Editorial process
A transparent editorial process!
We believe The EMBO Journal has an efficient and reasonable editorial process [Rørth, 2005, 2009]. As part of a series of measures to increase transparency, we now make available online the Journal manuscript handling statistics for 2008, as well as the previous statistics from 2007. We also make available our follow-up analyses of the fate of manuscripts submitted to and rejected by The EMBO Journal in 2007 and in 2006. Finally, for published manuscripts, the complete process is made transparent:
Review Process Files
Starting with manuscripts submitted in 2009, The EMBO Journal is publishing online a ‘Review Process File’ (RPF) alongside published papers. This file contains the timeline and correspondence relevant to the processing of the manuscript at the Journal, showing the process openly. Importantly, the RPF contains all pertinent communication regarding the manuscript between the corresponding author and the editorial office, including the referees' comments, decision letters and responses from authors. Referees remain anonymous as we think this is important to ensure a good reviewing process. Confidential comments provided to the editor also remain so. Authors are given the option of not participating in this initiative while we are evaluating the functioning of the transparent editorial process. Our first statistics and analyses on the uptake and effects of the new process are encouraging, please see here for an update.
One main purpose of the RPF is to make the decision process and the rationale behind it clear and understandable. The RPF may also contain alternative perspectives on presented findings voiced by referees, and/or demonstrate particularly constructive referee and author argumentation. For some examples of typical RFPs, please see:
Anthis et al. (2009)
Braunschweig et al. (2009)
Cheng et al. (2009)
Querol-Audí et al. (2009)
