From: Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 01:39:39 -0400

Anthony/All,

Your commentary on Liblicense regarding accountability of journal
editors was most sensible.

Thank you for bringing obvious common sense to that discussion.

I was also Publisher for 200 subscription journals (at Haworth Press)
and retired in 2007.   We absolutely monitored the performance of
individual journal editors.

What you said was true--that one couldn't really penetrate the peer
review process (without spying!).  But we kept track of subscription
numbers/income and other indicators of journal success/ranking.

What you said was also true for us, about having a "dismissal" clause
in our contracts.  This indeed was rarely invoked.   We generally
waited until a 3-year term expired.  Then, we "rotated" the poorly
performing editor diplomatically,

Bill Cohen


On 5/31/13 12:27 AM, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:14:42 +0100

I just do not entirely agree with this Ken. I speak as someone who has had
responsibility for hundreds of journals but finished my publishing career in
2010.

Now in some reputable companies there are no editors-in-chief and the final
decisions are made by in-house staff. I am told that decisions are mostly
easy to make on the basis of reports from referees

In many disreputable companies there may be an editor listed and there may
be an editorial board but are these people being asked to referee papers
and, if so, how is the decision to publish being reached? We do not know. I
have in the past asked editorial board members for new OA journals if they
were given anything to do and they have been surprised to find if they are
on the board. I was interested because the editorial board members were
people I knew and who were active in journals I was responsible for. I
wondered whether their new jobs were taking up time I wanted from them. Of
course I know that most good referees review for a number of journals.

It is more complicated now for all journals. When I started in publishing we
used to say to editors - how you decide on what is worthy to be published is
up to you and your referees. Our work starts when you deliver the
manuscript. Now the actual duties are described as Sandy pointed out in an
agreement and the publishers can see at least how quickly the refereeing is
being done through online editorial questions. Editors are called to account
or at least advised. There are clauses allowing dismissal of editors by the
publisher and maintenance of quality is one reason for dismissal - though I
am sure this is rarely invoked.

Anthony