Foreword
#EditorObservations 01 Introduction (YouTube, 1m 52s)
For eight years I served as Co-Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Tourism Research, one of the globally leading journals in the field of tourism. During that time, I certainly learned to appreciate the old saying that you should not “judge someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.” Before taking on this role, I had never hesitated to criticise journal editors and offer unsolicited advice on how the publishing system should be radically changed. My perspective changed the moment I became an editor.
I used to think that editors were gatekeepers who tried to reject as many manuscripts as they could. As an editor I found myself desperately trying to save studies that held great potential but were unusual in nature or structure. I never felt like a gatekeeper, I always felt like a gate opener; the protector of the hidden gem.
I used to think that editors were lazy and slow and did not prioritise their editorial duties. As an editor I found myself having to handle up to ten new manuscript submissions per day. Having made a commitment, together with my Co-Editor in Chief, that we would desk reject or pass on to an Associate Editor each article within 48 hours of receiving it, I found myself struggling with the workload and, despite my promise, did not manage to always achieve this turn around. I was not lazy. I did not fail to prioritise my editorial duties. Serving the scholarly community as a journal editor is truly relentless.
I used to think it was unusual for three reviewers to have totally different views of the manuscripts I submitted and make diametrically opposed recommendations. As an editor, I learned that this is the norm, not the exception. I also learned that the publication recommendation made by the reviewers is actually not relevant at all. The value of the review lies in the verbal assessment, in the identification of potentially fatal shortcomings of the story and in the constructive recommendations for improvement.
I used to think that editors controlled everything relating to “their” journal. Turns out this is not the case at all. The publisher controls the online submission system. The online submission system is a constant source of frustration. Even if the editor notices that something is wrong or could be improved, the process of making corrections or improvements is tedious, takes a long time, involves a lot of miscommunications and often does not lead to the desired outcome. What the journal editor does control, however, is the scholarly assessment of manuscripts. The publisher we worked with while editing Annals of Tourism Research never interfered in our editorial decisions; never told us to publish more; never told us to publish less; never told us to take action that would influence research metrics, such as the journal impact factor. We have greatly appreciated this autonomy.
I used to think that a journal editor could never possibly remember my name. Not the case. While editing Annals of Tourism Research, I did not remember all names, but two categories of authors and reviewers I did commit to memory – involuntarily so: those that behaved in unethical ways and those that were absolutely outstanding. The latter is a wonderful category and inevitably leads to invitations to review and become an Associate Editor down the track. The first category is dangerous because, once a name is associated with unethical behaviour, it is very difficult to forget; it is impossible to reset to the point where that person’s image could again be a totally blank slate.
As I walked more than a mile in a journal editor’s shoes, I have had many such insights; had many surprises; made many observations. I shared them with authors via social media under #editorobservation. This seemed to be the most efficient way to ensure that I communicated key issues as I encountered them. Had I waited for eight years to write up all those insights and experiences, I would have inevitably forgotten many of the little things I observed – things I believe are valuable to authors trying to publish their work in journals that are committed to originality and methodological rigour.
This book is a guided compilation of my observations. I hope the book will be useful to researchers who aspire to publish in leading journals in their field, to reviewers who generously donate their time to help colleagues improve their work, and to editors and associate editors who do their best to ensure that the journals they are temporary custodians of are facilitators of knowledge development and creators of change.
The book also offers an opportunity for other journal editors, associate editors, reviewers, and authors to share their observations. I curate these contributions. The main criterion of the moderation process is that contributions must be written in the spirit of knowledge creation rather than being driven by research metrics-driven publication and journal editing manoeuvres.
I hope some of my observations will be informative to you and some will amuse you.
Sara Dolnicar
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
March 2026
