Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Roger of Invisible America's avatar
  2. Brian Kogelmann's avatar
  3. RMD's avatar
  4. Textbook Author's avatar
  5. New Author's avatar
  6. J. McKenzie Alexander's avatar
  7. Terence Rajivan Edward's avatar

How are journal editors chosen?

Brian Leiter

A philosopher in Australia writes:

There's been lots of discussion over the years on the blog about journal practices, but usually in regards to the submissions and review process.  

What I don't think has been discussed is in many ways a much more important issue:  how are editors – that is, editors in chief, those who usually are the first to look at and do the initial screening of submitted papers – chosen by philosophy journals?  Since these are among the most powerful people in the profession, that would be good know.  I've asked around about this over the years and no one really knows.  And the process by which these editors are chosen, and the rules (if any) that set out their duties, and regulate their official actions, are less than clear.  For example, in most cases, there seem to be no declared procedural rules by which they are chosen, no term limits, and (implied) absolute discretion in fulfillment of their functions as editor.  Indeed the people I have met who have served in that role have usually reported stepping down from the position, not by rule or any formal process, but simply because they'd grown tired of it and wanted to get back to their own writing.

I wonder if journals ought to have something like by-laws, whereby the procedures by which these appointments are made are written and public.

Thoughts from readers?  (An earlier, related discussion is here.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 responses to “How are journal editors chosen?”

  1. CJ O'Shaughnessey

    Editors are chosen Caucaso-quasi-patrilineally; the white male who is the editor will then pass the editorship to a white male of his choosing, to whom he has a mentor-like relationship. The younger white male then becomes old and repeats this policy. It is currently unknown how the inaugural editor of each journal is chosen, however, I have heard that at the most prestigious journals, there is a kind of 'conclave' at the Eastern APA each time there is a new journal. It is not known who is invited to this conclave. However, when a new editor is chosen, smoke is released in some fashion, which is in fact why the event was originally called the Smoker, not due to the prevalence of cigar smoke as is popularly believed.

    BL COMMENT: For the benefit of innocent readers, I should note that there is more ironic humor than fact in the preceding.

    Reply
  2. Chris Timpson

    I don't know about the general case, but the overall good-running (not day-to-day business) of the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science is overseen by the committee of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science (BSPS) – this being one of the main purposes of the committee – and it is the latter body which solicits proposals to become, and then chooses, the journal editor (or co-editors, as in the current case) as the need arises. (The details of this process are specified in the Society's Byelaws). The term of editorial office is stated in the BSPS' constitution (3 years, renewable up to twice). The BSPS committee is elected by members of the Society.

    I imagine that the situation is much the same for many other journals published on behalf of learned societies.

    Reply
  3. Christopher Hitchcock

    In the case of *Philosophy of Science*, the process is covered by the by-laws of the Philosophy of Science Association, and overseen by the Governing Board. I believe that editors are appointed for five year terms, which can be renewed at the discretion of the Board. But there has been at least one case in (my) living memory when the process went awry. Contrary to what CJ says, two of the past five editors have been women. But they do announce a new editor by smoke signal.

    I suspect that for most journals, finding a new editor is more a matter of arm-twisting than of choosing from among an embarrassment of riches.

    Reply
  4. Mike DePaul

    Christopher Hitchcock's last comment has it right, I think.

    As for the power of editors, I do not think it benefits them much.

    Editing a journal is a huge amount of work, much of it mind numbing. It is not much appreciated or rewarded, in my experience, especially by the home institutions of editors. And it cannot but take time away from an editor's own research, which obviously is what determines rewards, both material and otherwise.

    And then there are the insults you receive for doing the most straightforward things: I was once told I was not fit to edit a fly fishing journal when I offered to have an author's complaint about a referee evaluated by an expert on the paper's topic, which was far outside my areas of expertise. (I never was sure why someone would think that the standards for editing publications on fly fishing were terribly low, so that it would be especially horrible if I did not meet that standard.) Another author accused me of intellectual dishonesty and wanted to file a complaint with my home institution — because I had the paper evaluated by a specialist. The author felt sure the referee would plagiarize the work and that this was my fault. And rather recently I was told that I was an oppressive colonialist — followed by a few paragraphs in a similar vein — because I told the author that the paper's English was an obstacle to understanding and that the paper should be copy edited by a native speaker or equivalent so that referees could give it a fair evaluation. I could go on and on.

    So by all means, let's have prospective journal editors run the gauntlet before taking up their cushy positions of privilege and power.

    Reply
  5. Viktor Blåsjö

    I believe the point about power concerns power to influence the direction of the field, not personal privilege. For young people, success or failure with early journal submissions can determine whether they end up on a research career path or not. By extension this influences which people and approaches will shape the field in the coming decades. In this sense the power of journal editors is not insignificant.

    Reply
  6. paolo

    There are journals in which the editor exercises immense influence and personally reads/rejects papers – for example, Oxford Studies in Ancient Phil. I do not know how the editor-in-chief is chosen but in case of a journal that is not really blind-review journal, it would be perhaps good to know. Ancient Philosophy's editor has been the same since the journal was founded in 1980. So I assume it's a position for life.

    Reply
  7. V. Alan White

    The election of editors is explained by Calvin and Hobbes–both professionally predestined and, once in, leviathans. But I guess that's my very dirty blue-collar background talking, and my love of Watterson.

    Reply
  8. Matias Vernengo

    In economics it depends on the journal. Some are managed by Associations and there are term limits, and rules for searches for editors. In other cases, there is no rule and the editor remains for long periods, decades even. Publishers might play a role too.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress