I know peer-reviewing research papers is a lot of work, but it is something that as a scientist in academia you must do. However, you are not required to become an editor of a journal. It seems to be tons of work, and I am trying to understand what people gain from it and whether it is worth the effort.
I mean, I can understand how being an editor for Science or Cell would be helpful in terms of prestige, connections, and exposure to top science, but what about for lesser known journals? And how is that integrated with research and other duties?
Answer
As you alluded to in your question, there are several things to be gained by being a journal editor:
- Greater familiarity with ongoing research in your field
- Credit for "service" within your department institution
- Greater visibility within your research community
- In some cases, monetary compensation (some editor positions are paid, some are unpaid)
Being a journal editor can be a very time-consuming job, and it's certainly not for everyone. However, it can also be an interesting and rewarding experience, even if it's not a journal at the level of Science or Cell. (Then again, many of the journals at the level of Science have in-house professional editors, rather than part-time staff from academia!)
Editing a minor journal can also offset other forms of outreach service, particularly if you are still developing a tenure dossier. In those situations you may find editing more (or less) rewarding than the duties you would take on (or be assigned) otherwise. (You should check with your department chair, however, that such service would be considered acceptable before committing to a position!)
Whether or not the connections are worth it at a particular level of journal is not something we can directly answer. You should consider the time commitments relative to other priorities that you might have, and make a decision accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment