Editorial The Academic Journal EditorSecrets Revealed 1 Thom Brooks Department of Politics, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne,

NE1 7RU, United Kingdom t.brooks@newcastle.ac.uk

Introduction Academic publishing is a world filled with more mystery than revelation. Often the best advice is made available only to those lucky enough to hear it by word of mouth. This is no less true with editing academic journals. I have enjoyed the honour of launching the Journal of Moral Philosophy and serving as its editor for the last ten years. I actively sought out the best advice on a number of issues from editors serving on leading journals as well as their publishers. Despite the fact that most of the conversations focused on journals in the areas of law, philosophy, and political science, I believe that much of the general advice remains true for most disciplines. This editorial brings together some lessons learned over the years and reveals some secrets about the trade. My purpose is to improve the information available to share best practice and offer some insight into the minds of academic journal editors. This is a task I have performed previously on the topics of publishing advice and referee guidelines that I extend now to journal editing (see Brooks 2008, Brooks 2010). I begin with a brief note about my background experiences before moving to advice on how to successfully propose a new journal to a publisher. I then discuss topics such as managing a journal launch before considering advice on the effective management of submissions received and further advice on journal development. Background The first secret: I benefited from a lucky break early in my academic career. I had moved to University College Dublin to pursue a MA in Philosophy after completing a MA in Political Science at Arizona State University. I considered taking a year off studies before applying to Ph.D. programmes for two reasons. First, I was unsure whether or not to return to the United States. Secondly, if I did stay overseas, then I wanted to prepare myself for applications in the
1

I am especially grateful to Mark Bevir, Fabian Freyenhagen, Carol Gould, Matthew Liao, Jeff McMahan, Dermot Moran, Martha Nussbaum, Bob Stern, and Bob Talisse for illuminating discussions over the last ten years or more. I am also grateful to a great many others for their advice over the years, including Liz Ashford, David Bell, Angelo Corlett, Matti Eklund, Dave Estlund, Bob Goodin, Sally Haslanger, Simon Kirchin, Brian Leiter, Hallvard Lillehammer, Sandra Marshall, Mike Otsuka, Joseph Raz, Henry Richardson, Jens Timmermann, Leif Wenar, Jo Wolff, various senior commissioning editors too numerous to list, and all who have participated in Association for Philosophy Journal Editors events.

UK and Irelanda world that I was relatively unfamiliar with. My lucky break came in serving as a lowly Executive Assistant in the Department of Philosophy at University College Dublin. The departments head was Dermot Moran and he was also then editor of the International Journal of Philosophical Studies. One part of my duties was to serve as the IJPS managing editor. This was a lucky break. First, I had an invaluable learning experience in discovering the ways in which different authors composed and submitted their work. It took little time to discover that often papers appearing sloppily produced rarely succeeded in earning positive reviews. So one lesson was to ensure that my submitted work looked the part: one potential nudge to referees was to make my work look like one. Inevitably, there were papers received that had the odd coffee stain (a surprisingly common occurrence) and once or twice I recall a smudge suggesting spaghetti sauce. How times have changed since the launch of electronic submission platforms. More importantly, I paid careful attention to the difference in argumentative strategies adopted by successful and unsuccessful submissions. The most successful submissions were often the best in appearance, clearly structured, focussed on one or two central points, and the paper would be strictly limited to its topic. The less successful were often poorly presented where its central contribution was left unclear or unspecified and these papers might include many points, footnotes, and sometimes whole sections that were unnecessary or even off-topic. There is a value in seeing not only that work which is accepted, but also work that fails to be accepted. 2 Secondly, I gained valuable experience in learning more about the production side of publishing. I saw firsthand that a paperand even a successful papermay travel a long road from submission to publication. There is the initial review, the selection of referees, the chasing up on late reports, the decision on whether revisions are required, letters sent, final copies received, and much more. My time included attendance at publisher meetings in Dublin and my first trip to London to discuss the journals progress with Taylor and Francis. This revealed something to me about the sometimes overlapping interests between academics and their publishers in the production of academic journals that I soon put into practice. Furthermore, this prepared me for life at publisher meetings concerning editor contracts, copyright assignment, annual editor and publisher reports, and more recently information about online visits and downloads for use in online marketing campaigns. Indeed, running a journal is not unlike running your own franchise in a larger chain. Its a business with a business model and future plan. The trick is to make it work best for the goals you have in mind. Proposing a new journal I left UCD to begin my PhD in Philosophy at the University of Sheffield in summer 2001 shortly before 9/11. I first raised the idea of launching a new journal with Mark Bevir, an old friend. Mark strongly encouraged me, but he was also clear that the commitment and energy required to pull this off was high. He has stood by the JMP from its beginning and I have
2

