Editorial Board Expertise and Journal Selection

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-27

Quick Answer

• Evaluate editorial board expertise by checking each editor's active research area, publication record, and editorial role before submitting your manuscript.
• Use ORCID records and journal websites to verify editor credentials and identify the most relevant editor for your paper's specific topic.
• Editorial board composition changes over time, so verify current board membership at submission instead of relying on past journal reputation.

Why Editorial Board Expertise Matters for Journal Selection

Researchers often spend weeks selecting a target journal based on impact factor, scope, or publication speed. The editorial board receives far less attention, yet these individuals make the initial decisions about whether your manuscript proceeds to peer review, who reviews it, and ultimately whether it gets accepted. A board whose members lack expertise in your specific research area can lead to mismatched reviewers, delayed decisions, or rejection based on misunderstanding instead of scientific merit.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices establish that journals have responsibilities for the integrity of the peer review process. These practices cover how editors handle submissions, manage conflicts of interest, and ensure fair review. When you understand who sits on the editorial board, you can predict whether your manuscript will receive a review from someone who grasps the nuances of your methods and findings.

Editorial board members typically handle one of several roles. Some serve as handling editors who assign reviewers and make final decisions. Others act as advisory board members who shape journal policy but rarely touch individual manuscripts. Still others serve as section editors for specialized areas within a broader journal. Knowing which type of board member you are dealing with changes how you evaluate the board's relevance to your work.

The practical problem is straightforward. A manuscript on livestock methane emissions submitted to a journal whose board consists entirely of dairy nutrition specialists may receive a technically correct but substantively shallow review. The reviewers may miss methodological details specific to gas measurement techniques or misinterpret results because they lack familiarity with the broader literature. This mismatch wastes your time and delays your research dissemination.

How Editorial Boards Influence the Review Process

The Handling Editor Role

The handling editor is the single most important person in your manuscript's journey through a journal. This individual receives your submission, decides whether it fits the journal scope, selects appropriate reviewers, reads the reviews, and makes the final recommendation to accept, revise, or reject. When the handling editor has expertise close to your research area, they can identify qualified reviewers and evaluate their comments critically.

A handling editor who works in a different subfield may struggle to assess whether reviewer comments are fair and technically accurate. They might defer to reviewers who hold outdated views or miss when a reviewer makes an error that contradicts established literature. The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources provide guidance on study design and reporting that editors use when evaluating manuscripts. An editor unfamiliar with your specific methods may not recognize when a reviewer applies inappropriate standards.

Section Editors and Specialized Boards

Larger journals often organize their editorial boards into sections. A veterinary science journal might have separate sections for large animal medicine, small animal practice, wildlife health, and public health. Each section editor handles manuscripts within their domain. Identifying the correct section editor before submission helps you understand who will manage your paper.

Some journals list section editors with their research interests on the journal website. This information allows you to match your manuscript topic to the most relevant editor. If your paper crosses traditional boundaries, such as a study on zoonotic disease transmission at the livestock-wildlife interface, you may need to identify which section editor has the broadest relevant expertise.

Advisory Boards Versus Active Editors

Not all board members handle manuscripts. Advisory boards typically meet periodically to discuss journal strategy, review performance metrics, and suggest improvements. They may not see individual submissions. Including advisory board members in your evaluation of editorial expertise can mislead you about who will actually handle your paper.

The journal's website usually distinguishes between editors who handle manuscripts and advisory board members. Look for titles such as Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Deputy Editor, or Section Editor to identify active decision-makers. Titles such as Editorial Advisory Board Member or International Advisory Board suggest a strategic instead of operational role.

Evaluating Editorial Board Expertise

Step 1: Identify the Active Decision Makers

Start by visiting the journal's website and locating the editorial board page. Write down the names of the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Section Editors. Note their institutional affiliations and stated research interests. This list represents the people who will actually make decisions about your manuscript.

Check whether the journal updates this page regularly. Some journals maintain current board listings, while others lag behind actual personnel changes. If the page shows a copyright date from several years ago, verify the current board through recent published issues or by contacting the editorial office.

Step 2: Verify Editor Credentials Through ORCID

ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that connects researchers to their publications and affiliations. The ORCID for Researchers page explains how researchers use these records to maintain a complete profile of their work. When you find an editor's ORCID record, you can see their publication history, current affiliations, and research areas.

Look for editors whose recent publications align with your manuscript topic. An editor who published on rumen microbiome analysis five years ago but now focuses on feed efficiency may have shifted their expertise. The ORCID record shows the full trajectory of their research, helping you assess whether their current knowledge matches your needs.

