Build an editorial board around work it can actually sustain

1. Give each title a job description

Separate an advisory role from a handling role. An adviser may discuss scope and policy without routinely receiving manuscripts. A handling editor needs authority, system access, a review route and time for decisions. A methods consultant may answer defined questions while the handling editor remains responsible for integrating the advice. Describe these differences in the appointment note.

Specify expected availability, how invitations are accepted or declined, what happens during leave and how a term ends. Ask the candidate to confirm the role in their own words. An enthusiastic introduction from a colleague is not consent to serve, and an old conference biography is not confirmation of a current affiliation.

2. Recruit against a coverage map

The transparency principles expect board expertise relevant to scope, current public names and affiliations, and members’ agreement to serve. Maintain a dated confirmation record behind the public list.

Build the recruitment map from the manuscripts the journal intends to consider: substantive topics, methods, languages and relevant practice settings. Look for gaps that a famous appointment would not necessarily fill. A clinician’s content expertise does not automatically cover a complex analysis, and bilingual identity does not establish professional editing capacity. Ask what the person is willing and qualified to assess.

Include succession and conflict coverage in the map. If all suitable editors work in the same department, the journal may lack an independent route for a colleague’s paper. Broaden the available network and record a fallback before that submission arrives. Recruitment should produce a usable decision route, not merely a geographically varied web page.

Reference: COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME: transparency principles, version 4

3. Count available capacity honestly

In this fictional month, four handling editors have each explicitly offered capacity for two new assignments. Their nominal capacity is therefore eight assignments. One editor becomes unavailable before assignment, leaving six currently offered slots. These figures do not include external reviewers, manuscripts already under revision or the time needed to finish a difficult case.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

4. Rehearse a difficult handoff

Use a synthetic manuscript with one clear reporting problem, one uncertain methods issue and a declared relationship involving the proposed editor. Ask the team to route it, document recusal if needed and identify who can make the eventual decision. No real confidential manuscript is needed for this onboarding exercise.

ICMJE places responsibility on journals to select appropriate reviewers and on editors to assess their advice. A reviewer’s recommendation is therefore input to the decision, not a substitute for editorial judgment. In the rehearsal, require the handling editor to distinguish a correctable reporting gap from a problem the available evidence cannot resolve.

Reference: ICMJE: responsibilities in submission and peer review

5. Review quality without turning it into a crude score

Review a small, authorised sample of completed editorial work. Look for reasons linked to the manuscript, respectful communication, consistent handling of conflicts and clear next actions. A fast decision containing no usable explanation is not necessarily good work. Neither is a long report that asks authors to perform analyses unrelated to the research question.

Use feedback for mentoring and process repair. Discuss whether templates, training, a methods adviser or better office support would solve a recurring problem. Keep individual performance conversations private. Public acknowledgement should reflect what the person agreed to disclose and should not expose confidential manuscript details.

6. Make departures and renewal routine

At the end of a term, reconcile active assignments, revoke access no longer needed and update the public roster after confirming the departure date. Transfer the case history to an authorised successor, including unresolved questions and promised author communications. Simply changing the name on the web page does not complete the handoff.

For renewal, compare agreed duties with actual participation and ask whether the commitment still fits the member’s circumstances. Record an advisory role honestly if that is now the appropriate contribution. A smaller board with explicit responsibilities may be easier to operate than an impressive list whose commitments are unknown; the choice should follow the journal’s real workload.

Questions for a practical final check

• Each board title has defined duties.
• Consent and affiliation confirmations are dated.
• Methods, language and conflict coverage have named routes.
• Capacity distinguishes new assignments from revisions.
• A synthetic handoff has been rehearsed.
• Renewal and departure include case transfer and access review.