These lessons about how to present and structure my work in light of what I saw with IJPS submissions led to my first article acceptance while in this role at UCD (see Brooks 2001).

benefited from his advice on many occasions. But the lessons here are several. First, any journal is a joint project. Hilary Clinton (2007) once said it takes a village to raise a child. Im unsure about that, but I am more certain that it takes a community of committed academics to launch a successful journal. Secondly, starting any journal does take a phenomenal amount of commitment in terms of effort and time that is difficult to appreciate until you experience it firsthand. This will be made more clear shortly. After Marks encouragement, I began discussions with Fabian Freyenhagen, a close friend and then fellow doctoral candidate at Sheffield, about proposing a new academic journal. There are many keys to success worth noting. First, most publishers have a proposal form for prospective authors of new monographs, but none to my knowledge have a particular form for prospective new journal editors. I would recommend following what we did and format the journal proposal in terms of a book proposal. The most important parts to include and substantiate are its central mission statement (in 150 words or less) and clear market need. Fabian and I looked closely at the leading journals in philosophy, especially in the areas of ethics and political philosophy as well as legal philosophy. We first saw what we enjoyed most about each in terms of their structures and contents to see if this revealed something about what a compelling new journal might offer. Journals differ greatly in terms of their structure. While all run articles, not all publish review articles or book reviews. Not all have discussion pieces. Many limit themselves to particular fields either explicitly or implicitly over time. We sought to combine the best of what was available, such as in high quality articles wherever it was found without regard to particular approaches. We wanted our journal open to work in both analytic and so-called Continental philosophy as well as work exploring ideas in the history of philosophy: so long as the work is rigorous and offers a distinctive contribution, we wanted a journal open to publishing it. This strategy has had limited success as we receive little work on historical issues and much less in non-analytic approaches. I have had a longstanding interest in Indian philosophy and I was especially keen that non-Western work had a new mainstream journal provided it met our standards (see Brooks 2002). We have received even less in this area which has been disappointing despite several attempts to improve submissions and my hope remains that this will improve in future (see Hutton 2008). New journal proposals face a major obstacle in addressing the subject of how they might be assured that there is substantial work to be published in a new home. I have seen several different methods used that led to success. The first is to have papers in hand upfront ready for publication that has merit. The most common approach here is to seek out some leading figures and collect work from them that would appear in the journal. Journals are always attention seeking: they must command our attention and win our respect in order to achieve success. One way to do this is to be the home of important new work that catches our attention, such as the latest papers by the leading figures. Of course, this is also a slow and difficult path. Sometimes a strong set of papers at a conference has been used as a potential first issue for a new journal. Publishers want to have some reassurance that, if they launch a new journal, that the journal will exist and this is dependent upon it receiving sufficient submissions.

