When deciding where to submit a manuscript, authors are well-advised to read the “mission” or “focus” of the journal as well as recent articles. The Editorial Board, list of Associate Editors, and other affiliated journal staff provide another source of information for what sort of work the journal might be interested in publishing. Editorial Boards generally consist of well-established scholars who have been invited, elected, or appointed to the journal’s board by the editor or other members of the board.
Associate Editor Boards and Editorial Boards vary according to the governance structure of a journal. For instance, for some journals the Associate Editors constitute a policy-making body. They deliberate about decisions that affect the processes and future directions of the journal. For others, the Associate Editors function much like co-editors or area editors. They will receive the manuscript (from the editor, a managing editor, or an automated system) and assign appropriate referees.
The Editorial Board is often the first stop for an Editor in selecting referees for a manuscript. Editors may look to that board directly to provide the valuable service of evaluating papers. In addition, however, Editorial Board members are frequently consulted for advice for additional reviewers within a given area or field. Authors are well advised to consult that board list as a potential source of referees for their work.
In general, the Editorial Board reflects the general priorities of the journal.
Cable Cohoe writes from the Suggest a Topic page:
I want to ask about the particular case of refereeing papers dealing with one’s own work. A friend informed me about what seems to me to be a problematic case. A junior philosopher submitted an article that was critical of the views of a dominant figure in a small sub-branch of a larger field. The paper was returned with a rejection based on a referee’s report consisting of multiple pages of detailed line-by-line criticisms, both major and minor. From the style and content, it seemed clear that the referee was the person whose position was being criticized. The paper was then rejected based on the recommendation of the referee. When the paper was submitted to a different journal, one of the referee’s reports (the one that led to it being rejected) was virtually identical to the referee’s report from the first journal. Thus it seemed that in both cases the journal editors made the person whose views were being criticized (a person who, admittedly, is one of the leading experts in this small field) the gatekeeper. This seems objectionable to me, but I don’t know how common or accepted this refereeing practice is. Is it ever acceptable for editors to ask the target of the paper to serve as a referee? Should authors always decline to referee such articles or do circumstances sometimes make this acceptable?
Should editors ask someone to referee a paper whose views are criticized in the paper? It’s not really clear to me what the norm is among journal editors, so I’d be interested to hear from the other contributors.
For my part, I’ve made it a policy not to ask the person whose views are criticized to be a primary referee. I can see why it would seem like the thing to do: Who would know the view better? But the evidence we have concerning implicit bias seem to me to suggest that it would be better to find referees without so much at stake in the debate.
Still, in cases where the two referees disagree in their assessment in a way where the person whose view is criticize could help settle the disagreement, I have invited the author as a third referee. But I’ve done that only after receiving the initial reports and trying to come to a decision after reviewing them.
What are other practices in the discipline, and what should the right practice be?
(There is a second issue worth having a discussion about—should a journal use a referee who has already referees the paper for a different journal?—but I want to focus our discussion on Caleb’s question. So I’ll leave this other issue for another post.)