My relatives think that scientists work in a lab, discover something, write a paper about it and get famous.

The whole social dimension of science is not part of their view on science, while for scientists the social dimension is the most important part of their surviving in science. Scientists need money for equipment, for being able to hire group members, for paying cleanroom costs, for being able to travel, for being able to invite guests to their institute, for paying page charges, for paying software licenses.

Ways for a scientist to climb the social ladder and getting money – and more and more money – for his research include writing papers, stimulate colleagues citing their papers and earn invited talks for international conferences. The scientists believe that publishing papers in high-impact journals – often not true by the way  – will boost their own citation record.

How can a scientist improve his changes for having his paper accepted by a high-impact journal? There are two hurdles to overcome:  (i) the editors reject 90% of the received manuscripts right away and only the surviving 10% is sent out for refereeing. The first barrier is clearly the toughest.

Everybody knows it is more difficult to disappoint somebody you know personally than to disappoint somebody you have never seen in your life. So at conferences established scientists use every opportunity to talk to the journal editors that are present at the conference. The successful scientist optimizes his time schedule so as to have breakfast, lunch or dinner with the editors. The successful group leaders try to socialize with the editors at the conference reception and late in the evening at the bar. Not that they like these editors so much. No, they just want more of their papers being published in the journal of the editor.

Why do you think does the organizer of a topical meeting on a hot subject invite a journal editor to give an invited talk at that conference under the pretext to give the participants an inside look into the  journal?

Directors of scientific institutes and science departments of universities try to persuade  journal editors to visit their institute, all for the same reason.

Do you think that the journal Science dares to reject right away a paper submitted to the journal by one of the members of the editorial board. So if Science asks you to become a member of the editorial board do not refuse.

If one of your PhD students has an offer to become an editor of a high-impact journal, stimulate him to accept that job vigorously. It will improve your acceptance rate.

But unfortunately the junior scientists are hardly ever part of the socializing script. This is not good for the journals, not good for science and not good for the junior scientists.

The scientific community is suffering from developments in the western societies and is more becoming a rough environment where a few winners take it all. Junior scientists get discouraged, drop out or do not even bother to get into science.

In my definition the class of junior scientists include PhD students, postdocs and group leaders in the first years of their being a group leader.

For junior scientists talking to journal editors is important. The problem is that junior scientists are still modest and tend to socialize with their local colleagues, speaking their own language. Behaving that way is bad for their career and a waste of the taxpayer’s money spent on the trip of the junior scientists. They could realize that journal editors are fed up talking to the prima donna’s who always tell the same stories, stories that are are always about themselves and always stories in which the storyteller has the role of a superior being. The successful scientists are so used to people who dare not contradict them that they have transcended the status of a normal human being.

So juniors, check the list of participants, prepare an interesting discussion subject and find the journal editors.

1. Editors should keep their distance from successful scientists
2. When visiting a lab they should never accept a reimbursement of the travel and hotel costs. If they are invited for dinner they should insist on inviting two young scientists – if possible to be chosen by the editor . When they are shown around they should insist on meeting junior scientists in absence of the seniors. Editors should try to change the schedule on the spot.
3. At conferences editors should have breakfast, lunch, dinner and social gatherings at the bar preferably only with junior scientists. The editor participating in a conference should ask the organizers beforehand a list of participants and spot in that list the junior scientists and possibly contact them already before the conference.  In this way the journal would get lots of good new referees, not infected by the system yet. The junior scientists would learn a lot from these conversations.  Editors should break away out of the eternally lasting conversations with the established scientists. This is difficult, but editors can permit to be formal and maybe even unfriendly because the establishment has to accept this behavior as nobody can afford to have bad relations with an editor.
4. If an editor gives an invited presentation he should target junior scientists and stimulate them to become a reviewer for his journal. And ask them questions.
5. A journal wanting its editors to mingle with scientists at conferences should realize that there is a possible reciprocal action: junior scientists visiting the offices of the journal. Maybe staying there for a few days.

- - - - - -