Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to Math2.0
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2012

    Looking at various math journals, I see that there is some variation in the editorial processes. Members of editorial boards are apparently supposed to do some or all of the following: act as ambassadors for the journal; advise managing editors on strategy; manage the refereeing process; act as referees themselves.

    I am interested in the experiences and opinions of people here (if anyone is still reading this forum) on how to best make use of an editorial board. Managing editors and some administrative helpers, plus decent software and a reviewer database can probably run a journal pretty well, so how do we best add value with an editorial board?

  1. The most important thing editorial boards do is taking decision about which papers are accepted and which are refused publication. Even if the opinion of the referee on this matter is asked, it is the editor that takes the decision.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2013

    My impression is that the managing editor(s) do most of this, or perhaps the editor-in-chief. However many journals have huge editorial boards. I have been told that a mix of editors who actually work and editors who are just famous and allow their name to be listed is required. Frankly I don’t really like the idea of the second type of editor.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2013

    We decided at our journal OJAC to have “Area Editors” (first type above) and “Advisory Board” members (2nd type above), to make the distinction clear. It would be nice if other journals did this - listing a lot of names of people who may not actually do anything is not very useful.