The Care and Feeding of Publications Editors

I’ve been following an academic writing group on Facebook for several months now. Many of the comments highlight the stress, frustration, and—yes, sometimes, elation that accompany submitting a manuscript for publication. The publishing process often feels adversarial, with reviewers and editors serving as gatekeepers to high-valued scholarly conversations. And yes, you will likely encounter at least one mean-spirited reviewer with an ax to grind at some point in your career. That said, I believe most academic editors are committed to helping authors get their manuscripts published, advancing the scholarship in their fields, and producing high-quality publications for their colleagues.

To that end, I want to offer some insights gleaned from more than 20 years of experience in academic publishing that I hope will demystify the process and make it feel more humane. Here we go…

1. Understand the editor’s role. A journal or book series may have two different editors. The content editor, an individual recognized for their writing and research in the field, makes initial determinations about sending manuscripts forward to peer review, synthesizes reviewer feedback, and issues dispositions (i.e., decisions) about ultimate publication. Journals and academic publishers may also employ managing editors who oversee copyediting for accepted manuscripts and the final production process.

In both cases, the editors approach a manuscript with dual goals of presenting the author’s work in the best possible light and maintaining a high-quality publication. In addition, editors will be familiar with the broad topic area and have clear insight into the audience for a particular publication. As such, their comments often focus on issues that are likely to give the reader pause—whether that is a term that hasn’t been clearly defined, awkward sentence structure, or a poorly organized discussion section. Tim Appenzeller, the former Chief Magazine Editor for Nature, described the relationship like this:

“It’s important to make it clear that this is a collaboration and that you as an editor are trying to be a surrogate reader and trying to identify the places where a reader might be confused or lose a thread or feel bored or puzzled, and help the author past those things.”[1]

If the editor (or reviewer) stumbles in the manuscript, chances are other readers will get tripped up as well. Figuring out how to fix the issue will only make the manuscript stronger. If you are unclear about responding to reviewer or editor feedback, request a phone consult with the editor to review the comments. Dr. Rebecca Campbell, editor of E-Source for College Transitions, notes: “I wish authors knew that they could email me for clarifying what the reviewers wanted. This process doesn’t have to feel so isolating!”

2. Don’t sweat the small stuff. Having a critical eye trained on our work is never easy, but it is best not to take things too personally. My colleague Dr. Betsy Barefoot, who has written and edited many publications on college student success, acknowledges that reviewing copy edits can be frustrating, especially when they feel unnecessary. Her advice: “Don’t fret about unnecessary changes unless they are wrong. Good editors can help you identify language, acronyms, or even words that are not familiar to those outside your field. Their work can make your work more accessible to a wider audience.”

If an edit creates a more serious error or misrepresents your intended meaning, you have every right to ask that the original text stand. If, however, the problem edit arose from an effort to correct an issue in the text (e.g., lack of clarity), you may want to suggest an alternative rather than merely rejecting it out of hand. A successful editing collaboration requires negotiation, and most publications editors are more than happy to find solutions that improve the text while preserving the author’s message and voice.

3. Know the publication. You can increase your chances of getting your manuscript in front of editors and reviewers (and being evaluated more favorably) by researching publication outlets before you submit your manuscript. Carefully review the submission guidelines to ensure the piece is appropriate in terms of topic, method, genre, and style. If you are unsure, you might send a query letter to the editor describing your manuscript and asking whether it is appropriate for the journal or book series you are considering. Craft a tight one- or two-paragraph description for the editor’s review— something that communicates the problem you are addressing, why it’s important and to whom, and what you’ve learned about it through your research or practice.

Approaching an editor in this way can feel a bit intimidating, but David Brightman, Senior Editor at Stylus Publishing, encourages authors to reach out:

“Don’t be afraid to talk to me (or any editor). If you have an idea for a book, don’t be shy; approach an editor. Even if an editor doesn’t like your idea, they may still be glad to develop a relationship with someone who wants to write. It’s true, we have a “gatekeeper” role, but somebody has to get through the gates, why not you?”

If you have determined your manuscript is a good fit, read several recent articles from the journal or flip through a book from the series. How is the piece structured, and how might you use that structure as a model for your work? Pay particular attention to submission guidelines, especially concerning length and style. For the journal I managed, our policy was to return any manuscript without review that exceeded our word count limits by more than 500 words (roughly 2 pages). Other journals are more draconian: I once had an article closed out for review because it was over the limit by ONE word. (I did another pass and quickly resubmitted.) Attending to these kinds of issues early on ensures that your manuscript at least makes it to the editor’s desk.

4. Meet your deadlines. Many journals operate on a rolling submissions basis, meaning that they are always accepting submissions. Deadlines are more likely to come into play if the article has been accepted pending minor revisions or the author has the option to revise and resubmit. In my experience, the deadlines at the R & R stage are more about managing the pipeline than keeping authors out. When an author misses a deadline without communicating with the editor, the publisher sees this as a signal that the author doesn’t intend to pursue publication. In most cases, the manuscript will be pulled from the active pipeline. Turn-around time will vary by journal, but if you realize you cannot make a deadline, negotiate an extension with the editor as soon as possible.

If your manuscript has been slated for a specific issue or you have received a publication date from your book editor, missing a deadline may mean a publication delay of several months or longer. If you are unsure how your revision deadline fits the overall production cycle, talk with the editor to avoid possible publishing delays.

Remember the publication editor’s ultimate goal is to disseminate high-quality scholarship. Viewing them as well-intentioned partners in the process can make academic publishing feel less fraught.

As I have noted elsewhere, a writing coach can walk you through the publishing process. If you’d like more information about coaching, connect with me at hello@tracylskipper.com.

[1] Quoted in Helen Sword’s Air & Light & Time & Space, p. 124.