eLife asserts that professional editors create more harm than good. But how do we know that? How can we know that? Or is this just an emotional argument based on anecdote and conjecture rather than fact?
Can a new open access journal that relies on working scientists to oversee its review process compete with other top-tier journals that employ professional editors?
It has become fashionable to rally against the elitism of journals and their editors. An economic argument for why we still need them both.
EMBO opens up the black box of peer-review. Is it worth the cost?
Publisher relaunches journal with new editorial board and scope, and a renewed focus on rigorous review.
Do medical editors have different quality standards based on the author’s geographic location?
Is it ethical for editors to alert authors of relevant in-journal articles?
The plateau of entries in Wikipedia has people scratching their heads. Are the editors becoming elitists? Is quality beating quantity? Or is it a little of both?