In this episode, we continue with our guests from episode 13 on scientific publishing, this time exploring the fascinating world of editing as a scientific career. Does becoming an editor mean you are leaving research? Can you ever go back to academia? And why should you “follow the cookies”?
Join us as we chat with seasoned professionals who have transitioned from the lab bench to the editorial desks at Molecular Oncology, Nature Reviews and Cell. They share their personal journeys, highlight the skills necessary for this unique career path, and offer advice for researchers considering a shift into scientific publishing.
Whether you’re contemplating a career change or simply curious about the behind-the-scenes work of scientific journals, this episode is packed with insights and practical tips to broaden your horizons. Tune in to discover the pivotal role editors play in the dissemination of scientific knowledge and how you can be part of this critical process.
Listen here, scroll down for the transcript and subscribe now via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music/Audible, Deezer or YouTube so you’ll never miss an episode. You can find all episodes and their transcripts here.
Our guests in this episode:
- Ruzhica Bogeska, Managing Editor at Molecular Oncology
- Maria Papatriantafyllou, Senior Editor at Nature Reviews’ cross-journal team
- Sri Narasimhan, Deputy Editor at Cell
And our host: Alexandra Boitor, EACR Scientific Officer.
Episode transcript
Alexandra: The conversation we had last time was about the process of reviewing and publishing a manuscript, and you so kindly answered some of the questions and concerns that are on the minds of some researchers. The discussion highlighted how important the work of editors is for the scientific community. Therefore, in this episode, I would like to direct our conversation toward discussing scientific publishing as a career, and I think a good starting point would be a short insight into the work of an editor. So my first question for you would be, what does a regular work day look like for you?
Sri: No two days are alike, and I’m sure others will agree. If I had to pitch the job, that’s the best part of the job. There is less redundancy. There is a core aspect of what we do, which is looking at what’s been submitted to the journal, and then there’s always papers at different stages of the life cycle that you would need to look at so that there may be inviting reviewers, looking at the reviews, chasing reviewers, writing to authors, on any inquiries about the status. So there’s the life cycle of the paper and addressing whatever’s needed at those stages, making decisions for the Cell team and many Cell Press journals. We work as a team.
So discussing it with your peers, that’s a core element, but on top of that, it’s layered with lots and lots of different, interesting and exciting things on my end. I think it’s a lot about strategy for the journal and how are we are doing in light of publishing areas, there’s a lot of analysis, it may be organising events, a lot of these additional things also happen. Author phone calls, phone calls with reviewers sometimes, definitely a couple of early career PIs reaching out to me every week, just to chat, which is also a really important part of relationship building and hopefully bringing exciting science into Cell or Cell Press.
Maria: I will agree with Sri that every day looks differently. And I would also like to add working in different editorial roles or different journals brings even more variety. It always depends on the journal you’re working at and the role you have, but I have a comforting comment to make, that is if one is looking at an editor’s desk from space, then you would see the same person sitting in front of their computer monitor for most of the day, every day. And that’s the only aspect that remains maintained. I mention this because it’s a huge difference and parameter we might have all struggled with when moving from the lab into an editorial role, the fact that you just sit all day in front of the computer.
However, if you make a brain scan of the editor, then you would find out that it’s a job that is always intellectually stimulating and there is a lot of variety involved. My role at Nature Reviews focuses more on developing review articles and commentary articles or also research highlights for Nature Reviews journals. So it also involves some research for topics, articles, authors, for future, timely and novel review articles. And it involves scanning for the latest publications to be highlighted in research highlights that will provide readers with a nice overview of the latest advances in the field, some special projects that can involve collaboration with scientists or with other colleagues, editors, for example, to organise conferences and events. And of course, some travel for lab visits and conferences where we really get to meet researchers in person, say that we can have nice discussions about their work.
Ruzhica: I agree with all that has been said, and yes one really common aspect is that all that we do mainly is done at the computer. So there is a lot of screen time and sitting, and one has to be disciplined, so to go to exercise regularly, so that for all the sedentary life we have, the everyday life an editor depends also on the journal, there is a variety of tasks.
