EASE course: Editorial School for Journal Editors

Module 5 – Editors: making good decisions

Wednesday, 2 October 2024, 2pm (UK time)

Part II of our popular Editorial School for Journal Editors is running again in the Autumn of 2024. Elisa De Ranieri, EASE Council and EDI Committee member, will deliver the first of the four modules.

The format is a lecture, followed by a moderated breakout session in which small groups consider two case studies, and then a final session to feedback the discussions from the breakout groups and answer further questions from delegates.

Each module will be recorded and made available to participants together with handbooks for easy reference.

Module 5 content

For a journal to be successful editors must make good decisions – both on the types of articles they want to publish, the authors they wish to attract, and the feedback they provide. To be a successful editor, individuals must show good judgement, empathy with authors, and the ability to provide feedback that substantially improves articles, and therefore the content that the journal publishes. This is such a vital issue that an entire workshop is being devoted to this topic.

This workshop will consider how decisions are made, implicit and explicit bias, how decisions are communicated to authors and the wider public, and how decisive skills can be improved.

Learning objectives

1. What is a good decision – Implicit and explicit bias, why diversity is a good thing. Delegates will learn how to address and minimise implicit bias and develop better objective skills
2. Article types and quality – It is vital that editors make consistent decisions, and that if the criteria for decisions changes, that there is an awareness of the reason for the change. Delegates will be asked to consider what they publish, what the quality levels are, and how they can ensure consistent decisions
3. Feedback – Too frequently the feedback that goes back to authors is poor and does not enable them to revise articles correctly. Equally reasons for rejection can be unclear and leave authors disappointed in the skills of the editors. Delegates will be challenged to consider how they provide feedback to authors and how it can be improved.