Step 3: Examine Publication Records

Beyond ORCID, search major databases for each editor's recent publications. Focus on the last three to five years. Editors who publish actively in your research area are more likely to understand current methods, debates, and standards in that field.

Pay attention to the methods used in the editor's publications. If your manuscript uses a specific technique, such as quantitative polymerase chain reaction for pathogen detection or linear mixed models for repeated measures, look for editors who have used these methods in their own work. This methodological familiarity translates into more informed editorial decisions.

Step 4: Assess Fit Between Your Manuscript and Board Expertise

Create a simple matrix. List your manuscript's primary topic, secondary topics, methods, and the main questions your study addresses. Then list each active editor's research areas and recent publications. Score the fit between your manuscript and each editor's expertise.

A strong fit means the editor has recent publications in your exact topic area. A moderate fit means the editor works in a related field and likely understands your methods. A weak fit means the editor's research has little connection to your manuscript. If most active editors show weak fit, consider whether this journal is the right venue for your work.

At a Glance: Editorial Board Evaluation Matrix

Using Reporting Guidelines to Assess Editorial Standards

How Reporting Guidelines Reflect Board Expertise

The EQUATOR Network maintains a comprehensive collection of reporting guidelines for health research. These guidelines specify what information authors must include in their manuscripts to ensure transparent and complete reporting. Journals that endorse these guidelines demonstrate that their editorial boards understand methodological standards in their field.

When evaluating a journal, check whether it references appropriate reporting guidelines in its author instructions. A journal that requires the ARRIVE guideline for animal studies or the STROBE guideline for observational research shows that its editors expect rigorous reporting. This expectation correlates with editorial expertise because editors must understand these standards to enforce them.

Matching Guidelines to Your Study Type

Identify which reporting guideline applies to your manuscript. The EQUATOR Network provides a searchable database where you can find the appropriate guideline for your study design. If the journal you are considering does not mention relevant guidelines in its instructions, the editorial board may not prioritize methodological transparency.

This does not automatically mean the journal is poor quality. Some fields have not yet adopted formal reporting guidelines. However, in fields where guidelines exist, their absence from author instructions suggests the editorial board may not actively engage with methodological advances.

Practical Workflow for Board Evaluation

Before You Submit

Set aside one to two hours to evaluate the editorial board of each journal on your shortlist. This investment prevents the much larger cost of a mismatched submission that wastes months in review.

First, download or save the editorial board page from each journal. Second, identify the active decision-makers. Third, look up each editor's ORCID record and recent publications. Fourth, score the fit between your manuscript and the board's expertise. Fifth, compare the fit scores across your journal shortlist.

During the Submission Process

When you submit your manuscript, many journals ask you to suggest preferred or excluded reviewers. Use your editorial board evaluation to inform these suggestions. If you identified editors whose expertise closely matches your work, you might suggest them as potential handling editors or reviewers.

Some journals also allow you to write a cover letter addressed to a specific editor. If you have identified the section editor whose expertise best matches your manuscript, address your cover letter to that person. Mention how your work connects to their published research, demonstrating that you have done your homework.

After Submission

Track which editor handles your manuscript. When you receive the decision letter, note the editor's name. This information helps you build a record of which journals and editors provide fair, informed reviews of your work. Over multiple submissions, this record becomes a valuable tool for future journal selection.

Records and Measurements for Board Evaluation

What to Track

Create a spreadsheet to track your journal evaluation process. Include columns for journal name, editor-in-chief, relevant handling editors, each editor's ORCID identifier, recent publication count in your topic area, and your fit score. Update this spreadsheet as you identify new journals or as editorial boards change.

Record the date you checked each editorial board. Boards change frequently, and a board that looked excellent six months ago may have lost its most relevant editors. The NIH Grants and Funding resources emphasize the importance of maintaining accurate records in research administration. The same principle applies to your journal selection process.

How to Measure Fit

Develop a simple scoring system. Assign one point for each active editor with at least one publication in your primary topic area within the last five years. Assign half a point for editors with publications in closely related areas. Sum these points and divide by the number of active editors to get a board fit score.

Compare this score across journals on your shortlist. A journal with a higher board fit score is more likely to provide informed, fair review of your manuscript. This score should complement, not replace, other journal selection criteria such as scope alignment, publication speed, and article processing charges.

Common Failure Patterns in Board Evaluation

Relying on Journal Reputation Alone

Many researchers choose journals based on impact factor or institutional reputation without examining the current editorial board. This approach fails when a journal's board has changed significantly. A journal that once had strong expertise in your field may have lost those editors to other positions or retirement.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices emphasize that journals must maintain integrity in their editorial processes. Part of that integrity involves having editors with appropriate expertise. When a journal's board lacks relevant expertise, the peer review process suffers regardless of the journal's historical reputation.

