Reflections on the Editorial Process of an Academic Journal

Phillip A. Bennett, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan
Maria Giovanna Tassinari, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
Ena Hollinshead, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan
Fergal Bradley, University of Helsinki Language Centre, Finland

Bennett, P. A., Tassinari, M. G., Hollinshead, E. & Bradley, F. (2020). Reflections on the editorial process of an academic journal. Relay Journal, 3(1), 100-109. https://doi.org/10.37237/relay/030108

[Download paginated PDF version]

*This page reflects the original version of this document. Please see PDF for most recent and updated version.

This paper is a reflection on our experiences as managing editors and layout editors of volume 2, issue 2 of Relay Journal. In accordance with the developmental aims of Relay Journal, via this reflective practice, our motivations are not only to foster each others’ learner autonomy and grow our professional development, but additionally to encourage others to also share reflections of their editing responsibilities, practices, and realisations. We also believe this will provide insight into the process for those who do not have the experience in such roles, yet wish to pursue them. With that in mind, we will briefly detail the journal-editing process and our roles in such; then follow with our individual reflections upon our experiences. Our reflections will focus on our responsibilities and roles, our feelings, and what we learned through the experience.

A Brief Description of the Journal Editing Process

What distinguishes the Relay Journal’s editorial process from usual editorial processes is the dialogic, open/transparent, and process-oriented approach. Accepted articles are first published online, external reviewers post their comments online, authors reply and, if necessary, make revisions to their articles. In addition, they answer to the external reviewers. This dialogue is a fruitful one, focusing on acknowledging each other’s work and on learning from each other’s experience and research. A sense of scientific empathy pervades the entirety of the editorial process.

The editorial team is composed of general editors who are responsible for the entire journal itself; managing editors who are in charge of editing the particular issue (Giovanna and Phillip’s role); column editors who are in charge of single columns (e.g., the reflective practice column by Fergal); and layout editor who is in charge of managing the layout of the journal, managing the comments on the articles, and finally uploading documents and maintaining the online presence of the journal (Ena’s role).

The editorial process follows these steps:

(i) a call for papers is issued;

(ii) the editorial team (which can also be editors-in-chief, managing editors, and/or column editors) read the articles. This reading is focused on the relevance of the topic and possible attribution to a column with brief proofreading concerning its layout;

(iii) the articles are accepted or rejected and the authors are notified;

(iv) the articles are proofread and edited by members of the editorial team and/or the other editors and are sent back to the authors for revisions;

(v) the search for external reviewers while writing an editorial introduction for the issue;

(vi) revised articles are received from authors and uploaded to the website;

(vii) external reviewers are assigned to articles for reviewing and commenting;

(viii) authors respond to reviewers’ comments and begin the final draft of the article taking the comments into account;

(ix) final drafts are uploaded to the journal website as paginated PDF files.

The intended process generally takes just over one month, however in our case it took a little over two months.

Giovanna’s Reflection

Responsibilities
I felt the responsibility of reading the articles with an open mind, acknowledging the colleagues’ work and perspective, and at the same time giving, if possible, a constructive critique in order to get into a dialogue with them. As managing editors, we had to deal with an exorbitant amount of emails. These emails consisted of writing to the authors, the editorial reviewers, the column editors, and the external reviewers. In addition to composing general emails, sometimes the responses were of questions or led to questions we had ourselves. Additionally, keeping track of each other’s work needed more time and energy than I expected.

My feelings
At the beginning of this undertaking, I was curious and keen to see how it will be to work with a colleague I barely knew. At the time I had read only one article by him and I did not really know what to expect. I am used to working with other colleagues, mostly with colleagues I have already met several times. In addition, it was the first time I edited Relay Journal––a journal with an open review process. I was familiar with the editorial process of other academic journals, where the review process is a blind review, thus, the editorial process of Relay Journal was new to me. Since Phillip is based in Japan and I live in Germany, we worked online via WhatsApp and Google Drive. From our first chat on WhatsApp I knew we would be able to work together. We approached each other with mutual respect and sympathy, and we learned each other’s style of working. I really appreciated his irony, his laughing, and his encouragement. One of the recurring sentences he used to conclude our chats was “We are almost done!”, even when we weren’t.

What I learned
Commenting on the authors’ contributions was sometimes similar to advising. Restating, highlighting the positive aspects, asking open questions in order to better understand the author’s perspective, and asking open questions in order to let the authors feel free to make their own decisions on how to further work on their articles/their research. I enjoyed reading contributions from less experienced authors/researchers as these kinds of contributions are very rarely published in academic journals. I liked to see their motivation and the way they looked at their experience. In addition, I also got some suggestions for literature I did not know.

