Sovereign Authority or Distributed Influence? Exploring How Journal Editors Manage the Publication Process

Abstract

In the context of rich debate concerning the publication process, this paper contributes to understandings regarding the role of journal editor. From our perspectives as former co-editors in chief of a leading management journal, we question: “How do journal editors in chief balance the interests of authors, reviewers and associate editors, bearing in mind journal policy?” Conducting a retrospective analysis of our editorial correspondence, we observe how we managed complex relationships among and between authors, reviewers, and associate editors—while seeking to respect journal policy. Drawing upon the ideas of philosopher Michel Foucault to illuminate our experience, we find that editor-in-chief perspectives are wider and more contextual than those of authors, reviewers, and associate editors (whose focus is on individual papers). We suggest that all parties are bound up in the histories and rituals of the peer review process. Further, we identify how, while many accounts attribute to editors a position of effectively sovereign authority, editorial influence is fluid and more distributed than might have been anticipated. Thus, making policy changes can prove challenging and may have unintended consequences regarding governance. We argue that achieving fair and consistent editorship can be enhanced only through better understandings of the editorial process.