LAUSR

The third, and last, editorial in this series concentrates on the role of the editor in helping manage the revision process such that the revision work is commensurate with the aim of the paper. In this respect, editors really need to know the paper well enough to know what its aim truly is, and whether the nature and extent of the revision work recommended by the reviewer(s) is justified. That is in many journals admittedly an increasingly hard task, given the massive increases in submissions that they see, and the increasing pressure to publish quickly. However, if the editor’s aim is to publish quickly, the time taken to look into a case of suspected excessive revision recommendation will certainly pay off: he or she will see that paper again much sooner. And yet many a researcher has the feeling that editors do not do enough to limit the extent of revisions. Some of these researchers are, in fact, editors themselves, and so the presumed reasons for the phenomenon are probably accurate reflexions of reality: lack of time, and incomplete knowledge of the field are major factors. No editor can be an expert in all papers sent out for peer review, and so time to read into a paper to become more knowledgeable about its content is crucial. That said, in the end, trust in the reviewer is often the guiding principle, because the reviewer is assumed to be an unquestionable expert. But which kind? One who publishes only major insights, and has a high-powered laboratory with almost limitless resources (both human and material)? Such