What Happens When a Science Journal Closes Its Volume?
Think of your favorite scientific journal. Each crisp issue represents the cutting edge of human knowledge, curated and delivered. But have you ever wondered about the final push behind the scenes?
The culmination of months, sometimes years, of work isn't just the research itself – it's the intense, often unseen, process of the Editorial Board End-of-Volume (EOV). This critical phase is where editors transform a mountain of manuscripts into a polished, final volume. It's the scientific publishing equivalent of a grand finale, determining what makes the final cut and how knowledge is packaged for the world. Understanding EOV reveals the intricate machinery ensuring scientific rigor and timely dissemination.
An academic journal's volume typically encompasses a year's worth of issues. The EOV period marks the sprint to finalize all content for that volume's concluding issue(s). It's a high-stakes phase characterized by:
Authors often time submissions to meet volume inclusion deadlines, creating a peak workload.
Editors face immense pressure to make final accept/reject/revise decisions on lingering manuscripts.
Accepted papers enter a tightly coordinated sequence of copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, and final approval.
Final consistency checks across the entire volume – numbering, indices, formatting – are paramount.
Failure during EOV can mean delays in disseminating crucial findings, inconsistencies in the permanent record, and reputational damage for the journal. It's where editorial strategy meets logistical execution.
At the heart of EOV is the intensified peer review process. Editors must navigate:
| Manuscript Status | Count at EOV Start | Target for EOV Completion | Primary EOV Action Needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| New Submissions (Post-Cutoff) | 15 | Hold for Next Volume | Acknowledge & defer |
| Under Initial Review | 8 | 0 | Chase referees / Make initial decision |
| Major Revision Requested | 12 | 0 | Assess revised ms / Secure re-reviews |
| Minor Revision Requested | 25 | 20 (Accept) | Review revisions / Final Accept/Reject |
| Accepted (Pending Format) | 30 | 30 (Publish) | Push through production pipeline |
| Awaiting Author Revision | 18 | 15 (Resubmit) | Chase authors for resubmission |
To understand the real pressures of EOV, a landmark study titled "Temporal Bias in Editorial Decision-Making During Volume Closure Windows" (Chen et al., Journal of Informetrics, 2021) provides crucial insights.
Does the intense time pressure of EOV lead to systematic changes in editorial decision patterns compared to quieter periods?
Chen et al. found statistically significant shifts during EOV periods:
Time to first decision decreased by an average of 22% during EOV across all journals.
Overall acceptance rates dipped by an average of 8% during EOV compared to non-EOV periods.
The proportion of decisions resulting in a "Revise" verdict decreased significantly, while direct "Reject" decisions increased.
Authors were given, on average, 15% less time to complete revisions requested during EOV.
| Metric | Non-EOV Period Average | EOV Period Average | Change (%) | Statistical Significance (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time to First Decision (Days) | 45.2 | 35.3 | -22.0% | < 0.001 |
| Overall Acceptance Rate (%) | 32.7 | 30.1 | -8.0% | 0.003 |
| % Decisions = "Revise" | 41.5 | 34.8 | -16.1% | < 0.001 |
| % Decisions = Direct Reject | 52.1 | 58.7 | +12.7% | 0.001 |
| Revision Deadline Length (Weeks) | 8.1 | 6.9 | -14.8% | 0.008 |
This experiment provided the first large-scale empirical evidence of "EOV Bias." It demonstrates that systemic time pressure alters editorial behavior:
This knowledge is crucial for journals to develop strategies mitigating these biases (e.g., adjusting workflows, clearer internal guidelines during EOV) and for authors to understand the landscape when submitting near volume deadlines.
Pulling off a successful EOV requires a suite of specialized tools and processes:
| Tool/Solution | Function in the EOV Context |
|---|---|
| Manuscript Tracking System (MTS) | The central nervous system. Tracks every ms status, deadlines, reviewer assignments, and flags delays in real-time during the EOV crunch. |
| Automated Reminder Systems | Crucial for chasing overdue reviews and author revisions without overwhelming manual effort. |
| Priority Queuing (MTS Feature) | Allows editors to visually flag and prioritize manuscripts critical for the final volume. |
| Template Decision Letters | Expedites communication for common decision types (e.g., minor rev, final accept, reject) while allowing personalization. |
| Dedicated Production Liaison | A single point person coordinating intensely with the publisher's production team to ensure no bottlenecks in typesetting, proofing, and final file approval. |
| Editorial Calendar & Countdown | Clearly visible deadlines for every stage (final decisions, author approvals, production handoff) keeping the entire team synchronized. |
| Backup Reviewer Network | Pre-identified, reliable reviewers who can be called upon urgently for manuscripts stuck in review during EOV. |
| Clear EOV Internal Guidelines | Documented protocols for handling borderline cases, setting revision deadlines, and escalation paths when consensus is hard, ensuring consistency under pressure. |
The Editorial Board EOV is far more than an administrative hurdle. It's the critical juncture where the promise of scientific discovery meets the reality of publication.
The intense pressures identified, like the "EOV Bias," highlight the human element in scientific curation. Understanding this process fosters:
Authors gain insight into timing and decision pressures.
Editors can implement safeguards to minimize bias and ensure rigor even under deadlines.
Better tools and processes streamline the path from lab to library.
Recognizing the immense effort behind each volume strengthens trust in the published scientific record.
Next time you browse the latest issue of a scientific journal, remember the intricate finale orchestrated by its editorial board. The EOV period is their demanding, decisive act, ensuring that the final curtain falls on a volume that truly represents the best of current scientific thought, ready to inform the next wave of discovery.