The Seven Stones

Openings for two Editors at EMBO

thumb070822.jpg

EMBO publishes The EMBO Journal, EMBO Reports and is co-owner with Nature Publishing Group of Molecular Systems Biology. In view of the great success of these three journals (and the associated increasing workload…), the editorial team at EMBO will be expanded.

Two positions as full time scientific editor are open. From the ad (read full job description):

Candidates should have a strong scientific background, a PhD and preferably some post-doctoral experience. They should have a broad interest in diverse areas of the life sciences, with a thorough knowledge of molecular biology. For Molecular Systems Biology, experience or strong interest in systems biology and related area, are required.

Closing date: 23.09.2007

An editorial office can sometimes appear like a mysterious black box and you may ask: why should I apply there? What is so great about being an editor? Everyone has a different opinion, but for me it is definitely to be continuously exposed to the latest advances in research across the entire breadth of the discipline and to be involved in scientific discussions at a very high level with our authors, editorial board members and reviewers. Take Molecular Systems Biology: a new journal in an emerging discipline. Of course, I might be a little biased 😉 but it is hard for me to imagine a more exciting and privileged position. For an insider’s view of the Molecular Systems Biology editorial office, I recommend reading the post from Pedro who spent a few months with us as a trainee.

What do we do? Most of our time is devoted to reading (entirely!) submitted manuscripts and the associated literature, seeking reviewers (time-consuming!) and making decisions (delicate!). These core activities place the editor at the heart of the scientific process and therefore, the job comes with its respective level of responsibility. We are of course guided and supported by our Advisory Editorial Board, Senior Editors and reviewers, but making a final decision is a crucial aspect of this job.

What about creativity? It is true that the critical reading of manuscripts needs more analytical thinking, a sense for synthesis, and, to enjoy it, unlimited curiosity, than scientific creativity. But a journal needs also to be developed, content has to be commissioned and new links and partnerships with the relevant scientific communities have to be developed. Moreover, the world of scientific publishing is currently in mutation, almost in ebullition, and faces challenges that will require the most dynamic and innovative minds. New types of quantitative, structured, and/or large scale data play an increasingly important role in molecular biology, calling for definitions of new standards and novel ways of communicating, archiving and retrieving scientific knowledge. On the publishing side, the roles of authors, reviewers and publishers are progressively redefined by increasingly large collaborative structures (see discussions here and here), different publication models (‘publish-then-filter’) and web 2.0 technologies (eg Open science or Amazon: a new kind of publisher).

For sure, as in every job, there are downsides and exchanges between editors and authors are sometimes robust. Researchers may storm at editorial rejections and lousy referee reports and editors will be pestered by appeals (Unappealing situation) and … lousy referee reports (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly). However, beyond these inevitable frictions, which require their good dose of diplomacy, it is important to remember, as Pernille Rorth writes,

that scientists, in turn, act as authors, reviewers and editors, and thus ‘wear different hats’ in the process. (Authors, reviewers and editors at The EMBO Journal, Rorth, 2005).

In conclusion, for those who like constant intellectual challenge, professional responsibilities and love the unpredictable diversity of science, I encourage you to apply to the positions above!

Comments

Comments are closed.