In 2023, I bit the bullet by signing a book contract with Springer to work on a difficult compilation of scientific misconduct and problematic science publishing practice. It was planned as an edited book that required expert contributors of the field to write chapters on the various topics.
All this started in the year 2023 when few scientists started lamenting on the issues of problematic publishing system of science on Twitter (now X). Little did I know when discussions turned into a rebel and few of us ranted to write on scientific misconduct and prevalent issues of bad science. I was thrilled to the core since almost every researcher on social media seemed to accept writing on the same topic. I did not rethink and just went with the flow and took up herculean task of editing the book.
As I was the corresponding editor, the
huge task came my way despite the other two editors pitching in to help me
whenever things went awry or deviated from the plan. I realized the task will
not be easy. Our plan was to screen
experts from the field and maintain stringent quality control of the book’s
content. Largely, it depended on the nature of our book – it was to collate
information on sensitive topic – i.e. scientific misconduct. Naturally, if our
book is narrating about misconduct, we had to be scanning each chapter with
“razor-sharp” eyes! This experience came with a lot of learnings for me – some
good and some were simply astonishingly unpleasant.
We are witnessing a modern time where researchers are voraciously publishing papers and books, especially edited books. While many researchers take up the project of editing books with a mere thought that other researchers will pen chapters for the editor. Overall, the pursuit of edited books is grossly misplaced, if one is venturing in the project for mere collection of chapters followed by lousy editing and practically zero peer review. Since the beginning of this project, I was clear with my agenda of obtaining chapter contributors from two categories of researchers viz;
a. Those who often raise voice about problematic publishing in science and;
b. Integrity officers/science sleuths who routinely research in this area.
Why was writing about scientific publishing ecosystem difficult? Well, who would want to write about something that is controversial or rather unpleasant? Researchers rant on the social media about the glaring problems of peer review, editorial biases, and authorship issues, but seldom would dive into cognitive writing in print.
As an editor, I faced the following situations:
· Personal invitation for book chapter largely received negative responses or much worse, there were be no responses – I assume this issue could be due to sensitive nature of the book theme or my invitation emails landed in their spam! (Ahem! I have a weird presumption that often responsible researchers/scientists) even check their spam folders!)
· Those who agree to write a chapter contribution for your book, will often ditch you at the last moment or when the deadline approaches. Most common reasons cited are:
o too busy with work,
o we tried but could not make it or
o completely an ignorant message that – now we are not interested to contribute.
These responses surprisingly came from senior scientists and those who spend considerable time on social media lamenting on this very issue! Sigh!
· Then we have researchers who agree to contribute but will keep seeking extension of the deadline. This is where editors need to reorganize everything in their plan.
· Finally, we have few committed researchers who truly align with the chapter contribution and some will also reach out to gain feedback on their writing. Let me tell you, these people need to be saved in our scientific community.
So how did I navigate while working on this book project? Considering the book planned was sensitive and needed to be written to raise awareness amongst both early career researchers and established scientists, we had to stay persistent and consistent in efforts. In 2019, I remember authoring a book with Oxford University Press that took three years to complete, and how each day with every breath I took, I was continuously thinking about writing, reviewing, and revising my chapters.
In the present project, I was literally thinking about keeping a backup plan at hand, due to various reasons, viz;
o what if the contributor does not deliver the chapter in time?
o what if the contributors ghost me?
o what if the received chapters are written poorly?
o what if, they did not acquire permission requests for the images or sent across plagiarized content?
o what if they have used ChatGPT and other AI tools to create content?
Well, I was one nervous editor, you can say, but this helped me stay proactive and be a part of a creative process. This process involved navigating numerous challenges, each of which requires=d a nuanced approach and an organized planning. Basically – nothing must go wrong! But things can go wrong!
I began committing even more to the project, so much so that, I decided to pen a few chapters myself. Besides, editing and reviewing, authoring was a big challenge. Keeping in mind, that I was already swamped with seven industrial projects and family commitments. So, yes, the challenge was big. Often, the book work came to a standstill on my desk, but I do remember answering to every call and email related to this book. I took a one-month bereavement leave and was back on desk in mid-March 2024. All my industry experiments were somewhat working well due to my supportive team. I finally picked myself and began the grind to complete the book work. I realized there is not much blogged about working as an editor of a book, so maybe this article will provide some suggestions to be well-prepared for this challenging task.
Let me share my thoughts on working on this book that explored about the scientific misconduct and emerging issues of modern publishing – a controversial theme!
One of the foremost challenges in editing scholarly books is the sheer depth and breadth of the subject matter.
Before embarking on this book editing project, I had to immerse myself in the darker side of scientific publishing—issues that threaten the integrity of academic research. Paper mills, which mass-produce fraudulent research for profit, have flooded journals with questionable studies. Citation manipulation distorts scholarly impact, with some authors and even editors engaging in unethical citation practices to inflate metrics. Editorial misconduct, from biased decision-making to conflicts of interest, further erodes trust in the publishing process.
