2021-04-21 OMA Agenda - Board of Trustees

When a manuscript is submitted, the Editor in Chief or Associate Editor in Chief invites Associate Editors to manage the submission (i.e., triage the manuscript, assign reviewers, review reviewer recommendations, and make decisions about acceptance). In almost all cases, reviewers recommend some revisions. This often requires re-review by the same reviewers. When totaling the initial submission and subsequent revisions, each submission may require 2 – 3 manuscript encounters with the Associate Editor and applicable reviewers. Experience supports it best to limit Associate Editor work to no more than one instance of manuscript management every 1 - 2 months. If within the first year after journal launch, 25 articles are published, then assuming a 30% acceptance rate, then this represents about 75 total submissions. Assuming no submission undergoes a third revision, assuming all Associate Editors will agree to the invitation, and assuming almost all of the 25 submission undergo a second revision (a good assumption), then at minimum, this represents 100 Associate Editor manuscript work within the year. If a journal has only 5 Associate Editors, and assuming that each Associate Editor will always accept invitations to manage submissions (an unlikely assumption) then this means at minimum, each Associate Editor may be required to manage 20 manuscript encounters (100 / 5) per year. This will be more than 1 per month. If the journal is successful, then by the second year, the amount of work demanded of unpaid Associate Editors will further increase, resulting in more “decline to accept” from Associate Editors, thus delaying manuscript turnaround time. This work is increased further if members of the Editorial Board do not complete their reviews in a timely manner. In the specific situation of OMA, if the Adult and Pediatric Obesity Algorithms are to be transformed into journal articles, then because the content is good-to-go (with the expectation of updates) this situation is highly unique in that JOMA is guaranteed to have a steady stream of initial high quality submissions, solely dependent on the speed of the medical writers and the authors. The situation regarding Editorial Board members (reviewers) is equally challenging. The lack of adequate reviewers who respond in a timely manner is among the most common causes of delayed manuscript turnaround. Each submission typically involves an Associate Editor to go to the Elsevier website and electronically invite 3 reviewers, with at least 4 alternative reviewers. It is not uncommon that over 50% of reviewers decline to review manuscripts upon being invited. Some of those who are listed as agreeing to be listed as reviewers never actually agree to review manuscripts. Why? In some cases, the database of listed reviewers is not updated, with the list of reviewers including the names of deceased individuals. Other reviewers have initial good intentions, but when confronted with actual work, they have other priorities. Regardless of the reason, refusal of listed reviewer volunteers to review is common. That is why it is recommended to invite at least 3 reviewers, and at least 4 alternative reviewers from the beginning. If 7 reviewers are listed for every submission, and if 75 submission occur in

10