In 2023, I bit the bullet by signing a
book contract with Springer to work on a difficult compilation of scientific
misconduct and problematic science publishing practice. It was planned as an
edited book that required expert contributors of the field to write chapters on
the various topics.
All this started in the year 2023 when
few scientists started lamenting on the issues of problematic publishing system
of science on Twitter (now X). Little did I know when discussions turned into a
rebel and few of us ranted to write on scientific misconduct and prevalent
issues of bad science. I was thrilled to the core since almost every researcher
on social media seemed to accept writing on the same topic. I did not rethink
and just went with the flow and took up herculean task of editing the book.
As I was the corresponding editor, the
huge task came my way despite the other two editors pitching in to help me
whenever things went awry or deviated from the plan. I realized the task will
not be easy. Our plan was to screen
experts from the field and maintain stringent quality control of the book’s
content. Largely, it depended on the nature of our book – it was to collate
information on sensitive topic – i.e. scientific misconduct. Naturally, if our
book is narrating about misconduct, we had to be scanning each chapter with
“razor-sharp” eyes! This experience came with a lot of learnings for me – some
good and some were simply astonishingly unpleasant.
We are witnessing a modern time where
researchers are voraciously publishing papers and books, especially edited
books. While many researchers take up the project of editing books with a mere thought
that other researchers will pen chapters for the editor. Overall, the pursuit
of edited books is grossly misplaced, if one is venturing in the project for
mere collection of chapters followed by lousy editing and practically zero peer
review. Since the beginning of this project, I was clear with my agenda of obtaining
chapter contributors from two categories of researchers viz;
a.
Those who often raise voice about problematic
publishing in science and;
b.
Integrity officers/science sleuths who
routinely research in this area.
Why was writing about scientific
publishing ecosystem difficult? Well, who would want to write about something
that is controversial or rather unpleasant? Researchers rant on the social
media about the glaring problems of peer review, editorial biases, and
authorship issues, but seldom would dive into cognitive writing in print.
As an editor, I faced the following
situations:
·
Personal invitation for book chapter largely
received negative responses or much worse, there were be no responses – I
assume this issue could be due to sensitive nature of the book theme or my
invitation emails landed in their spam! (Ahem! I have a weird presumption that
often responsible researchers/scientists) even check their spam folders!)
·
Those who agree to write a chapter
contribution for your book, will often ditch you at the last moment or when the
deadline approaches. Most common reasons cited are:
o
too busy with work,
o
we tried but could not make it or
o
completely an ignorant message that – now we
are not interested to contribute.
These
responses surprisingly came from senior scientists and those who spend
considerable time on social media lamenting on this very issue! Sigh!
·
Then we have researchers who agree to
contribute but will keep seeking extension of the deadline. This is where
editors need to reorganize everything in their plan.
·
Finally, we have few committed researchers who
truly align with the chapter contribution and some will also reach out to gain
feedback on their writing. Let me tell you, these people need to be saved in
our scientific community.
So how did I navigate while working on
this book project? Considering the book planned was sensitive and needed to be
written to raise awareness amongst both early career researchers and
established scientists, we had to stay persistent and consistent in efforts. In
2019, I remember authoring a book with Oxford University Press that took three
years to complete, and how each day with every breath I took, I was
continuously thinking about writing, reviewing, and revising my chapters.
In the present project, I was
literally thinking about keeping a backup plan at hand, due to various reasons,
viz;
o what if
the contributor does not deliver the chapter in time?
o what if
the contributors ghost me?
o what if
the received chapters are written poorly?
o what if,
they did not acquire permission requests for the images or sent across
plagiarized content?
o what if
they have used ChatGPT and other AI tools to create content?
Well, I was one nervous editor, you
can say, but this helped me stay proactive and be a part of a creative process.
This process involved navigating numerous challenges, each of which requires=d
a nuanced approach and an organized planning. Basically – nothing must go
wrong! But things can go wrong!
I began committing even more to the
project, so much so that, I decided to pen a few chapters myself. Besides,
editing and reviewing, authoring was a big challenge. Keeping in mind, that I
was already swamped with seven industrial projects and family commitments. So,
yes, the challenge was big. Often, the book work came to a standstill on my
desk, but I do remember answering to every call and email related to this book.
I took a one-month bereavement leave and was back on desk in mid-March 2024.
All my industry experiments were somewhat working well due to my supportive
team. I finally picked myself and began the grind to complete the book work. I
realized there is not much blogged about working as an editor of a book, so
maybe this article will provide some suggestions to be well-prepared for this
challenging task.
Let me share my thoughts on working on
this book that explored about the scientific misconduct and emerging issues of
modern publishing – a controversial theme!
One of the foremost challenges in
editing scholarly books is the sheer depth and breadth of the subject matter.
Before embarking on this book editing
project, I had to immerse myself in the darker side of scientific
publishing—issues that threaten the integrity of academic research. Paper
mills, which mass-produce fraudulent research for profit, have flooded journals
with questionable studies. Citation manipulation distorts scholarly impact,
with some authors and even editors engaging in unethical citation practices to
inflate metrics. Editorial misconduct, from biased decision-making to conflicts
of interest, further erodes trust in the publishing process.
