Ask the Editors: Assessing the Publishing Needs of Faculty Editors

Abstract

Introduction: This article reports results from a survey of faculty members with editorial responsibilities. The survey explored what publishing services and platform functionalities respondents found most valuable in their work as editors, how satisfied they were with the services provided by commercial publishers, and to what extent they were aware of alternative publishing practices. Method: The authors used data collected from a survey instrument that was distributed to a sample (n = 515) of faculty members with editorial responsibilities at their institution. Results: Collected data suggest that faculty editors value specific publishing services (e.g., coordination of peer review and copyediting) and platform functionality (e.g., submission and peer-review management) more than others, recognize several challenges facing academic publishing in their disciplines (including the transition to open access publishing models), and are mostly aware of common forms of open access research dissemination such as open access journals and institutional repositories. Discussion: The survey results may be helpful to library publishers in making decisions about what publishing services and platform functionalities to prioritize in the development of their publishing programs. In addition to utilizing the survey data to assess the needs of editors, the authors also identified a number of expanded uses of the survey related to marketing and outreach. Conclusion: Insofar as faculty editors are key stakeholders that library publishers seek to build partnerships with, it is important to understand their needs and preferences as editors. This article provides some insight into these questions that may prove helpful to library publishers.

Impact of publisher's commercial or non‐profit orientation on editorial practices: Moving towards a more strategic approach to supporting editorial staff

“…Generally, the respondents expressed satisfaction with the bundle of services offered and highlighted how it enabled them to concentrate on the scientific aspects of their work. This finding is consistent with observations from Hunter et al (2022).…”

“…The findings of this study reaffirm the high level of satisfaction among editors regarding the features of publishing platforms, as indicated in earlier research (Hunter et al, 2022). Furthermore, the respondents in this study expressed their gratitude towards the increasing range of supplementary solutions and e-services offered by commercial publishers, a trend identified in previous studies (Anderson, 2018;Björk & Solomon, 2013;McGuigan & Russel, 2008) and reaffirmed by our findings.…”

“…Respondents considered the primary responsibility of academic publishers to be the proper validation, publication, distribution, basic marketing, and promotion of scientific findings, along with collaboration with multiple partners to archive scientific journals. In contrast, respondents had moderate expectations for support from publishers in the peer review process, aligning with findings from Hunter et al (2022), which demonstrated that this type of assistance primarily involves coordinating peer review. The findings of this study reaffirm the high level of satisfaction among editors regarding the features of publishing platforms, as indicated in earlier research (Hunter et al, 2022).…”

“…Hunter et al (2022) aimed to assist academic library publishers to better cater to stakeholders' needs. They surveyed 44 faculty members involved in editorial tasks at Florida State University Libraries, focusing on editorial needs regarding publishing services and the perceived value of publishing platform functionalities.…”

“…Changes in business practices have also affected journal editorial teams, who maintain scientific quality and help journal developers (Acker et al, 2021). In today's fiercely competitive and ever‐changing publishing landscape, editors must skilfully navigate the expectations and needs of authors, readers, reviewers, and publishers (Glonti et al, 2019; Hunter et al, 2022; Vrana, 2018) while addressing the complex ethical issues surrounding commercial publishing and open access (Council of Science Editors, 2020; Krawczyk & Kulczycki, 2021; Legge, 2020; Primack et al, 2019; Suber, 2008). Consequently, there has been a notable increase in the essential competencies, knowledge, and skills required for editors to perform their tasks successfully (Galipeau et al, 2016, 2017; Moher et al, 2017).…”