. But, how does one determine what a “minimal contribution” is? Is assessing “significance” or “impact” truly objective? The article on which I based my May editorial indicated that our ability to assess impact is flawed. I do not disagree with that. Sometimes an editor’s decision is subjective. In my opinion, the point of the IEEE article was to snigger in hindsight at
an editor’s failure to divine the future properly. [For a good book on predictions, I recommend Nate Silver’s The Signal and the Noise (Penguin, September 2012).] I reiterate that, as a human process, reviewing is imperfect. But, it works and works best when all parties (authors, reviewers, and editors) execute their responsibilities with conviction and integrity. Authors present a compelling case for publication, reviewers are thorough and substantiate their assessments, and editors make decisions and justify them. Joseph N. Mait October 2013
1 November 2013 / Vol. 52, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS
ED9
