Editors' background
Senkei Umehara
Tuesday, 23 October 2007 07:41 UTC
Hi, I’m curious about the background of research/manuscript editors. Some journal titles do introduce their editors to some extent, but here I could anticipate better description. I know it’s virtually impossible to generalize (somewhere I read there are about 50 editors), but any clues may help me make a good guess. Great with actual examples wherever possible.
Here are specific questions. I’d appreciate answers to all of them as well as separate comments to particular ones.
1) How many were fresh PhDs, and how many had postdoc experience (and how long)? Are there editors from industry too?
2) How diverse are they, especially in terms of nationality and gender?
3) How and to what extent have they been trained before starting their actual role (e.g. writing and editing, job shadowing)?
4) When a new field emerges, would you assign it to some of the editors already there, or would you recruit new people from research in that field? It might relate to the “turnover” of editors.
5) Who are “senior” editors, and what do they do? Are they internally promoted or recruited from outside? Do they also evaluate manuscripts?
6) During the career, is it common for an editor to move between different journals? It seems that quite a few new journals have launched in these years, and I wonder if those journals recruit already experienced editors.
7) What do they do after “graduation” from the editorial role? Or never quit?
-
Replies
-
The answers to the first two questions are on Nature’s About the editors page here. For Nature itself, manuscript editors are mostly ex-postdocs, both genders and from a wide range of nationalities. “About the editor” information is provided on each Nature journal website, so you can see for yourself (your own subject area, perhaps) what qualifications and experience are held by the staff of that journal. Some journals, for example Nature Biotechnlogy, Nature Photonics and Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, are more directly connected to industry issues, whereas others are more focused on basic science. For subediting (copyediting) jobs, expertise with English language is essential, so subeditors tend to be English nationals (for Nature, which uses English English as house style).
3. Many editors are not trained in publishing before they start to work for Nature. The main exception occurs in the news teams, where writing experience is usual. On the other jobs, experience helps but is by no means essential. Work editing a student newspaper, or freelance writing for one of the many scientific publications that takes such material, or other evidence of wide interest in science and its communication (for example, what is revealed in a Nature Network profile!) are all useful to support job applications, as we get so many of them from excellently qualified candidates.
4. A bit of both. Manuscript editors tend to handle one main field but a range of others, because there are more fields than editors. When there is an emerging field, we do sometimes hire a new editor in that field – chemical biology was an example a couple of years ago. Sometimes we “boost” expertise in a particular field by hiring an editor specifically in that area (neuroscience is one example). Of course, fields differ in size, some are quite small and others are huge.
5. You can see the senior editors in the “about the editor” listing. They do the same job as the associate editors, but with additions that vary—examples of additional responsiblities are running a team of associate editors, writing, editing supplements, launching a website, managing a “subject area” on the nature.com website, running a programme within NPG, developing journal policies, and specific policy and community work with scientists within a discipline, for example to devise ways to handle novel data formats.
6. It depends on the editor. Some editors apply for jobs on different journals within NPG or at other publishers, some don’t. If a new Nature journal is launched, we do prefer an experienced editor to be Editor in Chief. Heike Langenberg, for example, is Chief Editor of Nature Geoscience, which launches in January 08, having been a senior editor at Nature for a few years. But all our jobs are advertised openly, and are competitive, so although people who are already in Nature journal jobs can and do apply, so can anyone else. Our Chief Editors for the launches of Nature Nanotechnolgy and Nature Photonics, for example, did not come from within NPG. Most of the Nature Reviews journals were launched by Chief Editors who had not previously worked at NPG.
7. Lots of things! And indeed, some never quit. Those who have, have gone into science policy, become authors of books, gone to be editors of other journals, gone back to the bench, all kinds of things.
-
Hi Senkei
It may help if I supplement Maxine’s comprehensive response with a personal account.
I’m a Senior Editor at Nature and am responsible for handling primary research manuscripts and reviews for the membrane transport and sensory transduction fields. My research background—in cochlear hair cells and NMDA receptors—nicely complements this remit.