And sometimes also there are some tasks that probably we have all been doing even before we became editors. For example, there could be training. So, if you are more experienced in the role, you could also train your colleagues in certain aspects of the editorial process, or if there are fellows or internship students visiting the editorial office, this is also there. And this adds up to making our job more variable. And I think all three of us here enjoy that. Different type of tasks and different interactions on daily basis.
Alexandra: One thing I’ve always been curious about is how do you keep in touch with the latest scientific discoveries when it comes to technology? How do you keep in touch with the latest technology so you can judge a paper before you decide to accept it or not accept it? Because ultimately from the last episode, I understand that there’s a peer review process, but ultimately the decision is still in your hands, isn’t it?
Maria: It requires a lot of reading actually, and this is a core part of the job, reading the latest content from some key journals that are relevant to the area of our journals. And, equally important, attending conferences where we get to know about the latest methods or techniques where we get to build some links to researchers to whom we will then go back, once we have questions about new technologies, or what are the minimum requirements considering or accepting a paper that involves some new methodology.
Sri: Yeah, I wanted to second that, this bridges the question quite nicely, that an editor never stops learning. I hear this less and less, but there was a perception that you, quote, unquote, “left science to do something else”, and I would strongly say that it’s the opposite. You never stop thinking about science and you have to consciously draw a line and stop thinking about it to actually have a weekend in real life because, you know, there’s so much knowledge that you have to keep abreast of and keep learning and keep interacting with. And that’s why it’s most exciting because you’re a forever learner, right?
You go from your specialist identity. And even if you work as an editor in a generally relevant topic areas exploding in all sorts of ways. So this constant learning, I think often for any paper, any study where we’re focused on the question, what is it asking? But a core element to all of that is how are they addressing that question?
And there’s often a tech advance we cannot know that because when you leave the bench, the technique that people use to address that question might change significantly, or not in some fields. You still have studies that use traditional gels and Western blots but that’s okay, and so I think this is where the engagement at conferences and reading the papers and staying on top of talking to people. And sometimes that’s the advance, right? It’s basically, they are applying it in all of these different contexts, but it’s really the tool and really the technique, and then you kind of learn, okay, how does this help you address something that currently you cannot, or why is this better than other things out there? And then you have the expertise of the reviewers. Earlier it was statistical reviewers that were mentioned who are very critical, like technical reviewers are especially more important, the end users of these, how do they see this, right? Are they excited by this? Does this democratise a lot of the techniques that otherwise were in the hands of very specialist labs or institutes? So I think that’s a core part of addressing recent discoveries, which is like how tech fuels age old perceptions or questions we may have had of a process.
And then it’s investigating the same question, but now with a tech angle. And so you adopt that, you move ahead, you publish it, and then you see what the next iteration is. And that, to me, is a constant learning process, I think reflecting on that is just the method section in any paper that we publish, right? I think as granular as possible at Cell Press. It does not count to the word limit. Do not say, this was done as reference there, and then other people will say as reference there, and maybe someone changed the volume of one thing, and then suddenly it’s not reproducible. So instead, how can you have as much clarity in any method for a paper, but especially something which is a new method, and helping people to sort of apply that and take it forward. And then the next iteration comes.
So I think we’re active participants, but we’re also passive learners in the process. So yeah, I think that’s really core to what we do for every study, you can see that even within a matter of timescales that an entire field is switched from this to this to ask a certain question, and you want to be a part of it when you are not physically doing those experiments.
Ruzhica: Yes, as editors, we have this advantage to see new developments quite early, and progress of some tools and when they get accepted by researchers more often. So that makes the job interesting, too.
Alexandra: I picked up on something that Sri mentioned earlier, the idea that you “left science”, which I could argue that the idea is a bit outdated, if nothing else. But that made me wonder, does choosing a career in publishing open or close any other career paths?
Ruzhica: With any career, I think, everyone has a path and at certain points you can go forward. You can also return back to your previous choices or try to change completely. So I think this is something that everyone is asking themselves in certain places in life. So, of course, there have been examples of editors going to research or editors becoming directors of some institutions.
So there are a lot options and there you can also go to the old options, but of course, depending on the profession. So if I stay as an editor for ten years, I guess it will be difficult for me to become a professor because to become a professor, you need to be productive and publish a lot of papers.