Ena’s Reflection

Responsibilities
Thanks to the managing editors’ assistance I was able to learn more about academic writing in English, such as the APA formatting guidelines. In short, the layout editor needs to go through the practical processes of organising and formatting the journal. In my role as the layout editor, I received revised articles from the managing editors and then I checked whether each article conformed to our requested layout style. If anything was not right, then I made some changes so everything looked appropriate and consistent in the journal. I then uploaded each article on the journal website so the external reviewers could leave comments. After the authors made changes to their articles taking into consideration the comments made by the reviewers, I received the revised final draft of the articles from the managing editors. Finally, I organised all the final articles into one journal. Although finalised, it is still possible to make alterations in the articles if the authors wish to do so in the future (e.g., minor spelling, grammatical, formatting errors), however, the original articles will remain on the Relay Journal website.

My feelings
I did not know what to expect being a part of an academic journal editorial team since I have never experienced anything like that before. It was overwhelming to receive all the academic articles to start with but thankfully, I had a lot of support from the managing editors and was able to fulfill my role. Sharing the process of editing the journal on a Google Docs document was very useful as it reflected the progress and updates in a timely way. Even though my contribution to the editing was small, I felt I was included in the team and had generous support.

What I learned
I am very grateful for the opportunity to be part of the team and I learned so much about academic writing through this Relay Journal editing process. Even though the existing sample article for authors to refer to was helpful for me, I had to spend some time learning a few new things. For example, comparing articles to the past published Relay Journals and learning how to write references. I was also unfamiliar with a number of aspects of academic writing, such as APA style, when I joined the editorial team. All in all, there were various aspects of the project ranging from academic writing, project management, and web publishing I could learn in the process of being the layout editor.

Phillip’s Reflection

Responsibilities
As a managing editor, my responsibilities were shared with Giovanna’s, however, being the less experienced academic, I sought her advice when needed. My responsibilities were checking the submitted papers to ensure they would be a fit for the journal, distributing papers to the editors and authors, managing the versions of the papers in a database, and liaising between those involved in the process. Of the many responsibilities, meeting deadlines was the most challenging. Nevertheless, this was an issue which, thanks to a flow of constant communication and understanding, we were able to deal with.

My feelings
This being my first time managing a project like this, it was an exciting experience because I knew more or less what had to be done and that it was my responsibility. Due to my experience of being on the editorial team for the Relay Journal, I wanted to maintain the developmental and dialogical process in the managing editor role. I felt a great sense of freedom, support and a recognition of my previous experience and skills. My experience, if viewed through the lens of self-determination theory (SDT), allowed me a sense of autonomy and relatedness while acknowledging my competence––i.e., my basic psychological needs were met (Ryan & Deci, 2017), all of which kept me motivated and optimistic while realistic in my expectations and outcomes. Being in this state of mind, I feel I was able to learn much more in this process versus what I would have learned if my actions were highly dictated and under duress.

What I learned
As mentioned above, this was my first experience of being a managing editor of an academic journal of any kind. Due to being an active contributor to the Relay Journal since the first issue, as a part of the editing team as well as a contributing author, I had a general idea of the responsibilities held by the managing editor(s). However, I was rather surprised by just how many moving parts there were in the process and it was apparent from the beginning how easily and rapidly such an endeavor could spin out of control. Thanks to the teamwork and support from everyone involved in the process, including Giovanna, Ena, Fergal, and others, we were able to successfully complete the issue.
In reflection, one of the most integral aspects which lead to the completion of the project was maintaining detailed and constant modes of communication between all those involved; specifically, in our (Giovanna and I) role of managing editors. Due to working nearly 9,000 kilometers apart, we maintained a line of communication via email, shared documents, and audio/text messaging (see appendix A). Although, maintaining these three modes of communication may seem somewhat excessive, they all served specific purposes that were essential to the processes of sharing the managing editor role. In the following paragraphs, I will discuss the purpose and subsequent benefits of each mode of communication that we utilised.

Email was generally used as a means to be aware of others’ responsibilities involved in the process such as editors, authors, and reviewers which was achieved by CCing one another on important emails. The majority of the emails were to authors, editors, and reviewers of articles. In addition to being aware of each other’s emails, there was the additional benefit of mitigating the time dedicated to discussing our email-based correspondences during our meetings. That being said, corresponding through email has its limitations. One major example is that emails can be missed or responded to much later than anticipated for a number of reasons, such as simply missing a notification or getting lost in a barrage of other emails. Therefore, in the context in which we worked, email was not an ideal mode of communication due to the need for immediate responses and sharing of time-sensitive updates and information. This was mitigated by the following approach of communication outlined below.

