Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40(06): 663-665
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2013.40.6.663
Editorial

Appropriate Roles for the Subscriber, Publisher, Editor, Author, and Reviewer in the Archives of Plastic Surgery

Kun Hwang
Department of Plastic Surgery, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Authors, editors and reviewers, publishers, and subscribers all play their role in scientific journals. These 5 stakeholders are essential to journals. In this paper, firstly, I briefly summarize the role of each journal stakeholder and their respective goals. Secondly, the status of each participant in the Archives of Plastic Surgery is described. Finally, I propose an appropriate role and plan for each of them. Specific roles and responsibilities include the following: subscribers should welcome and submit the critiques of published papers in letters to the editor. Publishers should trust editors and provide them with adequate financial support for ongoing quality improvement of the journal. The editor-in-chief should be given a sufficient period of time-several years-to build up journal quality and train the incoming editor. The editors, including section editors, are also responsible for increasing the author pool. One editor might be designated a 'devil's referee', that is, a kind of devil's advocate with the responsibility of examining the originality of the manuscript, taking a skeptical view of the manuscript, and looking for holes in the methods and results of reported experiments. Authors' responsibilities include submitting manuscripts with scientific integrity and being ready to take responsibility for their articles even long after publication. Finally, reviewers' responsibilities include identifying similar articles not cited. Reviewers are also welcome to write a discussion on the article they review.

Keywords

Journal article - Publishing - Role - Editorial policies


Publication History

Received: 11 June 2013

Accepted: 24 June 2013

Article published online:
01 May 2022

© 2013. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Kachewar SG, Sankaye SB. Reviewer index: a new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monogr 2013; 11: 274-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC. Getting the most from review articles: a guide for readers and writers. Am Fam Physician 1997; 55: 2155-2160
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Heller S. The changing role of a publisher and the publisher of the future. Drug News Perspect 2007; 20: 413-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Steinhauser G, Adlassnig W, Risch JA. et al. Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science. Theor Med Bioeth 2012; 33: 359-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hwang K. The need for a reviewer to play Devil's advocate. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40: 171-172
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Peh WC, Ng KH. Role of the manuscript reviewer. Singapore Med J 2009; 50: 931-933
    PubMedGoogle Scholar