In the fast-changing scholarly publishing ecosystem, journal editors have more roles to fulfill than ever before — from metadata wrangler (herding all those PIDs!) to author experience coordinator, reviewer trainer, and even website copywriter just to name a few.
If you’re a managing, technical, or general editor who feels like your job description keeps expanding, you’re not alone!
The 2024 ISMTE Conference, which I had the pleasure of attending July 17th through 19th in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (a city known for its bridges and once silent H), offered a window into the most pressing issues for editorial teams today and a welcome opportunity for editors, publishers, and vendors to come together to share how they’re prioritizing competing tasks, the latest workflow innovations they’re focusing on, and lessons learned along the way.
Since ISMTE is one of the most hands-on and actionable industry events, I wanted to take the time to share some key takeaways from the sessions I was able to attend this year.
The journal as a community
To start, a session topic that permeated the rest of the conference and stood out to me was “The Journal as a Community: The Researcher Experience.” During the panel-style discussion, Associate Publisher at AIP Publishing Ginny Herbert, Managing Editor for JNCI and JNCI Cancer Spectrum Dr. Amanda Boehm, and Assistant Professor at the University of Pittsburgh Dr. Michelle Manni discussed the interconnected roles of authors, reviewers, and readers throughout the scholarly publishing lifecycle and how editors and publishers can best support the overall researcher experience. Below are some of the key themes that stood out.
For Authors: If I were to sum up the primary way to improve the author experience from “The Journal as a Community” session in one word, I would say speed. Manni offered helpful insight into the author’s perspective, noting that time-to-decision and publication speed are primary factors for authors when deciding where to submit their papers, often superseding publication impact, particularly for those working toward tenure or promotions. In those cases, Manni said journals that can offer decisions in a few weeks rather than multiple months tend to stand out. She added that authors would also love to see journals pare down lengthy submission formatting requirements to make that process smoother and less time consuming.
In addition to peer review and publishing efficiency, Manni said another leading factor that can influence a researcher’s perception of a journal (and likelihood of submitting to it in the future) is the quality of the peer review feedback they receive. She emphasized that even receiving an unfavorable review can be a positive experience for the author if it’s constructive with actionable recommendations.
For Reviewers: Moving to the reviewer experience, Herbert and Boehm discussed the importance of providing adequate guidance to enable reviewers to prepare the kind of constructive feedback Manni discussed. At the highest level, they noted that journals should ensure their reviewer feedback forms clearly state the questions they need referees to respond to (e.g., don’t assume everyone will know to address the methods section) and that if a reviewer submits half-baked or uncollegial feedback, it’s ok to ask them to revise their comments to be more complete or professional. Additionally, they recommended implementing a reviewer rating system internally to help editors more easily determine which reviewers to invite back and which to potentially hold off on contacting.
From there, the panelists discussed the benefits of offering reviewer training or mentorship programs. They also emphasized the importance of reviewer recognition, especially for early-career researchers who often contribute to reviews and go unacknowledged. Some specific ideas for recognizing reviewers discussed during this session and later during the ISMTE Exchange forum included sending thank you notes, holding a reception for top contributors during annual scholarly society meetings, highlighting reviewer contributions in public profiles at the end of each year such as posting photos/short profiles of the top 10 reviewers on social media, and offering to send a letter of recognition to the reviewer’s PI or institutional dept head as a formal way to show the impact of their work.
For Readers: Moving to the reader experience, supporting content discovery was the prevailing theme. The panelists discussed the need for journals to learn how their readers prefer to find and consume content and cater to those needs. In short, meet readers where they are.
The speakers also asked session attendees to participate in an interactive poll answering the question: “How are you finding the science you are reading?”. The poll received 52 responses with mixed results: 25% of respondents chose “directly from a journal website/table of contents/eAlerts,” 23% chose Google Scholar, 13% chose PubMed, 10% chose LinkedIn, and 29% chose Other. Interestingly, no one selected the option “X, Facebook.” In discussion with the audience, it appeared that many publishing folks and researchers are pivoting from X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook to LinkedIn, and some spoke to the benefits of co-promoting new research with authors on that social platform.
