To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Journal editors play a central role in academic publishing. However, little is known about the experiences of editors within paediatric cardiology. This study aimed to explore the motivations, workload, peer review challenges, and sustainability of editorial roles in this specialty.
Methods:
A cross-sectional, anonymous survey was conducted among paediatric cardiology journal editors and associate editors. Quantitative responses were analysed descriptively, and free-text responses underwent inductive thematic analysis.
Results:
A total of 28 editors participated. Most respondents (82.1%) identified education and mentorship as key motivations for editorial work. However, 78.6% reported that editorial roles are becoming increasingly difficult, and only 21.4% reported having sufficient protected time, highlighting substantial workload pressures. Reviewer fatigue was a major challenge, with 75.0% reporting difficulty securing timely, high-quality peer review. While 57.9% acknowledged that impact factor influences editorial considerations, 89.5% agreed that journals with lower impact factors remain highly valuable for education. Only 28.6% of respondents considered the current editorial model sustainable, with 46.4% expressing concern regarding long-term sustainability.
Conclusions:
Paediatric cardiology journal editors demonstrate strong intrinsic motivation but face increasing workload, reviewer fatigue, and limited institutional support. These findings highlight a growing imbalance between editorial expectations and available support structures. Greater institutional recognition, provision of protected time, and pragmatic innovation in peer review processes may be required to sustain editorial engagement and maintain the educational and scientific mission of paediatric cardiology publishing.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.