Perspectives on medical education · 2026
"It's Like a Whole Set of Things That We Do": A Qualitative Study of the Roles of Journal Editors-in-Chief.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Maggio Lauren A, Artino Anthony R, Costello Joseph A, Martin Paolo C, Ma TingLan, Brown Kirsten R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Journal editors-in-chief (EICs) play a central role in shaping scholarly publishing, yet little is known about how they understand and enact their roles. We explored how medical education journal EICs describe their roles in shaping the publication process.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using thematic analysis of interviews with nine medical education journal EICs. The interviews were part of a broader investigation of publication timelines and explored editorial leadership and practices, including experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants' accounts also provided insight into the broader work of leading a journal, which became the focus of the present analysis.
RESULTS: Participants described their work not as a set of discrete tasks, but as five interrelated roles: knowledge developer, proactive communicator, steward of time and energy, nurturer, and orchestrator. These roles were enacted simultaneously and often in tension, reflecting the need to balance scholarly rigor, relational commitments, and system constraints. EICs described actively shaping knowledge, orchestrating complex communication networks, safeguarding finite reviewer and editorial resources, supporting authors and editorial teams, and maintaining workflow continuity. Much of this work was characterized as invisible labor occurring behind the scenes and not captured in formal metrics. Participants also highlighted a structural tension between nurturing authors and stewarding limited resources, underscoring the challenges of sustaining both inclusivity and efficiency within a resource-constrained system.
DISCUSSION: This study offers a practice-informed framework for understanding EIC work as relational, strategic, and system-oriented. By making visible the often-invisible labor that underpins academic publishing, our findings challenge reductive conceptions of editorial work and highlight the need for training, support, and systemic changes to better align expectations for rigor, inclusivity, and sustainability.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using thematic analysis of interviews with nine medical education journal EICs. The interviews were part of a broader investigation of publication timelines and explored editorial leadership and practices, including experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants' accounts also provided insight into the broader work of leading a journal, which became the focus of the present analysis.
RESULTS: Participants described their work not as a set of discrete tasks, but as five interrelated roles: knowledge developer, proactive communicator, steward of time and energy, nurturer, and orchestrator. These roles were enacted simultaneously and often in tension, reflecting the need to balance scholarly rigor, relational commitments, and system constraints. EICs described actively shaping knowledge, orchestrating complex communication networks, safeguarding finite reviewer and editorial resources, supporting authors and editorial teams, and maintaining workflow continuity. Much of this work was characterized as invisible labor occurring behind the scenes and not captured in formal metrics. Participants also highlighted a structural tension between nurturing authors and stewarding limited resources, underscoring the challenges of sustaining both inclusivity and efficiency within a resource-constrained system.
DISCUSSION: This study offers a practice-informed framework for understanding EIC work as relational, strategic, and system-oriented. By making visible the often-invisible labor that underpins academic publishing, our findings challenge reductive conceptions of editorial work and highlight the need for training, support, and systemic changes to better align expectations for rigor, inclusivity, and sustainability.