Editors of academic journals - Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter womfalcs3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Academic Journals
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of a journal frequently changing managing editors during the review process of a revised submission. A reviewer expressed concerns about recommending major revisions after an initial minor revision was granted. It was clarified that reviewers have the authority to suggest revisions based on their objective assessment, regardless of previous editorial decisions. The changing of managing editors may occur for various reasons and should not be interpreted negatively regarding the reviewer's input.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of academic publishing processes
  • Familiarity with peer review dynamics
  • Knowledge of editorial decision-making in journals
  • Awareness of revision types (minor vs. major)
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the peer review process in academic publishing
  • Learn about the roles and responsibilities of managing editors
  • Explore best practices for providing constructive feedback as a reviewer
  • Investigate the impact of editorial changes on submission outcomes
USEFUL FOR

Researchers, academic authors, peer reviewers, and anyone involved in the academic publishing process who seeks to understand the implications of editorial changes during manuscript reviews.

womfalcs3
Messages
60
Reaction score
5
What does it mean when a journal constantly changes managing editors for a revised submission?

A journal initially handed down a minor revision for a paper. I became a reviewer after the revision was complete, and saw many shortcomings or mistakes, so I recommended a major revision. It's been a month since I gave my comments, and now the managing editor of the paper keeps changing...

I first thought, "Oh boy, can I recommend major revisions after the journal already decided minor revision of the first submission?"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As a reviewer asked to review a paper, you have the right to recommend however you see fit (provided it's coming from an objective and honest assessment of the work, without any conflicts of interest).

The journal will then take that assessment into account on any final decision. If the managing editor changes, it could be for any number of reasons - best not to read too much into it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
womfalcs3 said:
I first thought, "Oh boy, can I recommend major revisions after the journal already decided minor revision of the first submission?"

You can recommend whatever you like. What the editor does with this recommendation is her decision.

womfalcs3 said:
What does it mean when a journal constantly changes managing editors for a revised submission?

I'm sure it's not you.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

Appeal process for Physical Review Letters
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
What Does Frequent Paper Review Requests from a Journal Editor Signify?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Other Is it common to change the title of a paper after a major revision?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Journal selection advice for publishing my papers
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
A question on publication process in Physical Review D
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Other Changing the editor of my submitted paper
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Other Your thoughts about "International Journal of Theoretical Physics"
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Other Becoming anxious since my paper was submitted to journals
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Publishing in free access journal v paid journal?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Monument to peer review unveiled in Moscow
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K