My Life as a Dog (I Mean Editor)

1992/08/01 by Mark P. Zanna · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Decision Sciences · #Academic Writing and Publishing #Meta-analysis and systematic reviews #Publishing and Scholarly Communication

paper · doi:10.1177/0146167292184013

openalex publication_date 1992/08/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21

Abstract

In this article, the author characterizes the editorial review procedures he (and others) employed about a decade ago, comparing them with current, more complex practices. In his opinion, with the allocation of sufficient resources, the earlier, simpler procedures are preferable.

Discussions

• authors have to respond to 3 to 5 reviewers "without a clear understanding of what it take to convince the editor (or reviewers) that the MS be accepted for publication." He said this change would lea [bsky, 1 points, 0 comments]

Related

• Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors
• Ninety-seven ignored: A personal reflection on the hidden struggles of an academic editor
• Valuing the Role of the Editor: Now and in the Future
• Where Have All the Reviewers Gone? Long time passing
• The future of peer review: an editorial