Ideas for navigation to plan planning editor (idea)

The editorial or review may have an impact to hear about the expert work, especially in the first stages. Maths can be up to the author. The negative reviews of or planning manifests the recruitment system and damage the opportunities for Scholar Cans for tenure or promotions. This actual creates the power inequalities between the planner or reviews and a tragedy who can be mistreated.

Graduates provide a few directors to how to wander on the editor and relationship that is analyzed. Our goal in this matter is fraudulating the process and provides suggestions and the recipients / reviews and authors how they can approach them.

Understanding the roles of reviews and editorial roles

First, it is important to note that when they are reviewed and editors participated in the same process – checking the author’s work – activities separated. The editor is rarely a scholarship to a particular article and should rely on impartial reviews to set employment. However, the editor – again, sometimes, planning board – the decision maker in the equation. Having a clear and obvious line of communication between the author and the editor is important.

An employee of revision is to set up the work in their Student state and weigh. Does the work break the new world? Is it a challenge to interpret from the Academy? Are modern resources and is most appropriate? Is the work equivalent to a jet of jenal heads or press? Can you be reviewed to make it ready for publication?

It is our firm belief that the reviewers need to meet the authors where they are – that, understanding the author’s goal, decided that the work is ready for the journal or, to help them access the Tabilis for publication. Simply put: The review must balance the author’s case against the author’s purpose.

Unfortunately, this is not to be done: Sometimes the case reviewers are that reviewers are that the reviewers have deviated this method and installing suggestions that they would like to see. The “number 2 presentation number has been a four of the country’s author. In this type of review, the review raises so many questions and opposition that the writer is left thinking that the two read the same text. Also, it should be said, such as social media, anonymity can sometimes lead to reducing. Instead of being helpful, sometimes an update is unkind and cruel.

Editors’ role is to support the author of author and the desires of analyst. EGOS and politics are often played in this process because reviews in most cases their organizers and providers in question. Our experience shows that there are two types of organizers. The authors will need to adjust their approach based on the two species that best describe their editor:

• Sympathetic Editor: This is okay. This editor will work with the author to publish entries when research is solid and will allow them to keep their voice. They don’t want to force their opinion on a book or book. They do not allow their personal politics to influence the process of decision making. They are driven by one middle question: Will the author achieve what they have suspended? This sort of editor is trying to find that the review does without HUBRis by raising important changes and officials or discussing major problems. Toward the perverting end of the spectrum, they are alert to a two-class phase, united review, reader reading work for lunch while answering emails.
• Reference editor: May sound sound different, but the editor has their own opinion of someone else’s work can say frustration and eventually refuse the writer. This editorial type recognizes another person’s work as an opportunity to evaluate the theme of the theme. They forced their view of someone else’s work rather than deciding whether the author achieves their goal. This usually takes a long response type to ask the writer to reconsider their piece. The answer contains so many stacks to follow suggestions will be required to write a completely different piece of scholarship. This editor often extends and interferes with the process for almost endlessly.

As an example, Filel Castro’s death, Latin American American Ariment Duo (Arrote-Freyre) We were asked by the Journolial Board’s Board to compare with Cuban, Fulgenco Batista. A bad piece concluded that these two political figures shared similar similarities. The editor, although they approve the idea, it was not popular with the conclusions reached by the Esai. The editor beats the class after the passage; Speech with voice and thesis started.

The editor suggested that a piece analyzes the review of the Batista – the title of the first assignment and will take up to many months to complete. The author made a rookie mistake in thinking that the planning board was found by means of making assignments. In return, the assignment seems to be emphasized by a working planner, and then wants to direct a piece in a completely different place. The author took away a piece; The only thing that happened that few months were lost in the process.

The Temporary Editor is a type that has never been satisfied. They forget that a piece is a writer, not their own. Yes, the Editor is a journalist or a media gate, but if not it is worthy, he must say so and continue. This drawing editor sends back reviews back to the third party updates (or fourth), which may request another, a separate cycle of review. This is nothing but transporting goals. One of us once took place with a planner who said, “As you know, we often send some articles with several reviewers.” Well, we didn’t know, because the textbook website doesn’t say that. Such a process can continue forever again, in our eyes, weak. Editor must decide to him that the author is updated enough: It is obvious that the student reports what is needed, so just check it out. The editor needs to decide.

In the area the work is about to be sent to the additional set of reviewers, the author needs to withdraw an article or letter to thinking. Run as soon as possible when you want another editor and publication. Don’t let anyone spend your time, especially when your watch repeats creating and nomination.

How to make relationships work- and when walking

The writer’s older relationship should be dance, not Duel. The writer is not mercy of procedure; He is a partner. If you do not click on the Editor, Go. The first day of the first one doesn’t change have been a second beautiful day. This is especially true when working on the book project, given many steps and a long-term line.

To get update-and re-update, we firmly recommend that you are firmly confident. Ask about Reviews Reform Before Doing. If the editor says it will go to new students, withdraw a piece. This has never been well. Editors should be obvious about the steps involved. It is our situation that some planners are reluctant to convey their process. If so, the author needs to rehabilitate the integrity of that process.

Being completely obvious allows you to request a refund, whether you are the editor or author. If, as we have experienced, twice twice-classified reviews, the editor must get half a third before returning to the author. If there are two or three updates, the editor must use with the attached memo. Summary we must go like: “All the reviewers agreed to review the fourth chapter, but there is no disagreement in the sixth chapter.” There is also nothing wrong with asking the author to make a difficult phone with translation point. Again, it is a writer’s scholarship, not editor, magazines or media.

Of the authors: Have a conversation with the editor. If it is a call, follow the written summary. When answering reports to the reports, especially when they disagree, they say what to do and they will not do it. You can say that you will review when you disagree – but don’t be stubborn. Provide a little to find out what you can’t compromise. If you do not agree with the viewer’s suggestion, state why, and ask the editor to find permission that does not make any changes that have been suggested to one of the learners’ reports. Find that approval. If the editor says Review will return to the learner in one or both working as to whether we are also available to exchange writers, with it.

It may not always work. Recently, one of us did what he explained and the planner said the program sounds good, only that the journal has refused to review. The planning board said a specific change was not made even though the editor agreed that the change would not be required. Abusive communication and communication between the planner and the planning board should not punish the writer.

Finally, we would like to briefly drain the dispute that professors should refuse peer review because it is an unpaid work. If you don’t want to do it, do not – but compulsory reasons for writing a reliable peer review. First, unpaid work is not without proper. Whether your control committees and promotions may inform the work, that does not mean that it is worthless. You are not paid to volunteer in your area of ​​local food, but still do. Second, people do to you; It is time to be generous for their return. Third, Review provides understanding of your work process. The peer review is keeping you currently in the fields. Planning and peer reviews make you a better writer and produce a better scholarship. Isn’t it all that we all want?