A second method for success is to list highly cited work in the journals subject-area appearing in competing titles. While I have seen this work, this strikes me as a risky strategy because it invites the response that there appears little need for a new journal in this area given the fact that the leading papers in this area have been able to find homes and sustained interest. We had worked on an earlier journal launch for the Review Journal of Political Philosophy. 3 We had one or two papers in hand that could run in our new project if the authors were willing. However, Fabian and I were keen to ensure the new journal would become recognized for its contents alone and we avoided packing our first issues with invited papers. We were able to convince the publishers about our contents on several grounds. First, I had experience of managing a review process at a major philosophy title for a year and so knew about vetting procedures. So I knew what to expect. Secondly, I was well integrated into various listservs and learned societies where the journal could be actively promoted. Thirdly, editorial board members would be invited with invitation letters stating the clear desire that they consider publishing in the journal. Fourthly, we were convincing on the size of the subject-area and the likely future growth that could support a new journal in this field. Finally, Fabian and I identified several topics for annual future issues where authors would compete for inclusion. Our list included several we published later on, such as on the legacy of John Rawls, global justice, and punishment. So we knew what to expect and how to conduct efficient reviews of submissions received. We could identify a growing market where a need existed for a new journal. We made a case for how we might expect to receive sustainable levels of new submissions over time, such as through special issue calls for papers and promotion activities. Most importantly, we could also point to something distinctive about our new project, such as its wider scope for work in this area without sacrificing quality. Oh, and we also had a great name in mind. I still cannot believe that the title Journal of Moral Philosophy had not yet been taken. There was also something distinctive about our structure. We would publish articles and brief discussion pieces debating papers published. We would also run a different review section. Fabian and I were passionate about the value of good reviews and the need for something more useful. I had recalled a distinguished editorial board of a different journal noting to its editor that too many journals ran the same kind of review of its books received and this should change. More books should be covered, but most in a brief treatment: the model was something more substantive than a book catalogue entry but short of something too substantial. Colleagues wanted to know a bit more about what was published without necessarily weaving through their every claim. Some books deserved more in depth treatment and this should be presented in a review article. We took advice on board and aimed to run
3

My original plan was to publish a new graduate journal of political philosophy. This led to the 2003 launch of the Review Journal of Political Philosophy. I was contractually required to leave this project soon afterwards to lead the Journal of Moral Philosophy from April 2003. I have continued to be highly impressed with the work of my successor, J. Jeremy Wisnewski, with the RJPP. It has been blossomed under his attentive direction publishing at least eight volumes and transforming it from a journal for graduate students to something far more ambitious. While many know my hand in launching the JMP, few may be aware that I had prior recent experience in launching the RJPP shortly beforehand.

both review articles and book reviews in light of this advice. It has proved a winning module. I continue to believe that the Journal of Moral Philosophy has one of the best review sections in the business. This is entirely due to the tireless efforts of our founding Reviews Editor, Fabian Freyenhagen, and current Reviews Editor, Christian Miller. So selling a proposal for a new journal is very much a business plan that must make clear its distinctiveness and marketability. Timing is also crucial. My original ambitions were too low. Originally, we had considered running papers in either English or German and first approached the publishers Frommann-Holzboog. Discussions were periodic for about a year before abandoning efforts and dropping plans for a multilingual journal. Instead, I contacted my local publishing house: Sheffield Academic Press. They published a variety of journals in theology but nothing in philosophy. I thought we might be in with a chance given my circumstances. What we did not know was that they had been sold to Continuum and that Continuum had purchased several other smaller presses leading it to acquire a significant philosophy book list. Perhaps it was fate, but Continuum were actively looking to launch or acquire one or two philosophy journals to further establish themselves in the area and we happened along at the right time. Continuums desire for a new journal in this areawhich I could never have known about otherwisewas my second lucky break. About two or three days after sending in our proposal I met with Philip Davies, the lead journals editor for the press and founder of Sheffield Academic Press. Philip was also a theology professor at the University of Sheffield whose office was directly beneath the philosophy department where I was studying. Philip grilled me on all relevant areas from the big picture to administrative details. My third lucky break was that he was willing to support the journal without drawing attention to the fact that Fabian and I were still graduate students for fear this little detail would likely kill off a worthwhile project. I also travelled to London at my own expense to discuss the journal with the senior commissioning editor in Philosophy at Continuum. It is a lesson for publishers that perhaps they should ask for job titles when vetting prospective editors: I was never asked once for mine. Nor did I volunteer it. This meeting was crucial for getting the contract secured. It permitted me to begin a working relationship with the publisherface-to-face meetings have a value easy to underestimateand it also gave me an opportunity to directly address any concerns the publisher had about going forward with our plans. I was able to make a strong case and, furthermore, I was asked about other proposals they had received and why our proposal should be preferred. I understand that none of the editors for other proposed journals had met with Continuum prior to the big decision day. The result is now obvious: Continuum decided in favour of the Journal of Moral Philosophy and the rest is history. Launching a new journal Journals are publicity seekers. Their launch is a key moment in their future success. This need not be too expensive, but it must grab attention and avoid embarrassment. By all accounts, our formal launch was a bit underwhelming. We chose the best national occasion for the launch: the Joint Session of the Aristotelian Society and Mind Association held at the

