Our Editorial Fellowship Program: Building Synergism

Scientific publishing is an essential means to communicate research to the scientific community. However, training of early-stage investigators for future leadership positions in scientific publishing has been lacking until recently. During their inaugural year, the Editorial Board of JASN, under the leadership of Editor-in-Chief Josephine Briggs, proposed an Editorial Fellowship mentoring program to “provide an opportunity for early career scientists to participate in assessing manuscripts under the supervisions of a mentoring editor.” The proposal was adopted and approved for ten entering Editorial Fellows (EFs) per year for 2-year terms. At equilibrium, 20 EFs work under and alongside a similar number of Deputy and Associate Editors (AEs). Since then, dozens of biomedical journals across disciplines have adopted Editorial Fellowship programs and the practice has become a de rigueur element of the manuscript-review process. Five years and 49 JASN EFs into this program, we are reflecting on our experiences, what we recognized and adjusted, and what we learned from our gifted fellows along the way.

At the outset, Dr. Briggs consulted with Rita Redberg who had initiated a similar Editorial Fellowship program for JAMA Internal Medicine with five EFs at equilibrium.¹ Our first advertisement in JASN and distributed to the Editors read, “The JASN Editorial Fellowship program gives you the opportunity to participate in assessing manuscripts under the supervision of a mentoring editor.” The ad targeted mainly early-stage research scientists or postdoctoral fellows. In year 1, of 27 applicants, eight successful EFs were paired to work with eight AEs in their common areas of expertise. Through their interactions, JASN leadership quickly learned that the EFs were more than mentees, bringing their own cutting-edge expertise, ideas, and opinions to the process. As a result, the targeted career stage for JASN Editorial Fellowship shifted toward more experienced basic and/or clinical scientists in their early stages of an independent career who demonstrate evidence of successful publication and grant writing. The overall goal of the program was matriculating a diverse class of EFs, at the career stage that provided optimal benefit to the EF, AE, and the Journal with respect to scientific background, filling gaps in scientific expertise of the Editorial Board, geography, and balance between basic and clinical needs. As a result, JASN EFs represent a geographically (Figure 1), scientifically, and demographically (Tables 1 and 2) diverse group with a wide range of expertise.

Figure 1.

Geographical distribution of matriculated EFs, 2019–2023. EF, Editorial Fellow.

Table 1.

Demographic distribution of matriculated editorial fellows 2019–2023

Degree	Postdoctoral or Clinical Fellow	Instructor	Assistant Professor	Associate Professor	Total
MD	4	5	12		21
PhD/Pharm D	5	3	12		20
MD PhD	4	2	3	1	10

Table 2.

Departmental affiliation of matriculated editorial fellows 2019–2023

Department	No.
Medicine, nephrology	35
Physiology	3
Pediatric nephrology	2
Pathology	2
Epidemiology	2
Surgery	1
Genetics	1
Geriatric medicine	1
Stem cell biology	1

EFs participate in all editorial processes, including manuscript reviews and development of editorial policy. Alongside their mentoring AEs, EFs carefully read assigned manuscripts, select appropriate reviewers, and assess the content and quality of the reviews. EFs discuss reviews of each paper with the AEs in a dialog that leads to a final recommendation. One of the unique components of the editorial process at JASN is the weekly editorial videoconference meetings. Here, EFs present and discuss the main points of manuscripts under review and key criticisms from reviewers and then invite a general discussion from among the editorial team culminating in the formulation of final recommendations. These weekly virtual meetings provide a vast opportunity to the EFs to showcase their expertise.

Feedback surveys were critical to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the program and identifying opportunities and interventions to strengthen the program. Three important changes emanated from the first survey results.

• First, the EFs expressed the desire to work with the Deputy Editors in the triage process. As a result, optional regular videoconferences were scheduled, allowing participation and welcoming discussion in the initial review of clinical and/or basic science manuscripts.

