A year has passed since I assumed the role of Editor-in-Chief of Orbit. It has been a pleasure to work with the authors, reviewers, and staff. The journal continues to do well with regards to turnover times and impact; however, the work is far from over. There is still much to address to help make this journal the preferred journal for oculoplastic surgeons.
The tasks as Editor-in-Chief are far from burdensome, but sometime lay heavy on my heart. I remember only too well as a young investigator (and even as an older investigator) receiving a rejection letter for a manuscript sent for consideration. The risk of repelling a young investigator from research is a real one when work has been rejected. Much of the evaluation of a manuscript has to do with whether the reviewers believe the manuscript will add something new, original, and impactful to the literature. A rejected manuscript does not mean that it is a bad manuscript, rather it usually means that the manuscript does not fit into the current version of the journal. Please do not be discouraged by a rejection.
Where does the journal go from here? I think the value of the journal comes from the authors who submit the manuscripts and the reviewers who review them. Quality reviews are as important as quality manuscripts, and a diverse, world-wide reviewer pool is needed. Unfortunately, the reviewer pool is not expanding to as great of a number as would best suit the needs of the journal. This leads to a small number of reviewers doing the lion’s share of the reviews, which can then lead to “reviewer fatigue.” I urge all readers to consider volunteering to review for the journal. I especially encourage all authors of papers accepted to the journal to “give back” and review for the journal.
A large, diverse reviewer pool will also decrease the likelihood of bias for reviews. Previously, the journal practiced single-blind reviews – i.e. the author does not know who the reviewer is, but the reviewer does know who the author is. This is likely not a fair system for the author. A double-blind review process, where neither the author nor the reviewer knows who the other is, would decrease bias. I see no disadvantage to double-blind reviews, which is why the journal has recently changed to this system.
The editorial staff of Orbit will do everything in their power to remain a relevant journal, and not become an “obscure” one. Our greatest strength, though, is our authors. As I expressed in my introductory editorial one year ago, it is my goal to establish an international community of oculoplastic surgeons, with Orbit as their journal. The best way we can do this is by offering the authors a fair chance at publication. This will increase trust between the authors and the journal, which in turn will increase the submission of high-quality manuscripts.
My role as Editor-in-Chief is to be at the service of the authors who submit manuscripts to the journal. I remain at your service. Please contact me at any time if you have any concerns or questions about the journal or your submission.
Sincerely,