Writing for the web
Building off the topic of helping readers find journal content, “Writing for the Web” delved into tips to make journal websites more easily navigable for journal authors, reviewers, and readers. During the session, Executive Publisher at the American Physiological Society Deborah Plavin and Enterprise Content Strategist for the American College of Cardiology Jay Brite presented strategies and tactics for assessing and iteratively improving journal website copy.
They shared a quote by Danish web usability consultant and human-computer interaction researcher Jakob Nielsen that nicely encapsulated the distinction between traditional print writing and writing for the web that the session addressed:
“Print is linear, author-driven storytelling. The web is nonlinear, reader-driven, ruthless pursuit of actionable content.”
Actionable takeaways from the session included:
- Put information into context: Consider whom you’re writing for, the information they need, and what you need to convey before putting fingers to keyboard and write toward those aims only.
- Follow the inverted pyramid: Always start each web page with the crucial information readers need to know, followed by supporting details, and then “nice to have” background information as relevant.
- Include page summaries: State the main idea of each page in 200 words or less and use a conversational tone (readers shouldn’t have to wade through bloated or overly formal text to get the gist of what you’re saying).
- Format content into “bites, snacks, and meals”: This phrase coined by Leslie O’Flahavan, the founder of E-WRITE, refers to readers’ different degrees of content consumption. Some may be looking to get key information fast (e.g., have a bite or a snack), and some may want the whole enchilada. Plavin and Brite reiterated the importance of following the inverted pyramid to cater to those varying needs. They added that packaging research content into different formats along with traditional research articles, such as podcasts or blog posts, can also be a way to diversify your content and offer more “snacks.”
- Keep it simple: Cut down the amount of text on author and reviewer guidelines pages to a minimum and organize information into clear “chunks, not blobs” of text (i.e., short paragraphs and bullets).
- Use plain language: On a slide titled “say this, not that,” Brite offered helpful examples such as changing “assist” to help and “concerning” to “about” and avoiding the passive voice unless it’s a necessary formality.
On the last point, if you’re looking for a quick and fun way to tell if a sentence is in the passive voice, Brite recommended adding “by zombies” to the end. If the sentence still makes grammatical sense, it’s in the passive voice. For example, your paper will be peer reviewed… by zombies. Don’t be afraid to flip to an active voice and remove those mindless creatures from your writing!
Tips for navigating a possible vendor migration
Another role many editors find themselves navigating at different points in their tenure, covered during Scholastica’s exhibitor breakout session, is assessing peer review and publishing software and, at times, handling vendor migrations. During the session titled “Time for change?: Tips for navigating a possible vendor migration,” Scholastica CEO and Co-Founder Brian Cody and Consultant at Origin Editorial Meghan McDevitt shared tips for assessing current software solutions to determine whether a transition is necessary and how to prepare a software migration plan if your team decides a new solution would better fit your needs.
Key takeaways from the session included:
- Know the problems you need to solve: Before you embark on researching possible alternate software options, ask your team what’s working with your current solution and bullet out the specific pain points you need to solve so you can send targeted initial requests for information to vendors, which can be a lot more generative than lengthy RFPs to start. Depending on the size of your team, you may want to gather feedback during a live meeting, in one-on-one conversations, and/or via a survey or feedback form.
- Start with your current vendor: Bring the pain points you outline to your current vendor first and have a conversation with them about if and how they may be able to address your needs. You may realize that you can reach your goals by leveraging existing features in your current system or adjusting your workflow.
- Get buy-in early: If you find that you do need a new software solution, seek early buy-in from all stakeholders at your journal and broader publishing organization to ensure everyone has an opportunity to weigh in and that no one feels blindsided when you start sharing alternate software solutions. Additionally, consider the following questions as you determine the best ways to pitch a software migration to decision-makers: Who is likely to be an advocate for improvement? Who tends to be risk-averse? What are key stakeholders’ preferred communication styles? What incentives motivate them?