The most important pre-requisite for this job is the ability to critically, and fairly, evaluate scientific manuscripts—something that one learns before becoming a manuscript editor. But I learned the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the role whilst on the job—under the close supervision of a Senior Editor and the Chief Biology Editor.
I have been a manuscript editor at Nature for nearly nine years and one of my colleagues has more than 20 years experience! But we all had to start somewhere so don’t let that put you off if you are interested in pursuing an editorial role.
-
Hi Senkei,
I’ll join Lesley in adding my personal account to address some of the questions that you raise. I got into ‘formal’ scientific editing after spending many years at the bench – the last post I had in academia was as an associate research professor at the Mayo Clinic. However, ‘informally’ I had started editing long before.
It started when I was asked by former colleagues, some of whom were non-native English speakers, to read over their manuscripts to correct their use of language. Being trained as a scientist myself, I also commented on more technical aspects of their manuscripts as well as how they ‘told their story’, ie whether one gives sufficient background information to place the work in context and to keep on message. Word got around. I ended up with more people (including native English speakers) coming to me to ‘read their manuscripts’. I found I liked helping my colleagues to communicate their message more efficiently, be it in proposed animal protocols, grant proposals or prior to submitting a research or review article. That’s in addition to writing up my own research findings!
Given that my own research background has covered DNA replication and recombination to acute vascular rejection of transplanted tissues (sort of an immunological ‘from soup to nuts’ experience), I understand both the jargon of these fields as well as have a feel for where they are going. Add that to a natural scientific curiosity as to ‘how things work’, I decided to use this range of research experience in a different setting, ie sitting at an editorial desk. However, I didn’t jump in right away. I utilized some resources available to me to do ‘informational interviews’ with other editors (Mayo has their own publication department so I was able to walk across campus) and I attended a writers conference of the American Medical Writers Association. After confirming to myself that I was making the right move, did I apply for an editorial position at Nature Immunology. I have never looked back.
-
Thanks everyone, I appreciate your invaluable advice and suggestions. I’m thrilled with this kind of interactive forums shared by anyone interested.
May I raise two additional questions? They came to my mind after reading your replies, so I’m posting them here instead of creating a separate topic (leaving it to the moderators).
8) All of you mentioned that, in addition to solid research background, you editors “pre-incubated” yourselves more or less through proactive actions before joining the team (manuscript reading in Laurie’s case). What other preparatory experience have you heard of from your colleagues, whether it’s easy (e.g. blogging a conference) or more serious (e.g. doing an internship)?
9) Maxine mentioned in #7 that there was someone back to the bench. It surprised me since I thought that the career transition is irreversible: Once you’re away from the bench, you’re unable to go back. Do you agree or disagree? Should you be motivated to do research again, would it be a realistic choice for you?
-
On (7)—many publications and websites will take freelance or contributed writing contributions, and many people we have hired at Nature have published articles before joining the staff. This could be the form of News and Views, Essays or Book Reviews for Nature, or in the form of short articles about scientific advances in general publications such as New Scientist, The Scientist or other—there are literally thousands of publications (your local newspaper, for example) and websites. These days, people set up their own blogs or forums which can be used as a showcase for their abilities when applying for jobs – Nature Network, for example, offers a great opportunity for this. I already mentioned student newspapers—being involved in editing and communication in college is a good indication that you have wide interests and can provide excellent training in, say, production and editing technologies and processes.
Sometimes people organise scientific conferences and meetings, or their lab’s journal club or seminar programme.
One very common skill that people put on their cvs is that they read and edit colleagues’ papers and/or their own theses. However, what we are looking for is an objective, measurable way in which the candidate has done something to show that they are able to communicate science more widely than to fellow-specialists, and that they have a demonstrable interest in publishing.
Courses are also useful—whether in IT/web-related skills, editing skills or other.
As for (8), over the years I have known several editors who have gone back to the bench after a stint at Nature, so it isn’t the case that the career transistion is irreversible. One editor at least who is currently on the staff at Nature actively maintains his research interests.
-