Sri: One really good pitch for an editorial career is that it’s something that one can do at any stage. It’s a great first job, coming out of your grad school and postdoc training, because I think there is the critical thinking of science and the excitement and passion for it is already there, and there are a whole bunch of other skills that you learn in the process, but several of my colleagues are former academics who ran labs, who had done that and bring a very different perspective to now being an editor, having walked that sort of academia line, which is great because at this stage they’ve done that and then they bring in this academic experience than a vast majority of folks who do this probably out of a postdoc, right? Or a senior scientist or something like that, that haven’t done that. But I don’t know, in my time, I’ve seen people go back to the bench, or they have gone as scientific director, but also been co-mentors and helped PIs run labs, and now mentor postdocs and grad students, directors of institutes working for the press, working for foundations, sitting pretty high up at HHMI, helping make those OA decisions, and talk to journals and government.
Really, I think there is no limit: consulting, there’s venture capital. Industry, huge aspect of like the scientific landscape right there. And then, even VP of research. So it’s all over the spectrum. It’s a really big list where it’s a great career option, I think, at many different stages. And I think what it does is that gives you a number of different skills and perspectives that I think actually may make the transition to some of the other career paths easier in many ways.
Alexandra: What I’m getting from you there is that there’s no right moment or correct moment to transition into an editorial career and you can take the decision earlier or later in your academic career progression if you choose to do so, as long as you have a PhD and a good knowledge of the literature. Very important is the skills you have. And I was wondering, which are the main skills someone that considers such a transition should focus on? Which are the essential skills to become an editor? And what skills can you train? What are you looking for in a CV, basically, when someone applies for an editorial position?
Maria: Going back to what Sri mentioned earlier, a very key value is the ability to switch between areas and topics and familiarise yourself with new developing areas or expand your knowledge in new areas and the willingness to do so and adapt. So this is a core value that could be trained perhaps, if someone sweeps his fields after a PhD for their postdoc. So it’s also a good test for them to find out if they enjoy entering into a new field and learning more about something they didn’t know in the past.
And another core value that doesn’t involve training necessarily is the ability for multitasking and working under tight deadlines or the ability to prioritise tasks because this is a key part of the job. I think actually that this is also a skill that is developed during a PhD or a postdoc anyway, apart from these two key things, it’s of course always nice to develop critical thinking by participating in journal clubs or meetings, conferences. Equally developing communication skills by writing about the research and, of course, preparing their own research papers. This is a learning process.
And a final point that one could train is the ability to communicate feedback, for example, to your peers in a very clear, constructive and positive manner, and see how this feedback is being received and whether you actually enjoy doing that. Often it’s also being able to make informed decisions. So that’s an important aspect of the job and it needs gaining some confidence, but I believe this is based on practice.
Sri: I’d also say that generally we all have different personalities, but in science, it takes a lot of effort sometimes to go over to someone and talk to them, and hierarchy and seniority and all of that plays a big role. Or else, I think one aspect of science is we are often trained to speak within the walls of our laboratories or our departments, you know, the communication gets quite siloed. And I actually encourage a lot of that, follow where the cookies are, follow where the free food is, go attend those seminars and just listen and broaden your horizons. You will find things that are relevant to you, even if you don’t work in there, right? There’s some new inspiration, new idea, because that spirit is you continue doing as an editor.
You might attend disparate meetings in terms of topic areas, but find themes that are converging and you get to see that because of either the science you handle or the audiences that you speak to. And so I think to some extent, overcoming that activation energy, right? I’m not saying everyone is an introvert, but just generally there’s less reason for us to do so outside the walls of our labs or our departments or our seminars, we don’t feel the need to communicate what we do as broadly to others, let alone your family. And I think all of us are science communicators and you need to be able to be comfortable in doing that. And the earlier you can inculcate that, the better, and I think some humour goes a long way because a lot of what we do in many cases is say no. But you know, I think at the end of the day, it is still a relationship building exercise where you work with people, you try to help them to find the right words, the best option for their work. It might not be this journal, it might be another journal, but you hope that they’ll work with you again. So at the end of the day, it’s that we’re science communicators. We are doing science just as much, that kind of mindset, working with the community, trying to publish exciting science.
