Managing Editor Records

What are editor records and who can add them?

You can receive recognition for your editorial contributions by adding verified editor records of the manuscripts you handle to your Web of Science Researcher Profile.

An editor record in Web of Science is a record of your contributions to the peer review process as an editor. This means that you recruited reviewers, managed their comments for the paper and were involved in the decision of whether to publish it

Web of Science Researcher Profiles currently only support editor records for manuscripts submitted to journals, pre-prints, book series and conferences. Unfortunately, we do not accept editor records for patents, essays or books.

We do not verify non-management editorial activity such as language, method or statistical editing.

If you are the author of an “editorial” article you should add this as a publication, not an editor record.

Please note:

1. Administrators of partnered journals can see the editor records you add for their journal and can disavow them if they are incorrect.

2. We add editorial records on a per manuscript basis. This means that we do not add separate editor records for every round of revision for the same manuscript.

How do I add editor records to my Web of Science Researcher Profile?

There are two options you can use to add editor records to your profile. These are:

1. Forwarding your editorial receipts or editorial management system screenshots to [e-mail] 

2. Adding editor records manually through the forms on the site (further verification will be required, if desired) 

Forward your editorial receipts or editorial management system screenshots to [e-mail] 

To add and verify your editor records, please send an editor receipt or screenshot of the editorial management system (where your editor records are displayed) to [e-mail]. We will then verify your receipts and add the verified records to your profile.

1. Editorial receipts are any emails sent during the editorial process which identify you as the handling editor of the paper e.g., "decision has been made" emails.
   These receipts must contain the journal/conference and title of the paper.

2. Screenshots of the editorial management system.
   Screenshots should show details of a record you want to add or a list of your editorial contributions. They must contain the journal/conference name, full title of the manuscript and a clearly defined editorial role. The screenshot should also contain your name or login.

Add editor records manually through the forms on the site

You can manually add an editor record via the “Manage editor record” form. To find the form:

• On the sidebar navigation click on: Profile > My records > +Add Editor records

• From your “My Editor Records” page click on “+ Add an editor record”

Adding a new record:

1. Enter the title of the journal or conference and where possible the manuscript’s decision date.

2. Now you can search for publication details in the “Article” section of the form. At least a title is required to create an editor record, but we encourage you to add as much detail as possible.

   Search by title or an identifier (DOI, Web of Science accession number, PubMed ID or arXiv ID), we will retrieve any further details we can and give you a chance to update them to your satisfaction.

3. You can then give the reviewers of the manuscript recognition by adding their names, email addresses and date of their reviews. We will send them a link to add the review record to their own profile.

4. Press ‘Create’ to finish.

If you add editor records manually in this way, they will not be verified yet. You can verify these records by forwarding the corresponding editor receipt to [e-mail] with the record’s editor record ID copied into the email’s body. You will find the ID on the edit page of your newly created record. From your ‘My Editor Records’ page please click on the ‘edit’ button on the relevant record, you will see the record ID on the right of this page.

Note: You are unable to create new journal entries. If you would like to add a review for a journal not in our database through the forms on the site, please contact us with the journal title, URL and ISSN and any other relevant information and we will add it for you.

Displaying editor records in your profile

Unlike review records, only one editor record can be added for each individual article, regardless of the number of revisions. 

If you send us a receipt for an already existing and verified record in your profile which contains an updated title or any other information, we will update your record with the new information. 

Editor records will be added with the date if a final decision has been already made and its date is present in the editorial receipt. If you wish to include a date to your record, please submit receipts related to the final editorial decision rather than the intermediate stages of the review process.

How do I edit or delete an editor record?

If you need to edit one of your editor records, please follow these steps:

1. Navigate to your ‘My Editor Records’ page.

2. Click on the ‘edit’ button on the relevant record.

3. Here you may add any additional information, for example the DOI of the manuscript if it has recently been published.

4. You may also invite reviewers of the manuscript to receive credit for their reviews here and provide feedback to reviewers you have already invited.

If you need to delete one of your editor records, please follow these steps:

1. Navigate to your ‘My Editor Records’ page.

2. Click on the ‘delete’ button on the relevant record.

3. Confirm your request.

The record will now be removed from your profile. Associated reviews will not be deleted but your feedback on them will be removed.

