Prof. Iain Taylor

Associate Editor in chief of the JMS

I think that now I have some reasonable suggestions to make to approach your editorial goals of raising the profile of Journal both in China, in the Earth Sciences community and the broader international community.

Impact Factor

You seemed concerned to raise the Impact Factor of the journal, but I think that only widespread recognition of the journal’s scientific quality through useful citation by other authors can do that.  Impact Factor seems to be a favored marker among the commercial publishing houses, various scientific judges (funding agencies, government managers, and maybe the Chinese Academy).  In North America it is apparently useful in university and government funding agencies that seek a quick assessment of research.  Research funding allocations to science departments in United Kingdom universities are now largely determined on the basis of the journals where scientists publish.  The bureaucrats seem to have equated Impact Factor with Excellence, but we all know that scientists like to publish where they will be widely read. Things may be changing, but much damage has been done since they created merit tables to compare the research quality of university departments by comparing IP.  International views seem to be that the top schools in the merit tables were already the best.  Using Impact Factor simply confirmed the obvious. So I recommend that you forget about Impact Factor at least for now. If the mountain science community sees excellent papers in the Journal then you will get the citations and MAYBE improve the Impact Factor.

Operating Practices

Good journals (whatever “good” may mean) attract and select good papers.  By “good” I mean that a journal reports research that has high quality design and execution, receives submissions that are well written papers, has rigorous and transparent editorial processes, and avoids conflicts of interest especially between reviewers and authors. In spite of their best efforts “good” journals still receive a great number of poor or bad papers.  They take the best, based on good peer reviewing, and very clear, consistent and demanding editorial policies and practices.  So where to proceed?

No paper will be considered by the Editor unless the authors ensure that it is written in acceptably clear English

         I think that you should “refuse without peer review” all papers that do not meet clear writing standards.  Laurence and I have done at least some of your “Chinglish to English” language editing and in my cases I have often thought that the papers should not have been sent to peer-review, but returned to the authors for them to improve the language and general clarity of the paper.  Then you can justify the peer-reviewers’ time. So my first strong recommendation is that your policy be changed to make it clear that papers will be ‘refused without peer-review’ and that they will be sent for peer-review ONLY when the language is of a quality that is suitable for publication.  This can be achieved if all research organizations have 1 or 2 in-house editors, or if the authors find individuals who can ensure that the quality is adequate for an English language publication like JMS. This will allow you to demand an assurance that the language has been edited and corrected BEFORE submission. If you follow this recommendation, you will start to raise standards, peer reviewers will be more willing to work for you, and they may eventually recommend that other research colleagues, including their own students, will submit work to JMS.

         There are several ways to enforce this.

1. You return papers with unclear language stating that the language is poor and that you will not consider a new (not revised) manuscript unless you have a written statement that the paper has been edited by first-language English speaking who has collaborated with the authors during the preparation of the new manuscript.

BUT BEWARE: you and your staff are the judges of acceptable language.  It is not enough for the authors to say that they did have the help of a first language English speaker.  Reviewers can tell if competent editing has been done.

2. Do not allow any resubmission of papers that have been refused on the basis of poor language. The purpose of these suggestions is that you can make much better use of the very talented team that you have in the office than to ask them to help authors to write their papers.  Your jobs are to manage rapid and rigorous peer-review to ensure that you select only the best papers that you receive.

Every paper sent for peer review should reviewed by at least one researcher who does not work in China and is not Chinese.  

My previous recommendation should ensure clear reporting and will ensure that peer-reviewers, who should be among the best researchers in the world, will read relatively clear English and be able to provide strong recommendations about the science.  They may require major improvement of the science, but they should not need to suggest more than a few editorial improvements which they suggest will make the paper clearer. The best reviewers are inevitably busy, but they will become your supporters, and maybe eventually one of your authors, if they are asked to comment on relatively good science without being challenged to find even the simplest details in an illiterate submission.  In only a couple of the jobs that I have done for JMS have I felt that the paper would have made it into the Canadian Journal of Earth Science, which is a mid-quality journal on a worldwide scale.  Editors everywhere try to avoid insulting peer-reviewers by asking them to peer-review a paper in which the science is hidden behind poor language. Asking for help with papers from outside Canada, I always chose someone who was not from the country of the authors.