University of Kent at Canterbury. This conference is dwarfed in size by the scale of the mammoth American Philosophical Associations Eastern Division, but the Joint Session is the largest philosophy conference in Britain. Continuum were opening a first stand at the conference and willing to provide some wine and nibbles. Our then editor, Hywel Evans, offered some remarks followed by Fabian and I and that was it. It was unhelpful that the formal invites to the launch contained several spelling errors, including an error about the launch date. But it was a launch and it gave us a reason to spread word and build interest. This we did through emailing every learned society and listserv I could find. This led to many submissions later. I also met Matthew Liao at the JMP launch and our friendship has grown swiftly since: Matthew will become my successor as Editor from January 2013. Journal launches must attract interest, but they need not be too costly. Resources spent on wine may be better spent on production or conference support. The purpose is to raise awareness and rather than to merely celebrate. There will always be time to celebrate after the journals sustainable future is secured. Online and postal promotion is one way to launch a new journal and perhaps the most obvious. There are other ways to promote a journal that are less explored. One option that I regularly employed was to contact authors of papers to be presented at the American Philosophical Association division meetings that seemed to fit the remit of our Journal. One reason to contact prospective authors is clearly to acquire new submissions. A second reason to contact them is to further promote the Journal and its existence. Plus, we were keen to ensure the Journal attracted strong submissions from North America. This has been achieved with the US remaining the single largest source of JMP submissions annually since 2003. It also helps to have an effective editorial board. Some boards boast big names that do little, if anything. Or there is a real lack of diversity both philosophical and otherwise. Perhaps one of the areas of the Journal I have been most proud of is the outstanding board members this Journal has been fortunate to attract. They have proven a fountain of invaluable advice and constant support. I ensured that I met most board members early on and I have met almost all by now. As noted previously, it takes an academic community to run a successful journal. While it may be tempting to list so-called big names with the view this will be sufficient, it is much better to build some working relationship with board members. What you want is not empty support, but sustained interest and critical engagement. Otherwise, why have leading figures on the board if you dont want or expect to hear from them? I owe the deepest gratitude to our board for all it has done for me. A well run board is a body that takes an interest in the journal. The efforts identified have well and truly paid off. The Journal received 68 submissions in 2003 and accepted about 19%. This was the year prior to our launch. Since our first issue in April 2004, the Journal now receives about 250 submissions each year and our acceptance rate has steadily plummeted to about 5% for the last few years. This success has not come overnight. It has taken commitment and energy from any number of people involved to make

