Exploring the Black Box of Journal Manuscript Review: A Survey of Social Science Journal Editors

Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine,Richard Tewksbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.759244

2013-09-01

Journal of Criminal Justice Education

Abstract:Conducting and publishing research is one of the core responsibilities of academic researchers. Frequently, publications are commonly used measurements for assessing suitability for hiring, tenure, and promotion. Understanding the “black box” of the publication process is essential for budding and new scholars, who are often expected to publish at rapid paces. The current study seeks to provide information about the publication process and the editorial tasks of editors through the eyes of scholarly journal editors. We find it would benefit authors to carefully select the journal to which they will submit (making sure their manuscripts are “good fits” for the journals’ missions), focus their efforts on the initial stages of a research project (making sound decisions about methods), and remember that the scholars who are cited in their literature review sections will likely become the reviewers of their manuscripts.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the opacity in the manuscript review process of academic journals, namely the so - called "black - box" problem. Specifically, the author hopes to reveal the following points by investigating the experiences and perspectives of social science journal editors:

1. **Manuscript Submission and Processing**: Understand the number of manuscripts received by the journal each year, the proportion of manuscripts rejected without external review, the number of reviewers usually used for each manuscript, and the difficulty in finding reviewers, etc.
2. **Selection of Reviewers**: Explore how editors select reviewers, including whether they are willing to use master's students, doctoral students, non - tenured faculty, practitioners, teachers from specialized or community colleges as reviewers, and their methods of identifying potential reviewers.
3. **Review Content**: Analyze the content included in the review reports, such as whether there are confidential comments, whether editors receive review opinions that are not suitable for forwarding to the authors, and whether editors modify the reviewers' comments.
4. **Publication Decision**: Research the factors that editors consider when making publication decisions, including the acceptance rate, the proportion of associate editors participating in the decision - making, the frequency of authors' disputes over the decisions, and the main reasons for rejection.
5. **Editorial Experience**: Understand the challenges that editors face when assuming this role, their job satisfaction, stress levels, and the possibility of serving as editors again in the future.

Through research in these aspects, the author hopes to provide valuable information for researchers, especially those inexperienced social science researchers, on how journal editors perform their duties and experience this role, thereby helping them better understand and deal with the publication process.