Editorial Board members should be professionally active of the field of the paper and should be responsible for making the “first decision”.

Selection of peer reviewers and the interpretation of peer-reviewers comments must both be the responsibility of an Editorial Board member.  This is done in many journals by sending the Editorial Board member the Title, Authorship and Abstract of the paper, as well as the names of any individuals selected by the authors as possible reviewers.  The Editorial Board member can give your office a list of  preferred reviewers and must ensure that named individuals are timely and courteous, not in conflict of interest with the authors (are not working with the authors, in the same institution as the authors, and have shown you that they can be impartial) and are active in research.  Of course I think that one reviewer should always be from outside China.  It is not your fault, I know, but Chinese scientists have developed a poor reputation because they favor their colleagues.  That has to be corrected and JMS is a great journal to be seen as really impartial and thus provide other journals with good examples and good leadership

Once reviews are received the Editorial Board member should be responsible for managing the actions required by reviewers and once revisions are approved by the Editorial Board member, you or the Editor in chief can ‘accept’ the paper subject to normal copy editing.  There should be less need for language editing by Laurence, you or me.

Given the availability of electronic communication, an acceptable paper (peer-reviewed and revised once only) should be accepted within 6-8 weeks.  A negative first decision should be reached by the Editorial Board member with 4 weeks.

Who do you need on the Editorial Board?

I assume that your Editor-in-chief is and will always be an internationally well-known and well published researcher and author.  Selection of Editorial Board members must also be understood within the international scientific community.  They will be active researchers and authors, but also are known and respected for their timeliness, competence in judging good science.  They will also recognize that there is little professional recognition for being on an Editorial Board.  Board members are the scientific workhorses whereas you and your group in Chengdu are the management workhorses.  Some may think that it is prestigious job, but it can be a problem if Board members do not work, and work hard, for the journal. The relatively low recognition for reviewing and editing in the West is because researchers are assumed to be willing to serve the community as peer-reviewers and Editorial Board members.  A North America, European researcher is rewarded for doing good research.  The editorial work is simply part of professional responsibility.  We cannot expect to publish if we do not do our professional service as a professional obligation without either financial or ‘career progress’, like promotion, tenure or pay raises.  I do think that JMS is already doing strong work and that if it is seen to publish top-quality science, it will become a strong international contribution to the fields that it publishes.

As with the peer reviewers, you probably need a broad international representation among your Editorial Board members.  Occasionally Board members will submit a paper to JMS and these will require great ethical care as well as showing the individuals just how well you are doing your job.  They should not receive any preferential treatment, unless you want to see perceptions of JMS quality fall very fast.

Conclusion:

1.        JMS is a good journal, but must improve if it is to earn high international recognition.  (Maybe you should determine where your subscribers are in the world.)

2.       You will waste your time in the office if you help authors to write.  That is an author problem.  The best policy is to return all poorly written papers and require professionally sound editing.

3.       Editorial Board members must be timely and are most effective when used to take a paper to “first decision”, obtain a revised manuscript that deals with issues raised by peer-reviewers, and send you the recommendation to accept or refuse.

4.       Editorial Board members may not always send a paper for review, or may have peer-reviews or their own scientifically sound reasons that lead them to recommend ‘refusal’.  In every case, they MUST give you clear reasons to pass on to the authors.

Remember ONLY the Editor-in chief accepts or refuses papers.  You are currently delegated by the individual you refer to as the Scientific Editor-in-chief to do this job.

5.       The JMS Editorial Board should include perhaps 3 or 4 individuals who are active in their research area, are working outside China, and not Chinese working in China.  This provides opportunities for non-Chinese working in China, and people with Chinese names who are western academics.  Ideally all Board members should be facile in English, both spoken and written.  Board members who do not do the basic job should be replaced, because your ambitions cannot be achieved if Board members do not contribute professionally.

6.       The presence of non-Chinese reviewers and Board members will help to change the international bias that exists against any journal (not just JMS or Canadian Journal of.., or British Journal of…) that is limited, in name or its practices, by perceptions that it serves a particular and narrow national identity

7.       These recommendations reflect the practices of many if not most of the major scientific journals worldwide. Poor language, untimely processing, and inexpert or unfair reviewing all will have a negative effect of your ambitions for the JMS.  It is our obligation to serve our community by demanding the best practices of scientific research if we are to publish the best available science within our field.