And sometimes we might get it wrong, right? This happens, it’s just the iterative process of science that we say. And some things stand, some things don’t, and you have that kind of flexibility and mindset and don’t feel so stressed and overwhelmed by that, because yes, you are making a decision that has an impact on many people’s lives in many ways, right? At many different career stages, but that’s the core part of the job. And I find that people who are very overwhelmed by that, it’s very hard to focus on okay, what’s the science coming in? What’s the best decision for this paper? How do you move it forward?
If not here, where else? And then focus on lots of other things, because as mentioned, you need to prioritise. So there is a certain mindset element. I think that is also very, very important. You might love reading papers, but I think the ability to discuss those, to communicate your thought process, to engage authors when they rebut your decision, right? And really focus on the science and think about the end outcome, I think makes it very enjoyable for some. And then some who try it are like, oh my God, this is very daunting for me. It should be less of that. It should be more of the former.
Alexandra: And assuming someone decides to join this path of an editorial career, how does the career progression ladder look like? I’m wondering whether there’s an entry level sort of position and what would that be? What would be the first promotion that you could get and what would be the top level? If you think it’s possible or helpful in any way, I think a parallel to academia, which would be what most of our listeners would be used to, would also be useful.
Ruzhica: When joining an editorial office after the PhD or a postdoc, usually the first step is assistant editor. This may be called differently in different journals, but it involves a bit of a training period where the fresh editor is being introduced to the processes of the journal and the other side of publishing, which they have seen maybe while writing and publishing their papers. After that, I think, comes a more senior editor position, and then when the editor knows all the processes and then they can become more independent in their job. So there are other options that could come later on, and I think this depends on personal choices and interests or situations. So an editor could go more on managerial function, becoming a managing editor or perhaps editor in chief, depending on the structure of the journal. Some editors proceed to becoming a publisher, which is another type of role, but then this requires in depth knowledge of the editorial role, but the tasks will be different.
Sri: Yeah. I think if I could just compare it. Academia is a good comparison. I think, compared to, let’s say, there are career paths and progression, pharma, biotech is becoming increasingly popular, right? So I think the parallels of academia is helpful because there is a certain longevity to this role that I think right now, and if you look at the broader world with how fast-paced career growth can be and layoffs and this and that, to some extent, like this world is somewhat buffered from that. So if you wanted, you could be an editor forever and you could be a senior editor forever in journals, broadly speaking, there is a rising path. I think whether that’s from starting to senior or whether there’s an intermediate step or number of steps. I think that’s pretty consistent.
And then from that, I think the aspirations really depend the individual. Some people want to lead a journal, right? They want to be editor-in-chief of a journal, and the editors-in-chief of a journal sometimes are there for over 25 or 30 years, you know, at Cell Press or broader Elsevier, you have Richard Horton leading the Lancet for many, many years now, Geoff North at Complete Biology for at least 30 years, as far as I know, and his team loves him.
No one’s trying to unstage, but these opportunities do open up when sometimes the editors-in-chief leave for another role or else there are higher roles. So you could be a publishing director, managing a portfolio of those journals, prior to editor-in-chief. My position is a deputy editor role that doesn’t exist in many journals, but I do manage a good chunk of the team.
And then from there, you could be the VP or head of maybe a certain portfolio or an organisation. You could move across publishing within a publisher, you know, there’s Springer Nature, Wiley, Elsevier, there’s lots of different overall journal portfolios and hubs where you could rise more in a way that takes you more about the management of the publishing world portfolio, more into the finance, more into the business. You are more and more removed from the science, you know, I think to some extent, once you get past the editor-in-chief role, but the possibilities are several, right? I think the question is how close to the science and publishing the science and handling the papers you want to be.
That is one career trajectory. The other one is using that as a launch pad for expertise and leadership down the road in publishing as an industry. And that’s very, very vast as well, and among editors too, there are those who actually move every couple of years trying to navigate this path. And in other cases, one could see if you wanted to have a skeptical view of this as there is an upper limit. The most I will ever be is a senior editor at my department. Unless there is movement higher up, my editor-in-chief leaves, but that’s an incredibly fulfilling career for many over the years where you are a senior editor at your journal and you are seen among the community, you publish that work, you have strong connections with that and you have participated, directly or indirectly, in the evolution of an entire field and that is a step of permanency for many and they retire from that position as well.
