Academic journal editors' professionalism: perceptions of power, proficiency and personal agendas

Set against the backdrop of the performativity culture that defines the 21st century academy in the UK, an institution whose cornerstone is the dissemination of knowledge, the study reported below was intended to examine and analyse a key agential dimension of the academic knowledge economy: academic journal editors’ professionalism. Applying a conceptualisation of professionalism that interprets it as encompassing what practitioners do (in the context of their work), how they do it, why they do it, and what attitudes they hold, the research was focused particularly on the extent to which journal editors are perceived as wielding power within their academic communities, and on the nature and extent of any such power, and its consequences on those most likely to be affected by it: academics as authors. Over the course of a year the perspectives of two constituencies were sought: academic journal editors and authors representing 7 broad disciplinary groups. Data were gathered through an online questionnaire that yielded over 800 responses from authors, and through 35 follow-up interviews (20 with editors; 15 with authors). The findings revealed widespread recognition that journal editors exercise power within their academic communities, but for the most part this was considered neither malignant nor obstructive, and the broad consensus was that editors are generally effective, conscientious, fair and proficient, and the system within which they operate fit for purpose. Criticisms and complaints were nevertheless articulated: editors were perceived as sometimes abrogating their editorial responses, being insensitive to authors’ needs and preferences, and occasionally behaving unethically. For their part, editors downplayed their potency and some provided examples of their impotence in some circumstances. The selected findings presented in this report are indicative rather than comprehensive, representing only a fraction of those that the study has yielded. Analysis of the abundant data remains on-going. On the basis of this partial and incomplete analysis, the tentative conclusions reached are that it is perhaps more helpful to think of journal editors as academic leaders rather than as power-wielders, and that – to bring editors’ enacted professionalism more in line (than in currently appears to be) with the editorial professionalism that authors expect of or want - serious consideration should be given to the viability and feasibility of expanding the practice of professional, salaried, editorship.