- Help vendors help you: As you research alternative software solutions, be upfront with vendors about your wants, needs, and any hard requirements like budget limits, and ask vendors to outline how their solutions compare with the competitors you’re considering. Remember, vendors want to ensure potential customers will be the right fit for their solutions (just as customers want to vet them), so if you’re direct with vendors, they’ll be upfront with you.
For those who decide to move forward with a vendor migration, whether for a suite of titles or a single journal, Cody and McDevitt emphasized the importance of outlining a comprehensive migration plan via shared tools like Google Sheets or Trello, including project milestones with set due dates, and scheduling regular check-ins. They added that, in most cases, journal teams should anticipate dedicating six to nine months to system migrations from vendor research through the final transition and that teams can streamline and speed up the process by being discerning about the amount of data they import into new software systems and prioritizing user training. They also shared a link to Scholastica’s new Peer Review System Migration Toolkit, a software-agnostic guide to managing peer review system transitions, including an interactive migration coordination planning template. You can download a copy of the Toolkit here.
How to do it all
Culminating on the theme of editors having more roles than ever before was “How Do I Do it All: Practical tips to juggle ethical violations, Open Access mandates, and an evolving publishing world all while keeping your journals going.” During the panel-style session, Senior Director of Publishing and Global Partnerships at The Aesthetic Society Phaedra Cress, Senior Managing Editor at ASGE Stephanie Kinnan, and Associate Managing Editor at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Caitlyn Trautwein shared practical tips to help editors and publishers manage growing responsibilities and avoid burnout. Key takeaways included:
- Focus on what’s mission-critical: The panelists spoke to the importance of not only learning to handle more work but also learning when to cut tasks. Cress advised attendees not to be afraid to challenge the status quo and to frequently question the “why” behind internal processes and iterate on them rather than sticking with how things have always been done. Kinnan added that if you’re unsure whether a task is necessary, another way to gauge whether to keep doing it is to simply stop for a period of time and see if anyone notices, giving the example of pausing pulling additional versions of reports team members don’t seem to be using to see if anyone requests them.
- Establish ethical policies and procedures: to get ahead of potential ethical violations, such as suspected plagiarism or papermill submissions, outline policies and procedures for handling such instances. COPE has various sets of guidelines and decision flowcharts you can use to save time.
- Find ways to repurpose past work: One of the most actionable takeaways of the panel was not to be afraid to repurpose existing journal workflows and documentation, especially when launching new journals. For example, rather than writing new journal author and reviewer guidelines from scratch, consider whether you can copy and rework the guidelines of an existing publication since you’re likely to write something very close to them anyway.
- Break down the silos: the panelists also discussed how having disconnected team members can often lead to more complex workflows and even double work. They advised having regular editorial check-in meetings, finding ways to consolidate duplicative tasks (e.g., if multiple people are pulling the same report for different journals in the portfolio, consider having one person do them all at once), and seeking opportunities to open lines of communication between those working on the peer review and production side of publications.
Finally, all of the panelists spoke about the criticalness of individual editors tracking their work-life balance and taking steps to avoid burnout, including scheduling regular breaks throughout the day, taking time off, and not being afraid to go fully offline to refresh and recharge. As Cress quipped: “Emails can wait for a day. Nobody dies in journal publishing.” They also advised managers to ensure they are setting good examples of work-life boundaries for their direct reports.
So many great sessions
That’s just a short recap of the many fantastic sessions from ISMTE 2024, which even included a musical about metadata called “Dial ‘M’ for Metadata: An Interactive Who-Done-It” about the search for a missing researcher and a piece of missing metadata. I decided not to cover that one in case the actors plan to reprise it in the future, but I will say it had a surprising twist at the end! You can see an overview of all the sessions from this year’s conference on the agenda page.
Scholastica looks forward to next year’s ISMTE conference, which will be in Montreal, with more details to come. Stay tuned!
