What Decisions Must an Editor Make That Authors Never See?

The Invisible Side of Editorial Work

Authors experience the editorial process through a narrow aperture: submission, peer review, decision, revision. What they see—reviewer comments, decision letters, timelines—represents only a small fraction of the work required to move a manuscript through a journal system.

Editors, by contrast, operate in a space where decisions are continuous, layered, and often made under constraint. Some decisions concern the merits of a single manuscript. Others concern the functioning of the journal as a whole. Many of these judgments are never communicated to authors—not because they are secretive or arbitrary, but because they relate to how the editorial system itself must operate.

Understanding these invisible decisions is important not only for editors themselves but also for authors who want to interpret editorial outcomes accurately rather than personally.

From the editor’s perspective, manuscripts do not move through a simple sequence of steps; they move through a system in which editorial judgment, reviewer labor, and journal capacity interact continuously.

In practice, editorial work consists of a series of judgments that occur throughout the life of a manuscript. Some occur before peer review begins, others during the review process, and still others after reviewer reports have been received. The following examples illustrate several kinds of editorial decisions that authors rarely see but that shape the functioning of a journal system.

---

Whether a Manuscript Enters Peer Review

One of the most consequential editorial decisions occurs before peer review begins: whether a manuscript should enter review at all.

Authors experience this moment as a desk rejection. From the editorial side, however, the decision reflects a broader calculus. Editors consider whether the manuscript fits the journal’s mission, whether it meets minimum standards of scholarship or reporting, whether ethical concerns are present, and whether the work substantially overlaps with material already accepted.

Equally important are the practical realities of editorial capacity. Sending a manuscript to peer review is not a neutral act. It commits reviewer labor and editorial time. In constrained systems, not every plausible manuscript can be reviewed, even if it is competently written.

Seen from this perspective, the decision is less about gatekeeping than about stewardship—protecting the integrity and viability of the review process itself.

---

Choosing Reviewers—and Knowing When to Stop

Once a manuscript enters review, editors face another set of decisions that authors rarely see. We must determine how many reviewers are needed, what kinds of expertise are required, and whether balance across methodological, disciplinary, or clinical perspectives is more valuable than depth in a single area.

Authors see only the reviews that are completed. What remains invisible is the recruitment process behind them: invitations that are declined, the time spent identifying appropriate reviewers, and the tradeoffs between waiting for an ideal reviewer and proceeding with the expertise that is available.

Editors must also decide when enough review has been obtained. In many cases, one strong review combined with editorial judgment provides more useful guidance than indefinite delay while searching for additional reviewers.

---

Interpreting Reviewer Comments

Peer review rarely produces a single, coherent verdict. Instead, it produces a set of inputs—sometimes thoughtful and aligned, sometimes uneven or contradictory.

Editors must interpret these comments rather than simply transmit them. We consider which critiques are central to the manuscript’s contribution and which are peripheral. Disagreements between reviewers must be weighed carefully: sometimes they reflect substantive uncertainty, and sometimes they arise from disciplinary differences or reviewer preferences.

Editors may also choose not to transmit certain reviewer comments verbatim, particularly when those comments extend beyond the scope of the manuscript or would distract from more meaningful revisions. The goal is not to censor reviewers but to focus authors’ attention on changes that genuinely strengthen the work. Of course, this needs to be balanced with COPE guidance that advises that review comments be sent to authors as written.¹ As an editor, you need to find the balance between helpful and hurtful reviewer comments. This interpretive work—sometimes described as editorial synthesis—is one of the core intellectual tasks of editing.

---

Judging What Level of Revision Is Reasonable

Editors must also decide how much revision is appropriate.

Reviewers often recommend extensive changes, but editors must consider whether those changes are proportionate to the manuscript’s contribution and whether they are feasible once the research has already been completed. Methodological redesign, additional data collection, or entirely new analyses may be desirable in theory but unrealistic in practice.

Editors therefore make pragmatic decisions about revision burden. Sometimes a manuscript is revised without additional external review. Sometimes further rounds of revision would produce diminishing returns and are avoided. These decisions are not shortcuts. They are capacity-aware judgments intended to balance rigor with sustainability.

---

Managing Journal Capacity

Editors are responsible not only for individual manuscripts but also for the flow of content across the journal as a whole. We must consider acceptance rates, backlog management, issue planning, and publication timelines. We must also maintain balance across topics, methods, and areas of scholarship so that the journal reflects the breadth of the field it serves.

A manuscript may be rejected not because it is weak but because the journal cannot absorb additional work in that area without displacing other priorities. Authors rarely see this systemic context, yet it shapes editorial outcomes in important ways.

---

Addressing Ethical Concerns

Editors frequently encounter ethical issues that never appear in decision letters. These may include suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or questions about authorship practices.

Concerns may arise through reviewer comments, editorial checks, or external inquiries. Editors must decide whether the issue warrants investigation, how much evidence is needed before taking action, and whether publishers or institutions should be involved. These decisions require discretion and proportionality. Overreaction can be as damaging as inaction.

---

When Editorial Judgment Overrides Process

Perhaps the least visible editorial decision occurs when judgment supersedes process.

Editors sometimes accept papers despite mixed reviews because the contribution is timely or necessary. We may reject technically sound manuscripts that do not meaningfully advance the field. We may end reviews early when additional opinions are unlikely to clarify the decision. In other cases, we may proceed without re-review when we are satisfied that revisions have addressed the central concerns.

These decisions are not failures of peer review. They reflect the reason editors exist: to interpret input, exercise judgment, and guide the intellectual direction of the journal. Peer review informs decisions. It does not make them.

---

The Carry Back

Much of editorial work remains invisible to authors because it concerns the functioning of the journal rather than the evaluation of a single manuscript. Editors must balance reviewer labor, ethical responsibility, scholarly quality, and system capacity simultaneously.

Seen from this perspective, the editor is not simply a conduit for peer review but a systems actor—responsible for stewarding the integrity, sustainability, and intellectual direction of the journal.

The decisions authors never see are not peripheral to editorial work. They are the work of editing.

---

Reference

1. COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Editing peer reviews — English.
   https://doi.org/10.24318/AoZQIusn