Who sits on an editorial board and what each role does

Editorial & peer review · editorial note

An editorial board is the group of people responsible for the intellectual direction and standards of a journal. Its members decide what the journal covers, how manuscripts are assessed, and how disputes about the scholarly record are handled. For authors, knowing how these roles are divided makes the submission process far less mysterious. This page explains what typical editorial roles involve and what you should confirm on the journal's official pages.

The editor-in-chief

The editor-in-chief holds overall responsibility for the journal. This person sets the editorial direction, makes or confirms final decisions, and acts when a case is unusual or contested. They also represent the journal publicly and answer for its conduct.

In practice, the editor-in-chief handles a small number of difficult cases directly and delegates the routine flow of manuscripts to others. Their role is less about reading every paper than about safeguarding consistency.

Associate and section editors

Larger journals divide the workload among associate or section editors, each responsible for a cluster of topics. These editors receive manuscripts in their area, judge whether the work is ready for review, choose reviewers and make recommendations. They are usually active researchers who understand both the subject and the standards of the field.

Because they work closer to the day-to-day flow, associate editors are often the people an author will deal with if the manuscript needs clarification or revision.

Reviewers and their independence

Reviewers are external specialists who assess a manuscript and report on its strengths, weaknesses and suitability. They are recruited for their expertise, not for any stake in the outcome, and they are expected to declare any conflict that might bias them. Their reports inform editorial decisions rather than determining them.

Reviewing is usually unpaid and time-consuming, which is one reason journals ask authors for reasonable, well-presented submissions. A clear manuscript makes a reviewer's task easier and often produces a more useful report.

Managing and production roles

Behind the academic roles sit managing editors, editorial assistants and production staff. They track manuscripts, check compliance with instructions, coordinate with authors and prepare accepted work for publication. These roles carry no authority over scientific judgement, but they keep the process moving and are often the first point of contact.

This division is deliberate. It lets academic editors concentrate on assessment while administrative tasks are handled by people with the right systems and training.

How the roles work together

A manuscript typically passes through several hands before a decision is reached. Each role applies a different kind of judgement, and the process relies on those judgements being independent of one another. The table below summarises the usual split of responsibility.

Role	Main responsibility	What to check
Editor-in-chief	Overall direction and final decisions	How final decisions are confirmed
Associate editor	Assessment and reviewer selection	Who receives your manuscript
Reviewer	Independent specialist opinion	How reports are used
Managing editor	Process, compliance and correspondence	The contact route for queries
Production staff	Preparing accepted work for publication	Proof and formatting expectations

Why the structure matters to authors

Understanding who does what changes how an author interprets a message. A request from a managing editor about formatting is not a judgement on the science, and a reviewer's criticism is advice to the editor rather than a verdict. Knowing the distinction helps you respond appropriately and avoid unnecessary alarm.

It also tells you where to direct a question. Technical queries about files belong with the editorial office, while substantive questions about the assessment are usually handled by the editor who is managing your paper.

What to confirm about a journal's board

Before you rely on your impression of a board, check the details the journal states openly. The following points are worth confirming, because editorial arrangements are set by the publisher and can change.

Who the current editors are and what areas each one covers.
Whether contact details for the editorial office are published.
How decisions are described in the journal's own process pages.
Whether the review model and reviewer anonymity are explained.
How conflicts of interest are declared and handled.

Reading the board page critically

A long list of names proves little on its own. What matters is whether the roles are explained, whether people are in a position to contribute their expertise, and whether the journal is transparent about how they work. A clear, current and specific description is more reassuring than a large but unexplained list.

If the structure is unclear, the official process and policy pages should resolve most questions. Where they do not, the editorial office can explain. Editorial arrangements are set by the publisher, so always confirm the current position on the journal's official pages rather than assuming a structure described elsewhere.

Editorial roles divide the work of judging and publishing research: editors set direction and decide, reviewers provide independent expert opinion, and staff keep the process running. For an author, the value of understanding this structure is knowing who does what and where to direct a question. The exact arrangement is set by the publisher, so check the journal's official pages for the current editors and process.

Research integrity. Sound science rests on honest reporting, transparent methods and respect for ethical standards. Nothing on this site replaces the journal’s official instructions or the policies of your institution. When in doubt, confirm the current requirements with the editorial office and check the journal’s official pages.