What Does an Editor Do in 2025?

At this year's American College of Clinical Pharmacology (ACCP)’s Annual Meeting, one of us found themselves cornered by two early-career professionals: “So,” one asked with genuine curiosity, “what exactly does an editor do? I mean, beyond deciding yes or no on papers?” Her colleague added with a grin, “And how do you decide? Coin flip? Dartboard?” What followed was a lively half-hour conversation that ranged from peer review logistics to research integrity to the latest AI controversies. Reflecting later, we realized that many in our clinical pharmacology community might benefit from a peek behind the editorial curtain, so to speak, especially now, in 2025, when scientific publishing faces unprecedented challenges and opportunities. Editorial decisions are often perceived as binary: accept or reject. In reality, most decisions are far more nuanced. Every manuscript sits at the intersection of scientific rigor, novelty, relevance, and clarity. Although the “yes or no” question, is where many authors think editorial work starts, the real work lies in everything that precedes any decision: study design, assessing whether the methodology can answer the research question posed, synthesizing often contradictory reviewer comments, and determining whether the findings meaningfully advance clinical pharmacology practice or drug development science. Our task as editors is to weigh these dimensions in the context of the journal's mission and its readership. At CPDD, we focus on early-phase clinical trials and translational pharmacology. This means asking: Does the study meaningfully advance our understanding of drug development? Is the design appropriate for the stage of investigation? Are the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and safety data robust enough to inform future trials? Consider a typical population pharmacokinetics manuscript. The model might be technically sound, but does it provide clinically actionable dosing guidance? Are the covariates biologically plausible or just statistical artifacts? Has the external validation been adequate? These questions require deep content expertise, which is why our editorial board (all of whom serve as reviewers) includes clinical pharmacologists from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. The scientific publishing environment has changed rapidly in recent years. The rise of open science and data sharing, integration of artificial intelligence, and increasing demands for transparency in conflict-of-interest disclosures are reshaping how journals function and how editorial decisions are made.1, 2 Making this even more difficult is the rise of so-called “predatory” journals, which provide little or no editorial oversight over what they publish. These “journals” exist solely to make money, and their existence is eroding the public's confidence in science.3 Their presence makes the editor's job even more difficult, since articles in these journals may be at odds with standard scientific practice, but may be used as citations. This creates more work for editors as well as peer reviewers, as they attempt to separate reliable work from the bad. For a journal like CPDD, which focuses on early-phase clinical trials and translational drug development, these trends are particularly salient. We must balance methodological rigor with innovation, foster reproducibility while encouraging novel approaches, and promote equity and inclusivity in trial design and authorship. Peer review remains the cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet it is a system under considerable strain.4 As submission rates have increased dramatically (a trend accelerated by pressures for academic productivity and the ease of electronic submission, among other reasons), finding qualified, willing reviewers has become increasingly challenging.5, 6 At CPDD, we typically invite 4–6 reviewers per manuscript to secure 2–3 quality reviews, a ratio that reflects the broader crisis in reviewer availability. But the challenges extend beyond availability. Studies have documented substantial variability in reviewer recommendations, raising questions about the reliability and reproducibility of peer review itself.6 As editors, we must synthesize sometimes contradictory reviews, assess the technical merit of reviewer comments, and make decisions that balance scientific rigor with recognition of legitimate methodological diversity in our field. This is where editorial expertise becomes crucial. We must distinguish between a reviewer's personal methodological preferences and genuine scientific flaws. We must recognize when a harsh review reflects a legitimate concern versus an unfamiliarity with emerging methods in clinical pharmacology. And critically, we must ensure that the peer review process serves its intended purpose: improving manuscripts and advancing science, not simply creating obstacles to publication. One aspect of editorial work that often goes unrecognized is its role in mentorship and professional development. One of the most rewarding aspects of editing is the opportunity to shape discourse in our field. By selecting manuscripts that address pressing questions in early drug development whether it be pharmacomicrobiomics, adaptive trial designs, or model-informed drug development, we collectively define what matters most in our discipline. Equally important is the mentorship role. Every decision letter is an opportunity to educate authors about scientific rigor, clear communication, and ethical research practices. For instance, constructive rejection letters that explain why a manuscript doesn't meet standards and how it might be improved serve an important educational function, particularly for early-career researchers. At CPDD, we take this responsibility seriously. We strive to provide specific, actionable feedback even when rejecting manuscripts. We offer guidance on appropriate study design, statistical analysis, and presentation of pharmacokinetic data. We recognize that many authors, particularly those from resource-limited settings or emerging into the field, may be navigating publication for the first time. Our editorial board also serves a community-building function. By bringing together clinical pharmacology experts from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies, we foster dialogue across sectors and perspectives. Scientific integrity is the bedrock of our profession. The challenges of reproducibility crises, predatory publishing, and data manipulation7 remind us that vigilance is necessary. Journals and editors serve as stewards of the scientific record. This includes promoting transparency in data availability, requiring rigorous statistical analyses, and ensuring adherence to ethical standards in clinical trial conduct.7, 8 As editors, we must maintain vigilance without succumbing to undue alarm. We employ plagiarism detection software, scrutinize unusual patterns in submissions, investigate suspected integrity breaches, and work with institutions and organizations like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)7 when concerns arise. But we also recognize that the vast majority of our authors are honest researchers committed to advancing science. Our systems must detect misconduct without creating insurmountable barriers for legitimate researchers. In clinical pharmacology specifically, our editorial responsibilities carry particular weight. The manuscripts we handle often bridge basic science and clinical application, with direct implications for drug development, regulatory decision-making, and ultimately, patient care. A poorly designed pharmacokinetic study published today could influence dosing strategies for years to come. An inadequately reported drug-drug interaction assessment might miss critical safety signals. The stakes are high, and our editorial vigilance must match them. As we reflect on the question, “what does an editor do?” we recognize that editing in 2025 is both a privilege and a responsibility. We are scientists, educators, advocates, and stewards all at once. Our work is grounded in the shared mission of advancing safe, effective, and innovative therapeutics for patients worldwide. To the early-career professionals who asked, “what does an editor do?” – we hope that this editorial provides a more complete answer. We do much more than accept or reject papers. We nurture scientific rigor, defend research integrity, facilitate peer review, mentor emerging scientists, and work daily to ensure that Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development publishes research that advances our field and ultimately improves patient outcomes. Thank you for asking this deceptively simple but important question. You reminded those of us who are privileged to serve as editors, that editing is not just about managing manuscripts. Editing is about serving science and the people who make it possible. And to all our readers, reviewers, and authors: thank you for your partnership in this endeavor. Quality scientific publishing is a collaborative enterprise, and CPDD's success depends on the entire clinical pharmacology community's commitment to excellence, integrity, and transparency. If you are invited to review a manuscript for us, we encourage you to accept and we look forward to working with you in gratitude for your time and effort. The question “what does an editor do?” has no one simple answer. But perhaps that complexity is precisely the point. In an era of rapid change and increasing challenges to scientific integrity, the multifaceted role of editors has never been more important or more demanding. We embrace that challenge, recognizing that the credibility of clinical pharmacology research depends on our collective commitment to the highest standards. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.