The Associate Editor in the peer review process—what's that?

A recent editorial in the Journal of Wildlife Management (Krausman 2022) provided insight into duties an Editor-in-Chief (EIC). His discussion, coupled with Johnson et al. (2021) and Gould editorials regarding publication process from authors' perspectives, sparked us to share some thoughts viewpoint Associate Editor (AE). Most have or will spend a larger fraction our careers directed at publishing papers than as reviewers, which generally means we may less understanding important role that AEs play (until become one). We decided insights what AE does issues they face provide glimpse another part process. are all women different biological fields point, served (or serving) for others. focus primarily on experiences journals produced by The Society (TWS) but most could apply other journals. also offer recommendations improve experience. First foremost, if you interested serving any TWS publication, encourage volunteer, not wait be approached. Having doctorate is prerequisite; expertise accumulated variety pathways. provides guidelines basic operations, timelines, description typical procedures. instructions do cover expect personally paradigms might adopt address critical evaluation scientific writing. Being akin being super reviewer it requires substantial investment time—a precious commodity. How this rewarded varies. In academia, reviewing editing considered service community can ultimately aid promotion. settings, appointment viewed extracurricular activity even undesirable distraction. To know type support potential AE, strongly recommend first speak your supervisors before accepting position. An acts team lead overseeing reviews manuscript integrated assessment recommendation EIC. involved selection reviewers leave up journal staff. Once been obtained, both asked EIC evaluate merit submitted whether should accepted publication. main difference between integrates their own opinions those reviewers. one strategy, reads comments then manuscript, letting way. second evaluates full, compares (the option preferred current journal). Regardless key respect reviewers' recognizing these experts given time peer-review AE's job summarize, reconcile needed, suggestions improving letter guide author revisions. Editors 3 goals providing authors comments: clearly communicate suggested revisions reasons them, uphold standards expectations its readership. purpose review reject manuscripts because set quota publisher. Rejection usually outcome flawed study design, poor methods, insufficient data inferences, match journal. attack abilities encouraging make best be. Where significant deficiencies corrected likely take considerable effort (e.g., including more information, reanalyzing data, reorganizing manuscript), rejection invitation resubmit. Even when merit, submissions require ≥1 round revision. Clear direction facilitates efficient process, especially extensive. When revised returned, responses see understood requested changes, implemented them adequately, sufficient explanations rebuttal. detailed author(s) indicates where were made making invaluable. If there delays returning concerns questions, always welcome encouraged contact directly. misconception decision accept This accurate. ensure quality research EIC, much like line chef presents plate food sous inspection served. time, follow trust experts. technical needed original possess, special considerations arise, such widely conflicting belligerent reviews, prior recommendation. It still possible differ opinion Stepping without uncomfortable moments. daunting opinion, either positive negative, someone's work. Many people, doubt critically assess other's manuscripts. particularly true new professionals, case veteran subject matter specialty. Soliciting further speaking guidance. wildlife field relatively small despite deliberate efforts avoid it, assigned whom professional personal relationship. Disclosing conflict interest early helps maintain fair unbiased handling testifies belief TWS's Code Ethics (https://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20190304-Code-of-Ethics.pdf). struggle conflicts simply unhelpful. who detailed, thoughtful review, regardless recommendation, friend. quick resulting terse “This outstanding paper significantly management species. Recommendation: Accept.” useful written world's foremost authority. behind must clear. articulate helpful author, final (Johnson 2021, 2021) occasionally feels unpaid, thankless, drain time. Given this, why would anyone consider becoming AE? Simply put, makes better scientist writer. First, continuous repetitive evaluating someone else's work through allows how others (reviewers) perceive work, continually writing skills. read manuscripts, intuitive becomes recognize clear, well-articulated text, emulate it. Second, invest lot sifting others, exposed techniques, analyses. Essentially, continue learn stay forefront science. You gain broader knowledge connecting scientists solely within specialized topic. Third, community, fundamentally rewarding community. simultaneously coaches, teachers, students. mentor younger less-experienced writers scientists. These types exchanges develop form giving has shown increase overall satisfaction life (Revord 2021). realize individuals volunteer enter position levels experience, abundance experience unfamiliar philosophies operations. Coping effectively takes practice, training help. Formal historically scant, perhaps was assumed already well-versed necessary communication true, deal author's labor love, influences reputation (and paycheck), so learn. end commentary few change successful meeting mission peer-reviewed Key communication: authors, Providing brief history publications vital Society's finances context well done. Editors-in-Chief hired leadership rapidly evolving world. web-based recording philosophy vision clear AEs, initial video fast track submission site operations help emphasize points, write constructive handle drawn-out revisions, gender-biased language. Despite open-door policy, EICs typically met formally only once year publisher-sponsored luncheon during annual meeting, discussed, feedback. understand financial limitation bringing group together frequently, suggest no longer exists. Periodic webinars pairing mentoring inexperienced experienced benefit both. Webinars allow staff perspectives ask questions (respectful confidentiality). venues conducive open dialogue tricky like: Is extremely caustic useful? additional necessary? level language barrier science? Moving forward, believe endorsing practices gratifying among dedicate promote available science peer integrity Editors, group, They linchpin discourse ensuring strong foundation credible knowledge. often-overlooked opportunity serve field. faced uncertainties challenges rewards helping protect integrity, learning far greater costs energy. acknowledge long-term guidance A. S. Cox C. Knipps shared over years. generous discussions P. R. Krausman energies literature compelling reputable. whose passion conservation fortitude patience prevail