Most common reasons why a receipt can be rejected

Receipts that are not considered to be valid editor receipts include the following:

• Editor receipts without the name of a journal/conference or with a missing or cropped title
  The name of a journal/conference as well as a full title of an article are required information, so we are unable to add your record without these.
• “Invitation to edit” letters
• “Acceptance of invitations to edit” letters
• Assigning letters
• Screenshots at an unclear stage of the review process
  An editor record receipt must show that you have already taken part in the editorial process. Invitations to edit, acceptance of editorial assignment, or an email showing you are assigned to a manuscript does not show you have taken part in the editorial process and is thus not considered an editor record receipt. 

• A Word/Excel document containing copy and pasted text from the editorial management system
  We require provided data to be in the form of a screenshot, .pdf or .jpg and do not accept editable text pasted in a .docx, .txt, or .xlsx file

• Emails where it is not clear you are addressed as the editor
• The emails addressed to the 'Editor' and has more than one recipient
• The addressed editor name does not match your profile name
  From your editor receipt we need to clearly identify you as the editor.

• A general confirmation that you are an editorial board member of the journal/conference
  The receipt should clearly identify you as performing editorial work for a particular manuscript. Information that you were among the editorial team for a journal does not show which papers you handled the review process for; therefore such emails won’t be accepted for verifying your editor records.

• Link to a journal’s issue
  A link to a journal where you serve as one of the editors cannot serve as a valid receipt for us because we require specific information confirming your involvement as an editor for each individual article. The only exception is if you were a single editor for the entire journal’s issue - in that case, all the articles from the issue can be added to your profile.

Screenshots from a journal’s Editorial Management System (EMS)

If you wish to submit an EMS screenshot as a receipt, we will gladly accept and process it, however, for verification purposes, they must adhere to the following:

• The screenshot must be in a non-editable format (.jpg or .pdf).
• The screenshot should contain your name, login, or another way to identify you.
• The screenshot should indicate that the review process is not at the initial or assigning stage, but rather that some editorial work has already occurred, or an editorial decision has been made regarding the article.
• If you are submitting a screenshot containing non-English language, please duplicate the titles in a separate comment, as recognition may pose difficulties and lead to delays, or the information can be entered with mistakes.
• Also, kindly add the titles containing formulas or special characters as an additional comment in text format.

Editorial board membership

Information about your editorial board membership can only be added by you from your profile. We do not add or verify these via [e-mail].

As an editor, how do I provide feedback to reviewers?

Not all reviews are equal. Some reviews are so good they help the author(s) to advance their work and the editor to make an informed and timely publishing decision. These kinds of reviews help deliver breakthrough, verified research to the world faster.

Inviting reviewers

Once you have invited the reviewers of a paper you have added as an editorial record to your profile, you can then provide feedback on their reviews.

You can invite reviewers:

1. When you add a new editor record

2. By clicking on the ‘edit’ button on an existing record

Add their names, email addresses and date of their reviews. We will then send them a link to add the review record to their own profile.

Providing feedback

Once the reviewers have been invited you can now provide feedback for their reviews. On the ‘edit’ page of the editor record in question please scroll down to the ‘Give reviewers credit’ section and then click on ‘Score review’ next to the relevant reviewer’s name.

Editors rate the quality of reviews on a four-point scale, across four dimensions:

• Clarity:

  The review was easily read and interpreted by the editor and authors

• Helpfulness:

  Comments were constructive, relevant, and realistic

• Thoroughness:

  The review considered all aspects of the paper including methodology, figures, interpretation and presentation of results, ethics, relevance, etc.

• Timeliness:

  The review assignment was completed within the time limits established by the editor

You can also optionally provide constructive criticism in the available text box. Once you have scored the review and provided your feedback click on ‘Save changes’ to finish.

Notes:

• A review is deemed 'Excellent' if it receives a score of 13 or more out of a possible 16.

• Poor = 1 point Below Average = 2 points Average = 3 points Exceptional = 4 points

• Exact scores are completely confidential. Written feedback is privileged between the editor and reviewer.

• Excellent reviews receive a gold star on the reviewer's profile and are an indicator of where reviewers have gone above and beyond.

• Excellent reviews which are signed and/or published will also have a gold star displayed against them on their article detail or review content pages.

• Scored reviews which do not meet the requirements for excellence are publicly indistinguishable from unscored reviews.