Journal editors, please read your own author guides

In over 10 years of publishing in dozens of scientific journals, I have rarely encountered one that knows its own author guide as well as I do.

I care because I diligently prepare my research, and every little snag delays its publication and requires extra effort from me. But this is more than the venting of one disgruntled author. Aggregated over millions of researchers, those snags have real costs in money, time and stress. And they are all avoidable.

I recently prepared an article on a time-sensitive policy issue. I submitted it to a journal that advertised an expedited editorial process on such matters: two weeks to first decision. Having heard nothing after a month, however, I followed up. The response was essentially, “Oh! We didn’t see that you had a submission. We’ll get to it when we’re ready.” Maybe it was a technical glitch. Maybe it was a staff error. Regardless, the journal didn’t deliver.

Nor was this an isolated failure to honour advertised editorial processes. A doctoral student of mine submitted a paper to a journal’s special issue because, among other reasons, the stated timing for publication aligned with our project schedule. In what amounted to a bait and switch, however, the publisher extended the deadline by six months and pushed off completion of the special issue for more than a year. The paper was published, but the experience was maddening.

Other instances are when I found out, upon or after submission, that journals no longer accepted certain types of contributions, required pre-proposals for certain articles, or had recently discontinued fee waivers. Such cases highlight a gap in editorial oversight.

One editor rejected my paper “after careful evaluation” – which the timestamps in the submission system revealed to have taken from 12.05am (when the file was opened) to 12.08am (when the decision was made). Three minutes may be enough to decide, but don’t tell me it was a careful evaluation.

Editors, please don’t say things about your editorial process that you can’t honour. Otherwise, it’s false advertising. Authors make decisions and invest time and money based on what you say, so your statements need to match what you actually do.

The same idea applies to manuscript formatting requirements. While I like free-format submissions for initial review, I understand the need for uniformity at some stage, so I study a journal’s author guide and follow it when formatting a manuscript. But sometimes editors either don’t know what’s in there or decline to follow it.

I’m not talking about matters that require judgement but about matters that are black and white. One editor asked me to submit highlights totalling up to 125 characters. The author guide says 85. Another told me to remove line numbering; the author guide says, “Line numbering is required”. A third said my 18-page paper should be published as a short communication instead of a full article. The author guide says short communications are limited to seven pages.

Such discrepancies put authors in an awkward spot. I can risk losing favour with the editor by arguing. Or I can kick the can down the road: make the change to satisfy the editor and wait for journal’s production staff to ask me to change it back later. Either choice results in unnecessary exchanges and delays.

Editors, please know your journal’s formatting requirements and stick to them – or update them if you want things done differently.

Then there’s the submission system. Despite reading the author guide, I never know what’s really expected until I start a new submission. I often find there are additional requirements that are not specified: a cover letter, a title page, or a zipped data file, for example.

I’m willing to prepare these materials if I know about them ahead of time. I don’t like being ambushed in the submission system. It’s hard enough to write a paper and study the author guide without being faced with new requirements when it’s actually time to submit.

Conversely, if something is required for submission, the submission system should enforce it. On one recent occasion, I filled out all the required information, pressed “submit” and got a friendly message: “Thank you! Your submission is complete.” A week later, I received an email saying the opposite: “Your submission is incomplete. You are missing a required file.”

If the file was required, why didn’t the system say so? And if I didn’t provide the file, why did the system let me submit? The submission software should work for me, not against me.

Editors, please make your submission systems match your guide for authors. It’s just a matter of programming. The submission system shouldn’t present any new requirements, only facilitate what the author guide already lays out.

Some writers have argued for an overhaul of academic publishing to fix all its problems. While I sympathise, I think we should start with this more practical and incremental approach that simply urges a return to the basics of good editorial management: honouring commitments, making clear policies and employing technology that streamlines the process for authors and editors.

Currently, there are so many bumps that the publishing process is drawing negative attention to itself. But with a few invisible improvements by editors and journal staff, it could be far smoother for everyone without any need for a revolution.

Robert B. Sowby is an assistant professor in civil engineering at Brigham Young University.