I am probably the most unusual editor among all those who run online publications. What a regular editor looks like: working at a laptop, distributing tasks to authors and editing articles. I do the same thing, but at the same time I work as a geophysicist in the field. Just recently I edited an article How to find lithium-bearing pegmatites by ground gravity exploration after taking field measurements all day. Whether this is good or bad, I want to speculate about it.
The biggest disadvantage is that I cannot devote all my working time to managing GeoConversation media. And, of course, I get tired after working on profiles. During my business trip to the Yukon, I could only devote an hour to editing and coordinating the release of material.
And here I want to say a huge thank you to the team for the streamlined editorial processes. An hour was enough to release two articles and one e-mail newsletter in three weeks, while the editor-in-chief was somewhere in the forest. By the way, I recommend it to you subscribeso as not to miss interesting materials.
I see a huge advantage in the fact that as an editor I know the topics on which we publish articles, not from the outside, but from the inside from the epicenter of events. This gives me confidence that all our material is relevant and meets the needs of readers. For example, when we were adapting a company case Abitibi Geophysics, added her field photographs to show how gravimetric studies are done.
Now I ask you, what is better than an editor who deals only with editorial tasks, or an editor who himself obtains photos from the scene? Let’s discuss this in the comments.
