Editorial—New Editorial Structure for Marketing Science
Marketing Science recently announced a new editorial structure for the journal. In this editorial, we describe the roles of editor-in-chief (EIC) and senior editors (SEs) and the review process under this new structure. The new structure was developed based on recommendations of a task force appointed by INFORMS. The task force, with Peter Fader as the chair and Bart Bronnenberg, Ganesh Iyer, Scott Neslin, Oded Netzer, and Kannan Srinivasan as other members, made its recommendation after conducting a comprehensive review of the journal that also included a survey of Marketing Science authors and other stakeholders. The most important aspect of the new structure is that it introduces a new position, senior editor, in the office of the editor. In brief, the EIC will work with and oversee a small number of SEs who will serve as the editor for the papers assigned to them. The inaugural set of senior editors is, in alphabetical order, Fred Feinberg, Ganesh Iyer, K. Sudhir, and Russ Winer.
EIC and SEs
Like all INFORMS journals, Marketing Science will have a single editor-in-chief, who will be the overall leader of the journal. The EIC will also be responsible for setting the general direction for the journal, appoint qualified SEs, and work with SEs to develop reviewing benchmarks and a coordinated process to ensure the journal’s high quality standards and a healthy pipeline. The EIC will also be responsible for editorial work beyond review-related work, such as working with INFORMS and representing the journal in various forums.
When a new paper is submitted to the journal, the EIC will assign it to one of the senior editors. Once a paper is assigned to an SE, he or she will run the entire review process the way the EIC has traditionally done so. In other words, the SE will choose an associate editor for the paper and then choose reviewers for the paper in consultation with the associate editors (AEs). Each SE is expected to handle a subset of the papers submitted to the journal. The EIC will also serve as a senior editor on a subset of papers. SEs are expected to be senior, well-established scholars who not only have expertise in specific substantive and/or methodological areas but also have a broad perspective about marketing issues in general and an openness to all different methodological paradigms. Marketing Science will continue to welcome papers from all different paradigms.
The journal will continue to have AEs, who will continue to play the same role as before.
Review Process
When a paper is submitted, authors will recommend two SEs for their paper. Since the EIC will serve as the SE for a subset of papers, authors may include the EIC as one of two recommended names. All papers will be submitted to the journal and not to any specific SE. The EIC will choose an SE to handle the paper based on the authors’ recommendations, but it is not guaranteed that authors will always get one of the two SEs they have requested. The EIC may also desk reject the paper before assigning it to any SE. In most cases, SE assignment decisions will be made within a day.
Once a paper is assigned to an SE, he or she will choose an AE and select reviewers for the paper. As before, the AE is welcome to suggest reviewers. The final choice of reviewers will be made by the SE. SEs will have access to information about the current and recent workload of potential AEs and reviewers that can be used in making these choices. SEs may also choose to desk reject a paper without going through a full review process. Associate editors and reviewers will continue to have exactly the same roles and responsibilities as they do now.
After reviewers and the AE send their reports on a paper, the SE will make the reject/revise/accept decision about the paper and write the decision letter. Thus, each paper will continue to have the same number of evaluators. Specifically, most papers will be evaluated by two reviewers, an AE and an SE. For all revisions, we will continue to provide a list of high-priority revision recommendations that will serve as the contract for the next round.
After a paper is accepted, the remaining steps toward publication will be handled by the EIC and the managing editor. The EIC will also handle all appeals.
Potential Benefits
As the task force has noted, a major reason for the change is to ensure that Marketing Science continues to attract highly qualified scholars in editorial positions. The Marketing Science community rightly expects editors to be fully engaged in the review process—reading papers, evaluating the review team’s comments, modifying them as needed, and in general “owning” their decisions. These expectations, combined with the current level of submissions and the technical nature of our submissions, translate into an editorial workload that discourages some of our most qualified scholars from assuming editorial work. And that trend is likely to get stronger in the future. The new structure will reduce the EIC’s workload and also create additional opportunities for top scholars to take up SE work. Another advantage is that the SE role can provide valuable experience as a stepping stone to the EIC role.
Some of our authors have also argued that the change will also increase the likelihood that a paper is handled by an SE with more direct expertise. Although we expect reviewers and AEs—and not editors—to provide technical expertise, many of our authors do think about editors being stretched beyond their technical expertise in cases where the decision is affected by technical considerations. The new structure will make it more likely that the editor in charge of a paper will be closer to that paper’s substantive and/or methodological domain.
Coordination
As one might expect, the survey results and our conversations with colleagues show that a notable concern about the new structure is real or perceived heterogeneity in the review process across SEs. For example, different SEs may have different standards for acceptance or rejection. Although such heterogeneity cannot be completely eliminated, it can be kept within acceptable limits by careful selection of SEs, SEs agreeing to a shared vision at the outset, the monitoring of various metrics (e.g., number of papers passing onto the next round, acceptance rates), and, in general, close coordination among the SEs. We all are committed to implementing these measures, frequently sharing our data, and we plan to institute monthly conference calls to consult with one another and closely coordinate our actions. Needless to say, any information that we share across SEs will be at the aggregate level and appropriately blinded.
We thank the task force for its excellent work in reviewing the journal, conducting their survey, and evaluating the new structure. We also thank the Marketing Science community at large for participating in the survey and providing extensive comments about the new structure and a number of other questions. In the same spirit, we invite you to provide your feedback on the new structure as we proceed with its implementation. We realize that we will discover unforeseen questions and issues as we implement the new structure. We plan to learn from your feedback as the new system unfolds, and we will make the necessary adjustments to our processes to best serve the interests of our authors and readers and to maintain Marketing Science’s preeminent position in our field.