Confusing Advisory and Active Editors

Researchers sometimes see a well-known scientist listed on a journal's editorial board and assume that person will handle their manuscript. In many cases, that scientist serves in an advisory capacity and never sees individual submissions. This confusion leads to misplaced confidence in the review process.

Always distinguish between active editors who handle manuscripts and advisory board members who shape policy. The journal's website usually makes this distinction clear through job titles. When in doubt, contact the editorial office to ask which editors handle manuscripts in your research area.

Ignoring Editorial Turnover

Editorial boards experience constant turnover. Editors move to new institutions, take on other responsibilities, or step down for personal reasons. Journal websites may not reflect these changes immediately. A board list from last year may include editors who no longer serve.

Check the masthead of recent issues to verify current board membership. Most journals publish their editorial board in each issue or at least annually. Comparing the online listing with recent print issues reveals discrepancies that could affect your evaluation.

Overweighting Editor Fame Over Expertise

A Nobel laureate or highly cited researcher on the editorial board does not guarantee that your manuscript receives expert review. These individuals often serve in advisory roles or handle very few manuscripts due to their other commitments. Their name adds prestige to the journal but may not influence your submission's outcome.

Focus on editors who actively handle manuscripts in your specific area. Their expertise matters more than the fame of advisory board members. The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources emphasize the importance of appropriate expertise in research evaluation. The same principle applies to editorial board assessment.

Data Management and Sharing Considerations

How Data Policies Reflect Editorial Standards

The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for planning and sharing research data. Journals increasingly require data availability statements or mandate data deposition in public repositories. Editorial boards that understand these requirements demonstrate awareness of current research practices.

When evaluating a journal, check its data policy. Does it require a data availability statement? Does it specify appropriate repositories for different data types? Does it explain how reviewers can access data during the review process? These policy details reveal whether the editorial board understands modern research data practices.

Aligning Your Data Practices With Journal Expectations

Before submission, review the journal's data policy and prepare your data accordingly. If the journal requires deposition in a specific repository, complete that deposition before submission. If the journal expects a data availability statement, draft it according to the journal's format.

The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy provides a framework for thinking about data sharing that many journals have adopted. Understanding this framework helps you anticipate what journals will ask and prepare compliant submissions. This preparation demonstrates to editors that you understand current standards in research practice.

Welfare and Ethical Considerations in Board Evaluation

Publication Ethics as an Expertise Indicator

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices cover authorship, peer review, data access, conflicts of interest, and misconduct handling. Journals that follow these practices demonstrate that their editorial boards understand ethical standards in publishing. This understanding correlates with editorial expertise because ethical review requires substantive knowledge of the research area.

Check whether the journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics or references its Core Practices in author instructions. This membership signals that the journal has committed to ethical publishing standards. Editors at these journals are more likely to handle authorship disputes, data issues, and conflict of interest concerns appropriately.

Conflicts of Interest in Editorial Decisions

Editorial board members may have conflicts of interest when handling manuscripts from their own institutions, former students, or close collaborators. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices require journals to manage these conflicts appropriately. When you evaluate an editorial board, consider whether the journal has policies for managing editor conflicts.

Some journals require editors to recuse themselves from manuscripts where they have conflicts. Others allow editors to handle such manuscripts but require disclosure. Understanding these policies helps you predict how your manuscript will be handled if you have connections to board members.

Limitations of Editorial Board Evaluation

Board Expertise Does Not Guarantee Fair Review

Even a perfectly matched editorial board cannot guarantee that your manuscript receives a fair review. Individual reviewers may still misunderstand your methods or hold biases against your approach. The handling editor's expertise improves the likelihood of informed review but does not eliminate the possibility of problematic reviews.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe expectations for peer review but cannot enforce them in every case. Journals vary in how rigorously they monitor reviewer performance. A board with strong expertise may still tolerate mediocre reviewers if the journal lacks systems for evaluating review quality.

Public Information May Be Incomplete

Editorial board pages provide limited information about each editor's role and expertise. Some journals list only names and affiliations without research interests. Others provide detailed biographies. The level of detail varies widely across journals, making direct comparisons difficult.

ORCID records help fill this gap but only for editors who maintain complete profiles. Some researchers have sparse ORCID records that do not reflect their full publication history. The ORCID for Researchers page encourages researchers to maintain complete records, but not all do so consistently.