The second mode of communication was using our phones on the voice-chat/texting app WhatsApp. We held bi-weekly meetings over a span of three months where we planned the project and provided support for any challenges we were facing. The meetings lasted between twenty minutes and an hour depending on what was being discussed. If there was nothing new happening (e.g., during the editing and review process of the papers), we would forgo our meeting and simply update each other by a brief email or text. Due to me (Phillip) working at the same institution as Ena, while we were able to meet face to face, we also utilised the shared Google Doc and Google Sheet files and email. The utilisation of this app, in my opinion, was paramount in the success of our project. The ability for Giovanna and I to chat and get to know each other via WhatsApp was a great experience and played a significant role in my motivation and professional growth. Through this experience, we were able to realise our shared interests and become closer colleagues, resulting in this paper and hopefully more in the future. Lastly, as alluded to earlier, texting was a better means of communication in contrast to email.

The shared documents (i.e., Google Docs and Sheets) were a way for us to be on the same page––figurative and literally––when it came to the more administrative tasks such as file management and meeting notes. We kept meeting notes on a shared Google Doc file which consisted of general meeting minutes and “to-dos”. Between meetings, we would list off completed tasks and record topics to address in the following meeting. Admittedly, maintaining and keeping the document up to date between meetings was not always done consistently; however, I found it to be helpful more than troublesome. A Google Sheets file was used solely for administrative purposes to keep track of the papers such as its author, reviewer, and its revision status.

Fergal’s Reflection

Responsibilities
My responsibility in volume 2, issue 2 of the Relay Journal was editing the Reflective Practice column, normally done by Kie Yamamoto. This involved reading the submissions and working with the editorial team in order to go through the papers submitted. After this, I began working with the authors directly before their papers appeared on the journal website. I also wrote a brief introduction to the column, presenting important themes and issues from each of the papers. During this process, I also began the search for external reviewers, sounding out colleagues and getting in touch with contacts who I knew would be interested in the topics covered and would be able to make informed and constructive comments. In general, the process was somewhat familiar as I had previously edited a volume of conference proceedings, but what really helped was having detailed guidelines from the regular editor, Kie, and effective support from the editorial team––answering my questions and coming up with solutions whenever needed.

My feelings
I enjoyed working on the project immensely. First, the papers for the column were rich, thought provoking and inspiring. They were also close to my own interests of autonomy, critical reflection, advising and novel forms of academic writing, so it was rewarding to be able to contribute to these papers’ publication. Second, editing the column gave me the feeling of being part of a wide, international network of like-minded professionals, including the authors, the editorial team, and the reviewers. My emails went to Japan, Turkey, Germany, Ireland and the Czech Republic, so I felt part of global discussion and was able to think about my own work differently.

What I learned
I learned a great deal from the papers I worked with, directly, and also indirectly, by following up references mentioned and thus finding new material to read for my own research and practice. One concrete example has been establishing a reading group with my colleagues in the Autonomous Language Learning Modules (ALMS) programme. We were inspired to (re)read Mynard and Kato (2016) after reading the stories of the advisors in Turkey (see Howard, S. L., et al., 2019). Reading their reflections on becoming advisors and advisor trainers, I found myself examining my own practice when counselling and tutoring. This is definitely a positive washback effect of doing editorial work. Finally, I met new people and learned about their research and practice, which was both a learning experience and a pleasure.

As it can be seen above, we were all able to develop professionally while playing a part in the professional development of others. In a continuation of this mutual professional growth, it is our hope that by reflecting on and sharing our experience in this way, this mutual professional development can be extended through the dialogic process of Relay Journal.

Notes on the contributors

Phillip A. Bennett is a Learning Advisor at Kanda University of International Studies as well as a long-term resident in Japan. He holds an MA TESOL from Kanda University of International Studies and has over a decade of experience working in Japanese public and private secondary school learning environments. His research interests are the emotional affective factors in teaching and learning, learner autonomy, and semiotics.

Dr. Giovanna Tassinari is Director of the Centre for Independent Language Learning at the Language Centre of the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. She works as a language advisor and as a teacher trainer. Her research interests are learner autonomy, language advising, and emotion and feelings in language learning. She is co-editor of several books and author of articles and book chapters in German, English and French.

Ena Hollinshead is an assistant manager at Kanda University of International Studies’ Self-Access Learning Center. She graduated from the Chinese department at Kanda University. Previously she worked at an international kindergarten in Japan. Ena also lived in New Zealand for a few years. She currently is a postgraduate student studying TESOL at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand.

Fergal Bradley is a University Instructor in English at the University of Helsinki Language Centre, Finland. His teaching and research interests include language advising/counselling, learner/teacher autonomy, academic writing, identity in second language learning and teaching, and practitioner research as a means of learning and professional development.

References

Howard, S. L., Güven-Yalçın, G., Karaaslan, H., Atcan Altan, N. & Esen, M. (2019). Transformative self-discovery: Reflections on the transformative journey of becoming an advisor. Relay Journal, 2(2), 323-332.

Kato, S. & Mynard, J. (2016). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

[Appendices]