Editor's Virtual Forum #9

We are interested in finding out editors' views on the various issues documented in Editors' Update. We have created the Editors' Virtual Forum to enable you to have your say. In each issue, we'll nominate a topic for discussion and ask you to share your thoughts with other editors. This issue our forum topic is Elsevier’s Editorial Services (EES). Do you agree with answer A, B or C?

Discussion issue: Elsevier Editorial Services

A.  EES is creating more work for the editorial team.

B.  EES is making life easier because it facilitates better control over the peer review process and feedback from authors and referees.

C.  The training and support given for EES is very valuable.

Share your answers with other editors. Please email your answer and rationale to editorsupdate@elsevier.com. Your answer and rationale will be posted at the end of the relevant article and on the Forum page. Each reply published will display the contributor's name and journal.

Note: Elsevier reserves the right to edit comments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. G.L. Hofacker, Special Editor, Chemical Physics

To my surprise: Statements A, B and C are valid. Good Job!

2. Steve J. Fliesler, Section Editor, Experimental Eye Research

We've transitioned over to the EES system, and I mostly like it. However, one thing that would REALLY make a big improvement would be to have BCC (blind carbon copy) capability added to the email communication component. Example: When I communicate a decision by email to an author regarding the disposition of his/her manuscript, I usually CC the Executive Editor who handled the manuscript and sometimes also the Editor-in-Chief at the same time; however, while I'd also like to inform the referees of the manuscript, with the current system I cannot protect their privacy/identity. If there was BCC capability, I could send one email to all parties concerned, and the authors would just see my name and that of the CC'd individuals, but would be "blind" to the BCC referees' names.

1. Andrew Payne, Editor-in-Chief, ICES Journal of Marine Science

The EES was rolled out experimentally to a dozen or so of our mss during 2004, and results were mixed. Personally, I found it useful and time-saving, but my colleague editors did not post the same result. Problems include the summary de-inviting of (late report) reviewers when the editor has spent significant effort in coercing them to accept the review in the first instance, too lttle opportunity for personalization, and an intimated reliance on quality (Elsevier-contracted) copy-editing that has not always come up to scratch. The result is that our Journal has gone EES-live in 2005, but with authors being given the choice of adhering to the traditional email submission format or EES. However, if the EES is used, my colleague editors have reserved the right to download the material and handle it in the traditional way at any stage in the process, though uploading again on final submission.

Training on EES was good, though telephonic training is difficult by its nature, but we felt that we were too soon rolled out to a technical advisory group when our trainer was generally formulating a good working relationship with us. Overall, ms submission to our Journal in 2004 was up 40%, but we do not attribute that to the advent of the EES. In summary, the manuscripts I handled through the EES gave me few problems, easily solved, though the problems I have experienced in managing the process with my colleague editors has meant that EES has burdened not lightened my editorial management time.