Expertise Changes Over Time

An editor's expertise is not static. Researchers shift their focus, adopt new methods, and move into new areas. An editor who published extensively in your field five years ago may now work primarily in a different area. Recent publications provide the best evidence of current expertise but cannot capture the full picture.

This limitation means your board evaluation reflects the current moment. A board that fits your manuscript today may not fit a future manuscript on a different topic. Re-evaluate the board for each submission instead of relying on past assessments.

Professional Escalation Criteria

When to Contact the Editorial Office

If you cannot determine which editors handle manuscripts in your research area, contact the editorial office directly. Ask which editor would handle a manuscript on your specific topic. This question is appropriate and common. Editorial offices expect such inquiries and can provide accurate information about current board structure.

Also contact the editorial office if you notice discrepancies between the online board listing and recent print issues. These discrepancies may indicate outdated information that could affect your submission decision. The editorial office can clarify the current board composition.

When to Consider a Different Journal

If your board evaluation reveals that no active editor has relevant expertise, seriously consider submitting elsewhere. A journal whose board lacks expertise in your area will likely provide a less informed review. This outcome wastes your time and may result in rejection based on misunderstanding instead of scientific merit.

Similarly, if the journal does not reference relevant reporting guidelines or data sharing expectations, consider whether the editorial board prioritizes methodological rigor. The EQUATOR Network and NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy provide frameworks for assessing these priorities. Journals that ignore these standards may not provide the quality of review your manuscript deserves.

When to Appeal an Editorial Decision

If your manuscript is rejected and you believe the handling editor misunderstood your work, you may appeal the decision. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe expectations for handling appeals. Before appealing, review the decision letter carefully and identify specific points where the editor or reviewers demonstrated misunderstanding.

An appeal should be professional and evidence-based. Reference specific reviewer comments that reveal misunderstanding and explain how your manuscript addresses those concerns. The handling editor's expertise matters here because a more expert editor is more likely to recognize when a review was unfair.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I find out who handles manuscripts in my research area?

Visit the journal's editorial board page and look for section editors or associate editors whose stated research interests match your topic. Check their ORCID records for recent publications in your area. If the board page does not provide enough detail, contact the editorial office and ask which editor handles manuscripts like yours.

What is the difference between an advisory board and an active editorial board?

Advisory board members provide strategic guidance to the journal but typically do not handle individual manuscripts. Active editors, including the editor-in-chief, associate editors, and section editors, make decisions about submissions. Focus your evaluation on active editors because they directly influence your manuscript's outcome.

How often should I check the editorial board before submitting?

Check the editorial board immediately before each submission. Editorial boards change frequently, and a board that matched your research six months ago may have changed. Verify the current board through the journal website and recent print issues to ensure your evaluation reflects the present situation.

Can I suggest an editor to handle my manuscript?

Many journals allow authors to suggest preferred or excluded editors and reviewers during submission. Use your board evaluation to inform these suggestions. If you identified an editor whose expertise closely matches your work, you may suggest them as a handling editor. Check the journal's submission guidelines to see if this option is available.

Does editorial board expertise affect acceptance rates?

Editorial board expertise influences the quality and fairness of review instead of acceptance rates directly. A board with relevant expertise is more likely to provide informed review and recognize the value of your contribution. This recognition may improve your chances of acceptance, but acceptance ultimately depends on the quality of your research and its fit with the journal.

How do reporting guidelines relate to editorial board expertise?

Reporting guidelines specify what information authors must include to ensure transparent reporting. Journals that endorse relevant guidelines demonstrate that their editors understand methodological standards. The EQUATOR Network provides a searchable database of reporting guidelines. Check whether your target journal references appropriate guidelines in its author instructions.

What should I do if the editorial board lacks expertise in my area?

Consider submitting to a different journal with more relevant editorial expertise. A board that lacks expertise in your area may provide less informed review, leading to misunderstandings or unfair rejection. If you have strong reasons to submit anyway, address this concern in your cover letter by explaining your work's significance clearly.

How can ORCID help me evaluate editorial board members?

ORCID records provide a persistent identifier connected to a researcher's publications and affiliations. The ORCID for Researchers page explains how researchers maintain these records. When evaluating editors, check their ORCID records to see their publication history and current research areas. This information helps you assess whether their expertise matches your manuscript topic.

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• Scientific Literature Review Format: A Reproducible Structure for Researchers
• Meta-Analysis vs Scoping Review: Which Approach Answers Your Question?
• Scoping Review vs Meta-Analysis: Clarifying Their Distinct Roles in Evidence Synthesis
• Biostatistics Journal
• medical board of california

References and Further Reading

• Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
• NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
• ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
• Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.