On the craft of the editor-in-chief and editorial decisions

Abstract

In this last editorial of the year, we would like to address issues that surround and afflict the editorin-chief in his craft. The editor-in-chief is supposed to be the "gatekeeper", with the power to decide whether an article must be published in a journal. However, the word "power" needs to be problematized. What is the real power of an editor? Going over the editorial process: i) the article submitted is evaluated for format and similarities; (ii) after that first evaluation, it is forwarded to the editor-in-chief, who decides if the article must be immediately rejected (desk-reject) or be sent to a science editor in the thematic area of text in question. In the case of RAE, many articles are rejected in the screening stage carried out by the editor-in-chief and the assistant editor. However, if the article passes the evaluation process, the editor-in-chief works with his/her colleagues -scientific editors and reviewers -on opinions to improve the article for publication. What is the power of the editor-inchief? Respect the decisions of scientific editors, and work with the reviewers on the assessment and development of the article. Can the editor-in-chief not meet his scientific editors' recommendations?At first, yes, but this could end the evaluation system. If a scientific editor's recommendation is not followed, then why should he continue this task free, to support the academic field? Oftentimes, the editor-in-chief may cling to more than one scientific editor -in the same way as we consult a doctor for a second opinion, at times; but he/she cannot employ such strategy in examining all the articles, except when there is considerable doubt. The editor-in-chief is not a sadist who likes to torture the authors, hoping that they do badly in the process; instead, he/she needs articles. You can say that the editor-in-chief needs articles that can make the journal an interesting research space, where authors and ideas that contribute to the construction of local and universal knowledge found. Texts that may serve as a reference for other studies: this is the nature of academic journals.In such way, the interest of the editor-in-chief is to publish articles with valuable insights, which can be both theoretical and methodological contributions. Nonetheless, the editor-in-chief depends on scientific editors and reviewers. Clearly, his/her power is not absolute. Are scientific editors and reviewers perfect? No, like any of us, they bring their perspectives, which may have blind spots. This is evident when we consider examination comittees: the student was instructed; and the supervisor performed his job, but the comittee still found numerous aspects, which could not have been anticipated, while going through the text. It is the nature of the scientific work, or better, of human nature, to have limited and partial views.When are articles immediately rejected? This occurs in three main circumstances: i) the phenomenon has already been researched by several other researchers, and the article in question does not contr...