Peer review, meant to uphold quality,
is not immune to corruption. Peer review rings—where groups of researchers
conspire to approve each other’s work—compromise the objectivity of the system.
Authorship disputes are another persistent problem, with undeserving names
added for prestige while true contributors are sometimes excluded.
Understanding these challenges was
crucial before stepping into my role as a book editor. I realized that
maintaining scholarly integrity is not just about refining prose—it is about
upholding ethical standards, questioning sources, and ensuring that academic
publishing remains a space for genuine knowledge advancement, not exploitation.
Let me share my personal learnings
through the book project.
Maintaining Academic Rigor and
Integrity
As an editor, I took on the
responsibility of ensuring scholarly rigor by verifying research methods,
sources, and potential plagiarism. In the digital age, I had to be extra
vigilant, spotting subtle instances of academic dishonesty—both intentional and
inadvertent. Balancing the author’s voice with clarity was a challenge I
navigated carefully, making research accessible without diluting its depth.
Every manuscript required a keen editorial eye and an understanding of its
readership.
Interplay of Language and Terminology
Working across disciplines, I saw how
specialized terminology could either strengthen or weaken a scholarly work. I
had to cross-reference authoritative sources, consult experts, and ensure that
complex ideas remained precise yet readable. For non-native English-speaking
authors, I made subtle refinements to preserve their meaning while improving
clarity. Sensitivity to linguistic nuances became second nature, allowing me to
refine without interfering.
Structure and Flow of Scholarly
Writing
A well-structured manuscript enhances
comprehension, and I spent hours refining organization, eliminating
redundancies, and ensuring logical progression. My role went beyond simple
edits—I pinpointed weak arguments, unclear transitions, and structural gaps. By
stepping into the reader’s shoes, I helped shape a manuscript that flowed
cohesively and aligned with its overarching thesis.
Balancing Authorial Voice and
Editorial Input
I learned that editing was not about
imposing my perspective but about enhancing an author’s work while preserving
their unique voice. Effective communication was key—I engaged in discussions,
explained my suggestions, and remained receptive to feedback. Navigating
revisions required trust and diplomacy, ensuring the final work reflected the
author’s intent while meeting the highest editorial standards.
Managing Citations and References
Accurate citations were the backbone
of academic credibility, and I meticulously verified countless references,
ensuring consistency and adherence to style guides. Even minor errors could
undermine a work’s authority, so I took a systematic approach to cross-checking
sources and publication details. In manuscripts with extensive bibliographies,
this became a painstaking but essential process.
Evolution of Scholarly Publishing in
the Digital Age
The shift to digital publishing
introduced both opportunities and complexities. I had to familiarize myself
with evolving industry standards, digital formatting, and accessibility
concerns. Understanding e-publishing tools was crucial in ensuring compatibility
across platforms. At the same time, protecting intellectual property in the
digital realm remained a growing challenge that I had to navigate.
Human Elements of Collaboration and
Communication
Beyond technical expertise, scholarly
editing was about building relationships. I worked closely with authors,
offering constructive feedback while respecting their vision. Listening,
addressing concerns with empathy, and fostering trust were just as important as
refining a manuscript. A positive editorial relationship not only strengthened
the final publication but also enhanced the entire scholarly process.
Final Thoughts
Scholarly publishing is changing
rapidly, and so is the editor’s role. No longer just language refiners, we now
navigate interdisciplinary research, open-access publishing, and digital
innovations. Adaptability is key, as new challenges—like data curation and
multimedia integration—reshape our responsibilities. Staying ahead of trends is
demanding, but it’s essential to keeping knowledge accessible and relevant.
Editing scholarly books is both tough
and rewarding. Long hours, complex manuscripts, and evolving expectations test
our skills, yet the impact makes it worthwhile. Thoughtful editing doesn’t just
refine research—it amplifies it, making scholarship more meaningful and
accessible.
Yet, this journey isn’t without
frustrations.
I’ve lost respect for scientists who eagerly committed to
contributing chapters to my book, only to later withdraw with flimsy excuses.
Their lack of accountability makes me question their dedication to the very
scholarship they claim to uphold. Advancing knowledge requires commitment, not
just when it is convenient.
Despite these setbacks, scholarly
editing remains a craft—one that demands dedication, intellectual curiosity,
and a deep respect for research. The challenges are real, but so is the
satisfaction of shaping the future of academic publishing. As the field
evolves, editors will continue to play a vital role in ensuring that knowledge
reaches those who seek it.
And now, the book is out there, ready
for researchers to dive into and review! I’d love to hear what caught your
attention, so feel free to share your thoughts and experiences with publishing
papers in journals. Let us keep the conversation going!
Reference:
Joshi PB, Churi P, Pandey M. Scientific Publishing
Ecosystem: An author-editor reviewer axis. 1st ed. S.l.: Springer Nature; 2024.
Available from:
https://link.springer.com/book/9789819740598?utm_medium=catalog&utm_sou…
