Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work

Abstract

Background Triggered by a series of controversies and diversifying expectations of editorial practices, several innovative peer review procedures and supporting technologies have been proposed. However, adoption of these new initiatives seems slow. This raises questions about the wider conditions for peer review change and about the considerations that inform decisions to innovate. We set out to study the structure of commercial publishers’ editorial process, to reveal how the benefits of peer review innovations are understood, and to describe the considerations that inform the implementation of innovations. Methods We carried out field visits to the editorial office of two large academic publishers housing the editorial staff of several hundreds of journals, to study their editorial process, and interviewed editors not affiliated with large publishers. Field notes were transcribed and analysed using coding software. Results At the publishers we analysed, the decision-making structure seems to show both clear patterns of hierarchy and layering of the different editorial practices. While information about new initiatives circulates widely, their implementation depends on assessment of stakeholder’s wishes, impact on reputation, efficiency and implementation costs, with final decisions left to managers at the top of the internal hierarchy. Main tensions arise between commercial and substantial arguments. The editorial process is closely connected to commercial practices of creating business value, and the very specific terms in which business value is understood, such as reputation considerations and the urge to increase efficiency. Journals independent of large commercial publishers tend to have less hierarchically structured processes, report more flexibility to implement innovations, and to a greater extent decouple commercial and editorial perspectives. Conclusion Our study demonstrates that peer review innovations are partly to be understood in light of commercial considerations related to reputation, efficiency and implementations costs. These arguments extend beyond previously studied topics in publishing economics, including publishers’ choice for business or publication models and reach into the very heart of the editorial and peer review process.

Editors between Support and Control by the Digital Infrastructure — Tracing the Peer Review Process with Data from an Editorial Management System

“…In this specific case, however, the practices related to the technology support the principle of an editor centred system in the peer review process. This relates to recent research lines focusing on the stability and transformability of editorial practices by Horbach and Halffman (2020 , p.3) arguing that existing editorial practices can be stabilized by infrastructures. Comparisons with novel digital infrastructures (and their implementations) for other publishers with different peer review models are necessary in order to more systematically judge or reflect on the influence of these infrastructural tools on innovation or stabilization in editorial work.…”

“…Also, infrastructures in science such as editorial management systems are embedded in highly structured practices, such as the selection of reviewers, formats for presenting and evaluating manuscripts from which they cannot be separated. Such heterogeneous uses influence and transform the infrastructure as an assemblage of situated digitally mediated practices ( Horbach and Halffman, 2020 , p.2), that is, practices which can only be understood in the context of their local usage (e.g., a specific function accomplished within the context of a specific journal). The use of editorial management systems as digital infrastructures for the management of collaboration hence requires processual knowledge about the peer review process.…”

“…Empirically, we use digital traces from an editorial management system in order to gain insights into how the digitalized peer review process looks like. It has been stated that such infrastructures are also a source for negotiating innovations in peer review, as “the system plays a major role in connecting and coordinating the various editorial practices” ( Horbach and Halffman, 2020 , p.11). Exploring data from that infrastructure, we complement others’ research investigating views and perceptions of peer review practices with a new procedural perspective explicitly taking algorithms and digital affordances of digital infrastructures into account.…”

The Chinese scientific publication system: Specific features, specific challenges

“…In contrast to the large-scale publishing offices that dominate internationally, the distributed Chinese system consists of smaller facilities. A large part of scientific journals in China work with small editorial offices, with a few editors, simple staff structure and little task specialization, in contrast with big international publishers and their highly specialized division of labour and long procedural production chain (Horbach & Halffman, 2020).…”

The resilience of scientific publication: From elite ancient academies to open access

“…Prior to that, decisions were more often made by the journal editor based on their own judgement. While the standard peer review process with anonymous reviewers is thought by many to be a reasonable guarantee of quality, others point out flaws in the current system and note the difficulty in getting publishers to adopt innovations that would improve it (Horbach & Halffman, 2020).…”