this achievable. But following the advice outlined may help other journals achieve similar success. Effective submission management Submissions are the intellectual lifeblood of an academic journal. I have noted several strategies for developing strong submissions, such as contacting listservs and learned societies, ensuring a visible launch that receives attention, the use of competitive special issues to build submissions and ensure quality, and contacting prospective authors located in conference lists about submitting to the journal. People do not often have a high regard for the unfamiliar. Often what we regard as good is also that which is familiar. The goal of a successful journal is to ensure that people become familiar with it and for the right reasons. Effective submission management is a key part of this strategy. So now submissions have been received. Now what? In the early days, submissions were hard copies. This led to ensuring authors submitted multiple copies to save on photocopy costs. One copy would be kept on file; other copies would be posted to referees. People regularly underestimate the amount of administration involved. Consider the many tasks involved: (1) receive submission, (2) acknowledge submission by email or letter, (3) assess paper and consider whether it should be reviewed, (4) search for prospective referees, (5) search for the contact details of identified prospective referees, (6) draft letters for referees, (7) post papers to referees, (8) log all information on submissions and reviewers noting dates for reports, (9) chase up late reports from referees, (10) collect referee reports, (11) determine outcomes from reports, (12) note revisions required for publication if any, and (13) contact authors. This is all prior to production for accepted papers: (14) receive nonanonymous final copies, (15) forward to typesetter, (16) receive from typesetter to be sent to copy-editor, (17) forward to authors, (18) receive corrections from authors, (19) approve individually all proposed changes, (20) forward again to copy-editor for final formatting, and (21) vet final proofs prior to printing. Little requires rich philosophical knowledge and most steps are purely administrative, routinely performed by managing editors. Acknowledgements to authors should be brief, but prompt. Authors will be anxious about whether their submissions have been safely received: such reassurance should be timely and set out the review process. This will avoid further queries in future about what should be expected. Perhaps the most time is spent determining referees and then finding their contact details. This can take several hours each week. One method is to use persons identified in the paper. After all, they should have relevant knowledge about the submission contents given their inclusion. Plus, this can make referee selection a bit easier. The argument against this is the concern that some referees may be less rigorous about recommending acceptance if the result led to greater citations of their work. While I have not been convinced by this concern, most referees the Journal has used have most often not been named in the submissions they are asked to review.

Mistakes are sometimes made. Some referees reply that they were wrongly identified as having a relevant background. Once or twice the prospective referee had been deceased which was acutely embarrassing. While most referees who decline often recommend alternatives, more frequently many say nothing at all without confirming their inability to review. Most referees approached have accepted, but securing timely reviews remains a major challenge that seems to only grow as pressures to publish build. My normal procedure for choosing referees is to consult an index, such as the Philosophers Index, and search by topic for leading work. If I find people writing on similar areas at roughly equal or greater prestige journals or books, then they would become likely to be invited to review. Curiously, I have found that younger scholars more likely to agree to review, to review in a timely fashion, and more frequently recommend rejection. This experience is confirmed with most others I have consulted about this for reasons remaining unknown. A great truism about referee reports is that they most often agree. I recall only a handful of moments where one referee recommended acceptance and a second recommended rejection. Normally, both recommend the same outcome or a similar outcome. This has made determining the final outcome fairly easy in most cases. A good editor must know something about the general area of the journal, but no editor can be expected to have specialist knowledge about all areas in any journals remit. It does not take long to develop an ability to identify appropriate referees whose judgement about submissions is trustworthy. These referees often work for free. This makes securing their assistance more difficult. Some publishers offer sweeteners such as discounts on future book purchases or even on journal subscriptions. This is a gesture that more should replicate. One easy nudge that editors should do is include some word of thanks in journal issues to referees used in acknowledgement of how appreciative the journal is of their efforts. Nevertheless, it may often be a major job identifying suitable referees, finding out contact details, securing agreements to review, and then chasing them up until reviews are received. This has long been my most onerous set of tasks and a job often left to a managing editor. 4 The main issue throughout is timeliness. Submissions may take a few days to acknowledge. Then it may take a few days to identify suitable referees and contact details. A week or more may pass before referees agree to review submissions. Then about six to eight weeks should be allowed for their review. Three months may pass and not all reviews received. The process can be prolonged where reviews are delayed or referees especially difficult to identify. At all stages, clear records of what is in process and where it is in this process must be on hand. There are various computer software I have used, but tend now to rely on our online Editorial Manager system. Online submissions have revolutionized the job. Now communications to authors and referees are a mouse click (or two) away. Papers can be managed remotely without having to be in the office. Plus, automatic reminders to authors and referees are sent. Perhaps the best development is simply having a single platform where all documents and
4

It is expected the JMP will have a new managing editor in place from next year.

