Introduction

#EditorObservations Interacting with people during the review process (YouTube, 1m48s)

When I first started publishing, submitting a manuscript to an editor for consideration implied printing five hardcopies of the manuscript; writing a letter to the editor; signing the letter to the editor by hand; placing the submission pack into an envelope and sending it off via snail mail to the editor. While this process was slow and not very environmentally sustainable, it was clear to me as the author that other humans were involved. The editor received my envelope, opened it, read the letter and then – if they liked what they read – snail-mailed it to expert reviewers.

Online submission systems have now replaced manuscript hardcopies and envelopes. The electronic and highly structured nature of submission systems gives authors the impression that there is little human involvement in the process. Maybe authors don’t realise that there is still a journal editor who is reading all submissions; that there are still expert reviewers who dedicate a substantial amount of their time to read a manuscript and offer a detailed assessment; that a human makes the decision to reject or publish the article.

It is well worth remembering that people are involved at every stage and that these people deserve to be treated with respect. Authors deserve to be treated with respect. Reviewers deserve to be treated with respect. Associate editors deserve to be treated with respect. Editors-in-chief deserve to be treated with respect. The person employed by the publisher to work with the editor-in-chief deserves to be treated with respect.

Unfortunately, possibly as a consequence of the increased pressure to publish and the associated collective anxiety, the tone of our communications is not always appropriate. This set of #editorobservations illustrates this and demonstrates, I hope, that there is never anything to be gained from inappropriate communications.