• Second, the EFs wanted the opportunity to broaden their experience of reviewing outside their comfort zone by working with AEs besides their mentor. As a result, the AEs now select and work with EFs on the basis of their availability, which has the benefit of normalizing the number of papers each EF reviews over time.

• Third, we discovered that a subset of AEs preferred to work without interfacing with an EF, usually because of inadequate time for mentoring, while other AEs were committed to the program, appreciating the interactions, mentoring, and input of the EFs. This information revealed the importance of and need for voluntary time commitments from mentoring AEs and that mentoring EFs should not be expected of all AEs.

The applicant-review process begins with advertising and recruiting internationally with an emphasis on candidates from under-represented groups. First, the JASN Managing Editor organizes all applications submitted for review (reaching 89 for ten slots in year 4). Next, an AE (who does not participate in scoring) reviews the applicants and culls approximately 50% on the basis of career stage, publication, and/or grant experience. Associate and Deputy Editors and current EFs volunteer to score and comment on applications. Files are separated into basic science and clinical science groups and given to the volunteer reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief and the organizing AE tabulate, rank, and review the files. Final decisions are based on matriculating a diverse class with respect to background, filling gaps in scientific expertise, geography, and balancing basic and clinical needs. The top tier candidates not selected receive letters encouraging reapplication the following year. The new EFs participate in a series of initiations: to the program by the Editor, to the website by the Managing Editor, to the triage process, and to each other. Each EF is assigned an AE mentor who will guide their initial reviews.

The goals of the program have been more than accomplished. The JASN Editorial Fellowship Program provided the fellows with benefits within and outside of the scope of scientific publishing. Since the beginning of the program, 64% of the fellows have been promoted, on average 12 papers have been published per EF, and more than 68% of the EFs received new grants. Our EFs received numerous highly prestigious grants and awards, including the American Society of Nephrology Carl W. Gottschalk Research Scholar Grant, the American Physiology Society Young Investigator Award, the American Heart Association Mid-Career Award, and the Stanley Shaldon Award by the European Renal Association. Most of the fellows found the program greatly beneficial to improving their manuscript and grant writing (72%) and reviewing skills (100%). In addition, 86% of the fellows felt that participation in the program expanded their scientific network, and 95% would recommend the program to a coworker. On the flip side, the JASN benefited from the program by inclusion of a diverse group of scientists with a wide range of expertise that enlivened and improved the quality of the editorial and review process, as well as improving the reviews themselves.

In summary, we think the extensive integration of early-career scientists into our editorial processes as virtually participating editors, rather than simply observing mentees, is unique. What makes it work is serious commitment from both sides. From the perspective of the Journal, we learned that adding a tier of more junior scientists to the review process who possess expertise, a facility with cutting-edge technology, and overall brilliance greatly improves JASN operation. An unexpected benefit was that the EFs actually lightened AEs' reviewing workload. In addition, the program developed goodwill between the EFs and the Journal solidifying their continued participation as reviewers and to considering JASN for publication of their best work.

Disclosures

G. Gyarmati reports Ownership Interest: Macula Densa Cell LLC; Research Funding: Travere Therapeutics; Patents or Royalties: Macula Densa Cell LLC; and Other Interests or Relationships: JASN Editorial Fellowship. A.A. McDonough reports Advisory or Leadership Role: JASN (paid), Kidney360, and Swiss National Science Foundation; and Other Interests or Relationships: American Heart Association KCVD committee volunteer, Associate Editor JASN, and EBM AJP Cell.

Funding

None.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Georgina Gyarmati, Alicia A. McDonough.

Data curation: Georgina Gyarmati, Alicia A. McDonough.

Formal analysis: Georgina Gyarmati.

Supervision: Alicia A. McDonough.

Validation: Georgina Gyarmati, Alicia A. McDonough.

Visualization: Georgina Gyarmati.

Writing – original draft: Georgina Gyarmati, Alicia A. McDonough.

Writing – review & editing: Georgina Gyarmati, Alicia A. McDonough.