I came across this article by R. Preston McAfee awhile back that spoke about editing and the importance I having an opinion. To this day, yes I’m an editor but at no real point in time did I think to myself, man this is my career destiny. But ironically enough it seems as though I possess a particular skillset that seems to suit the position. I must note the writer of the article is an American Economic Review editor who is extremely meticulous in his approvals rather than myself, who let slide something like 15 posts in a 24 hour period, yes we are on different levels and his job is undoubtedly infinitely more important than mine. However, at the bottom of it all, I’m sure there are some parallels to be drawn.

But beyond the attributes required for a good editor, I just think that having the ability to give an opinion about anything is a worthy attribute. Issues in life undoubtedly arise at every occasion and the ability to quickly come to your own personal consensus offers confidence and conviction in your decision making. It can and will form the basis for how you run all aspects of your life as well as an ongoing introspective look into fortifying your beliefs.

-Eugene

Who makes a good editor?

When Paul Milgrom recommended me to replace him as a co-editor of the American Economic Review, a post I held over nine years, one of the attributes he gave as a justification for the recommendation was that I am opinionated. At the time, I considered “opinionated” to mean ‘holding opinions without regard to the facts,’ and indeed dictionary definitions suggest ‘stubborn adherence to preconceived notions.’ But there is another side to being opinionated, which means having a view. It is a management truism that having a vision based on false hypotheses is better than a lack of vision, and like all truisms it is probably false some of the time, but the same feature holds true in editing: the editor’s main job is to decide what is published, and what is not. Having some basis for deciding definitely dominates the absence of a basis. Even if I don’t like to think of myself as “obstinate, stubborn or bigoted,” it is valuable to have an opinion about everything.

Perhaps the most important attribute of an editor is obsessive organization, processing work unrelentingly until it is done. The AER is a fire-hose: in my first year I handled 275 manuscripts. In my first year at Economic Inquiry I processed 225 manuscripts to completion. I typically write referee reports the same day they are requested, so that I keep my inbox clear. I did this even in the days before electronic inboxes. This “clear the inbox” strategy may not be a good strategy for success in life but it is a great characteristic in an editor. Otherwise, upon returning from a couple of weeks of vacation, there may be a mountain of manuscripts visible on satellite photos awaiting processing.

The third characteristic of successful editors is a lack of personal agenda. If you think papers on, say, the economics of penguins are extraordinarily important, you risk filling the journal with secondrate penguin papers. A personal agenda is a bias, and when it matters, will lead to bad decisions. As everyone has biases, this is of course relative; if your reaction is “but it isn’t a bias, I’m just right” you have a strong personal agenda.

The last attribute of a good editor is a very thick skin. One well-known irate author, after a rejection, wrote me “Who are you to reject my paper?” The answer, which I didn’t send, is “I’m the editor.” There are authors who write over and over, asking about their paper, complaining about decisions. If you lose sleep over decisions and wring your hands in anguish, or take every disagreement as a personal affront, it is probably best to decline the offer to edit a journal. One author wrote me, with no evidence of a sense of humor, that if I rejected his paper, he would be denied tenure and his three children would go hungry. My response, which I didn’t send, was “Good luck in your next career.”

There are papers I wish I had accepted, three of them to be exact. Not bad for 2,500 rejections.

Source: Lifehacker