communications are located. Previously, I would create a new file both electronically and for my file cabinet for each new submission received. Now these are filed electronically in an easily searchable database. Times are a-changing and for the better in these respects. It goes without saying that effective submission management requires a high level of organizational skills, but it is a job that once done well becomes habit forming over time. Future journal development While submissions are the intellectual lifeblood of any journal, a sustainable readership is the financial lifeblood that must also be maintained. If readers (and library subscriptions) lacking, then no amount of quality submissions can save a journal from an early grave. The big trick is how to generate interest among readers (and not merely authors). One approach is to ensure editorial board members secure institutional subscriptions for the journal. This is a major source of revenue that should be easy to source. Once upon a time, we would measure success by institutional subscriptions in part because such numbers were easily available. Now many institutions have banded together in consortia to negotiate shared subscriptions to journals. I will never forget learning that over 100 universities in Brazil subscribed to the Journal. My excitement was tempered once I learned that they were all part of a single consortium deal and so not as big an income stream as I had supposed at first. Institutional subscriptions are valuable, in part, because (like many taxes) once they start they rarely stop. Thus, a library that elects to begin a subscription to a new academic journal will likely retain this journal for the foreseeable future. Subscriptions become established sustainable revenue streams: once they begin to make a profit, they can be expected to yield a profit each year. A second approach is to develop indicators of high interest to spur new subscriptions. Publishers often promote journals with a list of the most downloaded papers. The Journal of Moral Philosophy was for a short time the most downloaded SAGE journal when we were published at SAGE Publications. Downloads are an indicator of readership. I know of many cases where courses include links to papers to help build hits and downloads rather than providing papers upfront. A third approach is to build citation counts. This is difficult to manage. One successful model is adoption of target articles followed by brief discussion pieces. These are good for generating some debate on important topics and arguments presented in a journal, but even better at ensuring high average citation counts as target articles will come with several automatic citations in hand. Finally, there is nothing more important than ensuring timely and effective review of submissions received. The more people see what a transparent and efficient operation is in place, the more likely they may be to submit their best work to the journal. This requires good management skills, but also solid interpersonal skills. At every conference or workshop I attend I am on the lookout for future submissionsand this requires constant pitching to prospective authors about why the Journal of Moral Philosophy is the best place for their

work. Again, editing a journal is not unlike running a small franchise business of a larger chain. Such a characterization may be unattractive, but accurate. Conclusion This editorial brings together some of the many lessons I have learned over the years in how to launch and develop an academic journal. Editing the Journal of Moral Philosophy has been a true labour of love. Its success owes much to several lucky breaks at the start followed by several years of sustained commitment aimed at promoting and building the Journal to what is now before you. It is my hope that these comments will benefit prospective and existing academic journal editors in what to expect and some ideas on possible options for further exploration. It has proven a major surprise to find so little in print about advice on this significant topic. Journal editors are the gate keepers of the profession and yet the effective management of journals remains a topic of more mystery than revelation. This will likely change with the relaunch of groups like the Association of Philosophy Journal Editors and the American Philosophical Associations soon to be released guidelines on academic journals that I was honoured to contribute to. I further hope these comments will prove useful to noneditors in revealing something about a side of academic life that is often unknown. The profession benefits where the publishing world is made more transparent. These comments bring to light much of what I have learned and put into practice over the last ten years. This editorial is a rare substantial treatment of an important topic that deserves greater attention and I welcome feedback from readers in response. 5

BIBLIOGRAPHY Brooks, Thom (2001). Corlett on Kant, Hegel, and Retribution, Philosophy 76: 561-80. Brooks, Thom (2002). In Search of iva: Mahdviyakkas Vraaivism, Asian Philosophy 12: 21-34. Brooks, Thom (2008). Publishing Advice for Graduate Students, (January 18, 2008). Available on the Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1085245. Brooks, Thom (2010). Guidelines on How to Referee, (December 2, 2010). Available on Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1719043. Clinton, Hillary Rodham (2007). It Takes a Village. London: Simon & Schuster. Hutton, Eric (2008). Han Feizis Criticism of Confucianism and Its Implications for Virtue Ethics, Journal of Moral Philosophy 5: 423-53.

My contact details are available on my website: http://thombrooks.info.