Spotlight on Journals: History of European Ideas

• How and when did you become Editor of the journal?

I became editor of History of European Ideas some time ago now. I cannot give a precise date because of the nature of the takeover. It all started in the late 1990s. With another junior colleague I was approached by a senior professor at a different university. He had inherited the editorship of the journal when he had arrived, and very much enjoyed the stipend that accompanied the work, which he also very much needed. Brilliant though he was, and the most convivial of colleagues, he was also famous for not being especially good at administration. In consequence, the journal had declined. One of the issues he edited contained one journal article and one book review only. He asked us to help him. This really entailed doing almost all of the editorial work but without the stipend. We did not mind this at all. The “official” editor was one of the nicest people you could meet. He took us out to supper for our labours once a year and we took advantage of his many useful contacts. It is worth adding that the labours were not especially onerous because of the decline of the journal. We remained in the role of editing the journal, but not officially, for at least three years. At some point we took over formally. I can say at least that I became editor well over a decade ago, formal co-editor over a decade ago, and sole editor I think around 2005.

• What are the main achievements of the journal since you took over?

You can see from what I have written above that I took on the editorial role when the journal was weak. I used to worry about copy all of the time. To say that this has changed is an understatement. I am now inundated, and we have moved from three to four to six and then to eight issues per year. Although it has taken a lot of work, it is also to do with the field of intellectual history, which has burgeoned during my time as editor. In other words, I have been lucky.

• Which three factors have contributed most to the journal's success?

At one point I tied the journal to a successful research institute, and this undoubtedly increased knowledge of the journal and the number of interested parties. At the moment, the journal is linked to the St Andrews Institute of Intellectual History. The success of the Institute helps the journal a lot, and I have no doubt the opposite is the case too. I have always been keen to procure special issues in areas of research that people are interested in. I have also shamelessly used friends and colleagues across the globe to promote the journal and to provide reports on submitted papers. I am going to add a fourth point: I have always tried to make the turnaround for papers as speedy as possible, and to publish as quickly as possible when an article has been accepted.

• What are the biggest challenges facing your journal today?

I deal with so many articles these days that I do not really have time to worry much about anything. I cannot see the research field collapsing or the publisher giving up on the journal, and having been sold once by one publisher to another I can only say that it was a positive process. I think time and resources are the keys, and as long as you have these you can usually deal with problems that arise. Actually now that I think about it more the major problem is access. I do get authors from across the world bewailing the fact that their institution cannot afford a subscription or will not give them access, or that as private scholars they cannot afford to download articles. Obviously there will be movement on these fronts in the coming years.

• If you could give a word of advice to a new journal Editor, what would it be?

Be decisive. In the early years I worried a lot about submissions and authors and reports. I decided at some point that speed was the key and that if you string an author along it is worse than anything else. Even if a report is short, or you need to take a decision about a borderline case, the main thing is to get on with it. I try to avoid dialogue with an author about an article. I provide the reports and explain what to do. I give advice where possible. I think the worst editors – and I know they exist in every field – are those who keep asking authors for minor alterations, keep the authors waiting for verdicts, or are vague about the editorial process and about its outcome.

• What is the strangest thing that has happened to you as Editor of the journal?

When the journal was published by another publisher they took the decision to move the production of the journal to another continent. This did mean that some aspects of the production process were mangled from time to time. The worst thing that happened was that someone directly involved in getting papers ready for production had a nervous breakdown. This did not come to light for some months, and in the meantime lots of articles were simply removed from the production process and there was no record of their submission. In a few cases I did not have details of the papers submitted (a major failing on my part) and I had to wait for the authors to complain before I could do anything to address the problem. It took about a year to locate all of them and to put them back into production.

• What do you hope the journal will achieve in the next five years?

More readers. As long as people are using the journal I am happy.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Richard Whatmore

Professor Richard Whatmore is Director of the St Andrews Institute of Intellectual History in the UK. http://www.intellectualhistory.net/