Joining a journal's editorial board- pros and cons?

[Havernell]

I was recently invited to join the editorial board of a journal in my discipline published by Taylor & Francis (it is a legit invitation, not a predatory spam invitation akin to those in the highly entertaining predatory journal thread that is concurrently running on the Fora!)  To help me decide whether to accept or decline, I would be interested in hearing from other folks who have served on an editorial board about what the pros and cons are to accepting such a position.

The journal in question is a mid-range journal in a niche sub-field that is only tangentially related to my research area. The journal has a decent reputation (and a pretty quickly rising impact factor and journal raking) since it was founded in 2008. The current editorial board is a mix of both US and international scholars. Some members are impressive names and well known in the larger discipline while some are perhaps less well known but have produced quality work in the niche sub-field.  The invitation letter states that editorial board members' duties include 1) reviewing no more than three manuscripts per year for the journal, and 2) assisting in promoting the journal at regional and international conferences, or wherever else the opportunity may arise.  Both of these sound reasonable to me (though I admit I don't know what exactly is entailed in the second duty- how aggressively am I supposed to "promote" the journal, and how do I do this at conferences, exactly?)

I am newly tenured/promoted to Associate, so this seems like a good time to take on "service to the profession" duties like this in order to start building my case to go up for Full in the future.  However, having never been on an editorial board, I don't know what the potential negatives are of serving on one. 

So, what should I consider? What are the pros and cons of being on an editorial board both professionally and personally? Are there specific questions you would recommend I ask the editors that might elicit some good insight into what being on this particular board entails and how much of a time commitment it will be?  Does the fact that the focus of this journal is tangential to my main research area rather than fitting squarely within my expertise matter at all (e.g. this journal would not have been a suitable venue for any of my past publications, and, while my current research agenda could be framed in a way that somewhat relates to the journal's focus, I'm not certain that's the way I want to frame it)?  However, I know the journal is consciously trying to broaden the scope of what "fits" under the umbrella of their niche focus, so I think that's why they are inviting me with my tangential research agenda. Anyway, I would appreciate any advice or insights you all can share about being on a journal editorial board.


 

[adel9216]

Following.

[waterboy]

Did that on multiple journals for many years. The downside for me was having to find reviewers that would actually do the review. That list kept getting shorter and I found myself bugging the same folks repeatedly. That eventually was the main reason I (hopefully gracefully) bowed out.

[Deacon_blues]

The expectations of an editorial board member may vary by discipline, so I'll start by saying that I am in the humanities (literature).  I am on the editorial board of an important journal in my field, and they ask me to review articles once or twice a year (if that--in some years, I review zero articles for the journal).  I am one of the odd ducks who actually enjoys refereeing articles, so I'm happy to do this service to the profession.  As a side benefit, this kind of service looks good on my CV because it indicates that I have attained a certain level of professional success and recognition.

I am also the editor of a generalist journal that has an advisory board. When I invite someone to join the advisory board, I say that the expectations include refereeing an article or two a year and helping to publicize the journal (e.g., going to conferences and rustling up submissions). In reality, I turn to the advisory board as referees rarely because the journal's remit is so broad that I usually need readers in specific subfields not represented by the advisory board.  The advisory board thus serves more as window dressing than as a cadre of reviewers.  I inherited this set up from a previous editor, and I've been hesitant to change it because sometimes I do very much need to call upon the expertise of the advisory board.

In sum, I have not found that it takes a lot of work to be on editorial or advisory boards, and the academic prestige of being associated with a good journal is a plus. I don't know that I would agree to join the editorial board of a journal that is only tangentially related to my research, in part because I view being on an editorial board as one of the building blocks of my career. I would much rather put that energy into my field or subfield, where my work can have a broader impact on the scholarly conversations that I care about.

[saramago]

If truly it is 3 reviews per year, that's nothing at all imho. And it does look very good in your vita. I definitely would say yes. I've done it for 3 journals, and have found no downside (except the 6 to 8 reviews per year for each, but yours sounds much more reasonable).
It is a clear indication of recognition to put in your cv.

[secundem_artem]

I'm on the board of a well known, international general sciences journal  (founded by a couple of Nobel Prize winners) that publishes in my field and others.  Requests to edit a paper come sporadically and I agree to review and edit 8-10 a year.  My take home message is pretty simple - everybody wants to publish, nobody wants to review.  And the bigger the name, the more likely they do not even respond to a reviewer request.  Beyond that, I see it as a service to the academy and since many of the papers I get are from the Global South, I like being able to give those scientists a voice for their work.

I'd say do it.  You're tenured and it's time to cowboy (cowgirl) up and serve the academy.

[Havernell]

Thanks to all who have responded so far.  I'm glad to see that no one has raised any major downsides to being on an editorial board.  I am in the social sciences (should have mentioned that in the first post), so there may indeed be some variation by discipline on things like the number of reviews board members are asked to do (3 vs. 8-10 a year that some of you mentioned being asked to do).  But overall, it sounds like the role is generally manageable and rewarding. 

I do appreciate Deacon_blue's comment to think about whether serving on the editorial board of a journal only tangentially related to my research area is the best use of my energies, but thinking about it more, the journal's focus is an area that's highly policy-relevant, and connecting to policy circles is something that I have begun to do, so this may be a good way to continue that.  Anyway, thanks again to all who offered their insights and experiences- I appreciate it.

 

[Bbmaj7b5]

Late to the party.

I am a member of two editorial boards for engineering journals. I have been on one board for 8 years and am now chief editor. It is an older, established journal run by our major professional society, and has largely escaped the reputation it once had as being the bottom marble tray of the pachinko game that is academic publishing in my field. While academically it is a mid-level journal, its niche is that it also caters to practitioners. I have always enjoyed my work on this board.

I have been on another board for 5 years. It was a brand-new journal from Springer, and I am one of nearly 60 associate editors. I get a paper to handle once every 6 months. Papers are of poor quality and I usually have a hell of a time finding reviewers. I will probably step off of this journal very soon.