Maria: Yeah, I will echo Sri in that there is no single linear path in editorial careers and there is a lot of choice and options out there. As you have said Sri, I have switched between journals and between areas and between roles. In the end, I also found that I want to be very close to science, so I’ve returned now to this cross-journal team at Nature Reviews, where I still get to interact with and support different journals and they work with their teams or have special projects. But I enjoy staying at this senior editor position for the moment, and I feel like I’m developing every day, so the title is not changing, but I really have this feeling that I learn and develop myself, and this is very rewarding. So it’s up to the individual to make a decision what they want for their career, and there are many options within publishing or outside publishing as well, as we’ve said previously.
Sri: One thing that I wanted to add is that yes, we sit in front of the computer a lot, but one aspect of that is flexible working. You need a computer to do your work. There is a lot of flexibility built into that role, which I think is very helpful for a lot of people. And one of the motivations for the role, whether you are a parent and trying to manage your day around little ones or a caregiver, or there is a certain work-life balance that you need because of any other reasons, I think there is little clocking and monitoring of the hours, right? You show up for your team meetings, you do things as best as you can, but there is that inherent flexibility in the role and a lot of self-discipline. I think I can speak on behalf of both of you, I’m sure here that often I think it’s on you to draw the line and close that computer, rather than anyone else making you feel like you haven’t done enough. No, if anything, it’s the self-imposed importance of discipline and work-life balance that I think is the more important aspect of it. But the flexibility is very, very attractive, and personally, for me, I have two little kids and I was handling COVID papers in the middle of a pandemic when both my kids were under five. And we were all home, right? How do you do this? I think something like this, where there’s like flexibility and not having to have very defined hours and putting in some time here and there, I think goes a long way.
Alexandra: You’ve made it sound like a really good career choice. You are all very excited about your jobs, which I love. I really like talking to people that are excited about what they are doing. I really like our conversation, but unfortunately we’re approaching the end of the episode. And if you don’t mind, I would like to end our conversation on a somewhat personal note. And I would love if you would be able to share with me and our audience, how and why did you decide to become an editor?
Maria: Great question. For as long as I remember myself, I was very interested in science and reading about new research findings. And, obviously, this is the reason also why I decided to pursue a career in research. I did my PhD postdoc. I hadn’t realised how much I enjoyed the reading part and the giving feedback or talking about science and communicating science.
After the end of my first postdoc, I was looking to continue my academic career and was wondering what should be the next lab in which I would continue being a postdoc. And I was very aware of how important this would be in determining the future of my academic career. But while screening, I found a job ad of a locum editor position at Nature Reviews Immunology. It was a maternity cover for initially six months and I thought, okay, that’s great. It will give me the space and time I need to consider what will be my next field of research, my next lab. And I will make an informed decision based on what I will learn during this time. However, from the first day that I still remember the day I arrived and I started working as a locum editor on Nature Reviews Immunology, I was completely excited. A whole new world was open to me and I realised that I am made for this and nothing else. I love the fact that I was no longer specialised on a specific topic, but I would get to learn in detail about all aspects of immunology at that time of research that are emerging, and I loved interacting with authors and working on their review articles. So there was no second question after that. And since then I’ve remained in editorial roles.
Alexandra: That’s such an inspiring story. Ruzhica, how was it for you? How did you take that decision?
Ruzhica: It was not a straightforward decision. I guess we all have the breaking points in career decisions, we consider different options, and for me it was when I did my postdoc at the German Cancer Research Networks, it was considering where to go next. I started discussing my options with people working in different sectors, and I was also trying to make an informed decision of where would I go next, because when you’re a postdoc, you have several options, but you need to choose one path at least for some time and focus on that one. And, maybe it is a bit simple, but I was talking to people that work in different sectors. So when talking to editors, editors were always so nice and they were really into their roles. That really had an appeal for me. So I dug into the role deeper and I applied for the first editorial job at FEBS Press and yeah, I met all the nice people and I decided to take on that job, but of course, since my PhD and postdoc, I always liked many aspects that are related to the editorial job. It’s just that now I understand it better because being on the other side in publishing gives you another view. So I think I was going to that career but maybe not consciously always, so yeah, at some point I think I made this decision and yeah, so far it’s good. So three years in the role, it has been exciting and there was no podcast about editorial careers at that time. That’s why we were not as conscious about what it involves to be an editor and that it is actually a real option that one could pursue and learn more about it.