Peer review, meant to uphold quality, is not immune to corruption. Peer review rings—where groups of researchers conspire to approve each other’s work—compromise the objectivity of the system. Authorship disputes are another persistent problem, with undeserving names added for prestige while true contributors are sometimes excluded.
Understanding these challenges was crucial before stepping into my role as a book editor. I realized that maintaining scholarly integrity is not just about refining prose—it is about upholding ethical standards, questioning sources, and ensuring that academic publishing remains a space for genuine knowledge advancement, not exploitation.
Let me share my personal learnings through the book project.
Maintaining Academic Rigor and Integrity
As an editor, I took on the responsibility of ensuring scholarly rigor by verifying research methods, sources, and potential plagiarism. In the digital age, I had to be extra vigilant, spotting subtle instances of academic dishonesty—both intentional and inadvertent. Balancing the author’s voice with clarity was a challenge I navigated carefully, making research accessible without diluting its depth. Every manuscript required a keen editorial eye and an understanding of its readership.
Interplay of Language and Terminology
Working across disciplines, I saw how specialized terminology could either strengthen or weaken a scholarly work. I had to cross-reference authoritative sources, consult experts, and ensure that complex ideas remained precise yet readable. For non-native English-speaking authors, I made subtle refinements to preserve their meaning while improving clarity. Sensitivity to linguistic nuances became second nature, allowing me to refine without interfering.
Structure and Flow of Scholarly Writing
A well-structured manuscript enhances comprehension, and I spent hours refining organization, eliminating redundancies, and ensuring logical progression. My role went beyond simple edits—I pinpointed weak arguments, unclear transitions, and structural gaps. By stepping into the reader’s shoes, I helped shape a manuscript that flowed cohesively and aligned with its overarching thesis.
Balancing Authorial Voice and Editorial Input
I learned that editing was not about imposing my perspective but about enhancing an author’s work while preserving their unique voice. Effective communication was key—I engaged in discussions, explained my suggestions, and remained receptive to feedback. Navigating revisions required trust and diplomacy, ensuring the final work reflected the author’s intent while meeting the highest editorial standards.
Managing Citations and References
Accurate citations were the backbone of academic credibility, and I meticulously verified countless references, ensuring consistency and adherence to style guides. Even minor errors could undermine a work’s authority, so I took a systematic approach to cross-checking sources and publication details. In manuscripts with extensive bibliographies, this became a painstaking but essential process.
Evolution of Scholarly Publishing in the Digital Age
The shift to digital publishing introduced both opportunities and complexities. I had to familiarize myself with evolving industry standards, digital formatting, and accessibility concerns. Understanding e-publishing tools was crucial in ensuring compatibility across platforms. At the same time, protecting intellectual property in the digital realm remained a growing challenge that I had to navigate.
Human Elements of Collaboration and Communication
Beyond technical expertise, scholarly editing was about building relationships. I worked closely with authors, offering constructive feedback while respecting their vision. Listening, addressing concerns with empathy, and fostering trust were just as important as refining a manuscript. A positive editorial relationship not only strengthened the final publication but also enhanced the entire scholarly process.
Final Thoughts
Scholarly publishing is changing rapidly, and so is the editor’s role. No longer just language refiners, we now navigate interdisciplinary research, open-access publishing, and digital innovations. Adaptability is key, as new challenges—like data curation and multimedia integration—reshape our responsibilities. Staying ahead of trends is demanding, but it’s essential to keeping knowledge accessible and relevant.
Editing scholarly books is both tough and rewarding. Long hours, complex manuscripts, and evolving expectations test our skills, yet the impact makes it worthwhile. Thoughtful editing doesn’t just refine research—it amplifies it, making scholarship more meaningful and accessible.
Yet, this journey isn’t without frustrations.
I’ve lost respect for scientists who eagerly committed to contributing chapters to my book, only to later withdraw with flimsy excuses. Their lack of accountability makes me question their dedication to the very scholarship they claim to uphold. Advancing knowledge requires commitment, not just when it is convenient.
Despite these setbacks, scholarly editing remains a craft—one that demands dedication, intellectual curiosity, and a deep respect for research. The challenges are real, but so is the satisfaction of shaping the future of academic publishing. As the field evolves, editors will continue to play a vital role in ensuring that knowledge reaches those who seek it.
And now, the book is out there, ready for researchers to dive into and review! I’d love to hear what caught your attention, so feel free to share your thoughts and experiences with publishing papers in journals. Let us keep the conversation going!
Reference:
Joshi PB, Churi P, Pandey M. Scientific Publishing Ecosystem: An author-editor reviewer axis. 1st ed. S.l.: Springer Nature; 2024. Available from: https://link.springer.com/book/9789819740598?utm_medium=catalog&utm_source=sn-bks&utm_campaign=search_tool&utm_content=online_result_list#bibliographic-information
Comments