Advice on Changes for Editorial Governance, Publication Frequency, and Selection of Editorial Board of Revista Biomedica

Our journal, Revista Biomedica, is a university-sponsored publication. It has been operating without an editor-in-chief since last fall when the person holding this position retired. The associate editor (me) has taken charge since then. Now the university authorities want to implement some changes. First of all, they decided that the new editor shall not be an individual but a committee. Mind you, this is not a replacement for the editorial board. The place of the editor will, in fact, be taken over by a group of six individuals. The editorial committee will still exist, but with a new set of members. By the way, the plan excludes me as an element of the editorial "group", but considers me a member of the board.

My first question is: Are you aware of other biomedical journals that instead of having an editor-in-chief are run by a group (without a distinct head)? And do you think this is a good idea?

Another change for our journal is to adjust its periodicity from four to three numbers per year. With regard to this issue, I would like to hear about your experience when the frequency of publication has been modified in other journals. I have been told that the intention here is "to improve the quality" of the published manuscripts by allowing more time for their selection. What real benefits or disadvantages of such a shift have occurred in other journals?

Thirdly, what criteria should be used to select the members of the Editorial Committee? Should they be chosen among the previous referees with the best performance? Should they be renowned researchers? Necessarily from abroad? Is it a good idea to include past authors of outstanding articles? What would be the maximum percentage of these members from our own institution?

Thank you in advance.

Fernando J. Alvarez
Associate Editor, Revista Biomedica
_____________________________
This sounds to me like a very odd situation!

We have an expression "too many cooks spoil the broth" and I would be concerned that a committee would never decide anything, but rather would often conflict with each other. Also, the editor is supposed to provide the vision for the journal—it's hard to imagine a committee having such power.

I do know of models with an editor-in-chief and several associate editors; the latter of course oversee the review process in their particular areas of expertise. Perhaps they should try this model?

It also seems odd to me to REDUCE the frequency; I think this sends a bad message about the journal. There are other ways to improve quality.

I don't have time to answer the rest of your questions in detail, although I would say having the broadest representation possible (of your editorial board) possible and certainly excellent authors (and/or reviewers) would be good candidates.

Lisa Dittrich
Managing Editor, Academic Medicine
_____________________________

What has broken such that the powers that be at the university want to change the way the journal is being run?

Adamson S. Muula
_____________________________
It is a long story, and I don't want to bother you with the details. Let's just say that the authorities want to improve the journal, but by changing everything in it, and all at the same time. The retirement of the editor seemed to them like an appropriate moment for radical renewal. The overhaul will not only imply changes in the editorial group and in the frequency of publication but also in the cover design, the type of paper used, the number of columns on each page. You name it. While I still have a say in this, I want to have arguments to back useful changes and to stop those that will do more harm than good. I am convinced that Revista Biomedica needs improvement, but the ways to achieve this need to be discussed beforehand.

Thanks for your interest. Further comments are welcome.

Fernando
______________________________
You should be thankful you are not involved. The decision makers are breaking all the basic principles and clearly have no idea what they are doing.

I am sure you will find a proper journal that can use your editorial talents!

Tim
______________________________
Thanks for your comment.

I was never determined to become editor-in-chief. Less so with the upcoming, imposed, absurd changes. However, I have always been convinced that our journal serves its purpose and can always be improved on.

You are right: I can find a better place to collaborate.

Fernando