Alexandra: That’s definitely what we’re hoping to achieve with this episode. Sri, would you like to share your experience?
Sri: Yeah, I’m embarrassed. I’m going to sound quite chaotic in my answer because I think there are three things I’ll freely admit. One is I had no great plans to do this. I think I was bright eyed, interested in science. I was fortunate to have had a good experience during grad school, and then my postdoc also started off really well with a couple of screens that were looking promising, right? So good positions. I was not actively looking, but I was at a place where there were a lot of alternative career talks going on all the time. So when I said earlier follow the cookies, that’s what I did.
So I went for one of these and this was at Harvard Medical School and there was a talk about science and publishing and it was like a light bulb moment for me because it was the editor at Neuron who was speaking. So, you know, I’m not a neuroscientist, but I think there was just something wondrous about being part of publishing something that was very impactful even though not actively, you know, we don’t do the work, right? We are almost facilitating and shepherding this along, not gatekeeping. I don’t like the word gatekeeping. It’s more being a good humble position almost that someone would come to the journal and you know about it as was alluded to early on.
So that seemed amazing that you get to know about something early on and be a part of the process for the peer review and then publishing that and then that’s going to be impactful. So that that was an actual job that someone did was like, you know, amazing to me, right?
And, very much more active from having been on the other side where I felt like, well, is there even a human part of this process? Is that just something you submit and we don’t know, like a black curtain, you don’t know what’s going on. So I think knowing that to me was quite exciting. So that was one aspect of just being aware and learning about those opportunities, even though I was not actively looking.
The second thing is that I still believe all these years on that science is a great unifier, right? I think it’s one of the most international, multicultural, in a way, if you think about it, inclusive endeavors that we do as people. We’re coming together to solve problems, common problems that affects us all, whether we’re going to the moon or we’re trying to cure a disease or just trying to learn how a worm goes through its life cycle. It’s often so interdisciplinary, and so I think anything that’s part of a process that helps to bring out that science for a broader audience. I know this sounds like very philosophical, but that is motivating to me. And I think that is a core aspect of what we do that still keeps me in this. I have had my LinkedIn notifications on since my grad school days, and I still get so many job alerts everywhere. And I’ve never turned it off because I want to know what else is out there, but I’ve never had the motivation to leave what I’m doing for this very reason, right? And I think it was a good decision at the end of the day. In my mind, I do wonder, would I have had an academic career if that was the only thing I knew? I knew one person who had just started an editorial role at Journal of Virology or something like that, and I didn’t even know how to go for my interview. I didn’t know if I present slides, what do I talk about, and there were definitely no podcasts, no resources, nothing at that point of time.
Since then, thinking about why I would encourage others to consider this from my own motivation, I think it’s just this. If you love science, and you’re excited to be a part of it, if you love learning, and you feel like there are aspects of all of this, that keep you training, you took on a path to go through all this rigorous education, all those years in the lab, all those, there is some core love of science and it allows you to sustain it in this slightly different way, and that is a job. That’s amazing to me. So that’s what attracted me to it, but I think that’s still my reason for continuing to be in it. I didn’t think too much about it, and I’m really in awe of everyone who has all of these opportunities right now to get these different perspectives from people doing all sorts of different roles, so that they can make a better choice. I think in my case, it worked. And I haven’t looked back.
Alexandra: Thank you very much to all of you for joining me for this conversation. I think your decisions and your choices in your career are very inspiring: the way you talk about your jobs, it emanates that confidence and the fact that you really like what you’re doing. I think that’s something very precious and I’m so happy you managed to find it.
Enjoyed it? Stay curious with The Cancer Researcher Podcast. Subscribe now via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music/Audible, Deezer or YouTube so you’ll never miss an episode. You can find all episodes and their transcripts here.
Suggest a topic for a future episode: What would you love to learn more about? Click here to give us your topic suggestions in a short online form. We warmly welcome your ideas and input!