I started my role as editor in 2012 and I find it hard to believe that we are now entering 2020! Editing a scientific journal is a privilege and highly rewarding, and as we embark on a new year, I wanted to share some reflections about my experiences as an editor. I started my role as editor of the Journal of Swine Health and Production in March 2012, but given the timelines to publication my first editorial did not “hit the press” until July. I have admitted before that one of the toughest aspects of being the JSHAP editor is thinking of a topic for my message, and for this issue I am going to reflect on a broad topic, the peer-review process. I have discussed the peer-review process in many of my past messages so why reflect on the peer-review process again? Simply, it is what I do every day as editor, so it is hard for me to not reflect on this process on a regular basis. The other reason is the peer-review process inherently invites conflict and for the most part, the conflict is a good thing and results in a positive outcome – a published manuscript. Any type of conflict always presents a learning opportunity and I am thankful for the experience.
Let me explain further, one challenge of being an editor is managing expected and unexpected conflict that may result from the peer-review process. There are many types of conflict, ie, conflict of interest, conflict of opinion, and conflict between careful revision and rapid publication to name a few. Over the years I have learned how to deal with unique situations and conflicts that have provided valuable learning opportunities. Situations such as informing authors of suspected plagiarism, dealing with attempts to influence editorial decisions, delivering publication decisions, and receiving author feedback regarding that decision. So, it is likely not surprising that conflict of opinion is probably the one area I spend a great deal of time reflecting upon and hence, I take it very seriously.
The scientific discussion that can occur between an author and reviewer is a valuable exercise for both the reviewer and author(s) and, in my opinion, should stimulate the reflective process for both parties. Not only do authors and reviewers disagree, but sometimes reviewers disagree with other reviewers. Often such divergent opinions are well presented and reflect the different viewpoints that should be considered. Other times the opinions are not expressed well at all. Seeing a submitted manuscript move through the process and managing the process, plus or minus any conflict that may arise, is highly rewarding.
How can my simple editor reflection relate to the JSHAP readership? Well, I hope by sharing my thoughts that you can pause to take time as you face your day-to-day responsibilities to reflect upon how conflict, the good and the bad, shapes who you are today.
Terri O’Sullivan, DVM, PhD
Executive Editor