Editorial Leadership Institute: A Structured Approach to Editorial Workflows in Academic Publishing

Academic publishing faces a recurring challenge: editorial transitions are often ad hoc, documentation is sparse, and leadership changes can disrupt journal operations for months. The Editorial Leadership Institute (ELI), a 30-day online program held in July–August 2023, attempts to address these gaps by offering editors and publishers a structured curriculum focused on workflow documentation, strategic planning, and DEI integration. Led by Cheryl E. Ball, a veteran editor with over two decades of experience, the institute provides a mix of group sessions, one-on-one coaching, and peer accountability. This article examines the program’s design, its claimed deliverables, and the broader context of editorial training—including limitations and alternative approaches.

[IMAGE: A split image showing a cluttered editor’s desk on one side and an organized workflow chart on the other.]

The Hidden Crisis in Editorial Leadership

Journal editors and publishing unit managers frequently inherit fragmented systems. A 2021 survey by the Scholarly Kitchen found that 43% of academic journal editors reported spending more than 15 hours per week on administrative tasks that could be streamlined with better documentation. Without clear succession plans, knowledge is lost when editors leave; a 2019 study in *Learned Publishing* noted that turnover rates in editorial positions can approach 20% annually, with many transitions lacking formal handover materials.

The rise of remote work has intensified these problems. Collaborative tools and asynchronous workflows require explicit process documentation that many journals lack. Simultaneously, the push for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in publishing—accelerated after the 2020 racial justice protests—has forced editors to reconsider how review processes, authorship guidelines, and editorial board compositions reflect institutional biases. However, a 2022 report from the Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communications found that fewer than 30% of journals had documented DEI policies embedded in their workflows.

The Editorial Leadership Institute positions itself as a direct response to these issues. Its 30-day, all-remote format is designed to help participants produce concrete documents—business plans, job descriptions, editorial flowcharts—that can serve as living references. But whether such a short, intensive program can create lasting change remains an open question.

[IMAGE: A timeline graphic illustrating the 30-day schedule with key milestones: kickoff, 1:1 session, weekly forums, final deliverables.]

What Is the Editorial Leadership Institute? Program Structure and Cost

ELI ran from July 17 to August 18, 2023, entirely over Zoom. The $2,500 fee (approximately $2,300 for early registrants) included:

- Eight bi-weekly 45-minute cohort meetings (two per week)

- One 60-minute one-on-one session with instructor Cheryl E. Ball

- Weekly accountability check-ins via discussion forums

- Access to course materials and templates

Participants were expected to complete homework on their own time—estimated at several hours per week—making the program part-time but intensive. The institute capped enrollment at an unspecified number to ensure individual attention.

The cost places ELI in the mid-range of editorial training. Compare this with the Society for Scholarly Publishing’s (SSP) webinars, which run $50–$150 per session, or the Council of Science Editors’ (CSE) annual meeting registration at approximately $600. However, ELI offers a more sustained, cohort-based experience with direct feedback. Critics might note that $2,500 is a significant investment for early-career editors or small journals, and that no scholarship or sliding-scale options were publicly advertised for this session.

The program’s structure follows a growing trend in professional development: asynchronous-heavy, cohort-based courses paired with live touchpoints. Platforms like Coursera and EdX offer similar models for business and leadership training, but ELI’s niche focus on editorial workflows is relatively unique. Independent evaluations of such programs remain scarce; the efficacy of cohort-based learning in editorial contexts has not been rigorously studied.

[IMAGE: A mockup of a binder or digital folder containing sample documents—flowchart, job description, strategic plan—with checkmarks.]

Key Deliverables: Documentation as a Foundation

According to the program syllabus, participants leave with revised drafts of:

- A business plan for their editorial unit

- A strategic plan (1–3 year horizon)

- Job descriptions for editorial roles

- An editorial process flowchart

- A DEI integration plan

These documents are intended to serve as living references, not static artifacts. Ball’s approach emphasizes that documentation should be updated regularly and used as onboarding tools for new staff or editors.

The emphasis on DEI is notable. Many journals treat DEI as a separate initiative—a diversity statement or a committee—rather than an embedded practice. ELI encourages participants to examine every stage of the editorial workflow: from reviewer selection to author submission guidelines to board composition. This mirrors recommendations from organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which increasingly call for structural changes rather than isolated policies.

However, the 30-day timeline raises questions. A 2020 study in *Journal of Scholarly Publishing* found that implementing meaningful DEI changes in editorial culture typically requires 6–12 months of sustained effort. A one-month institute can plausibly produce a draft plan, but translating that into practice depends on organizational commitment and follow-up—which the program does not provide after its end.

[IMAGE: A headshot of Cheryl E. Ball (if permissible) or a stylized portrait with editorial tools and a vision board.]

Who Is Cheryl E. Ball? Experience and Approach

Cheryl E. Ball brings 25 years of experience in academic editing and publishing. She served as editor of the open-access journal *Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities* and has worked on various digital publishing projects. Her professional background includes teaching editing at the university level and consulting for scholarly societies.

Ball’s philosophy, as stated on the institute’s materials, is: “I want to help you make your life as an editor easier.” Testimonials from colleagues, such as Stephanie Foote (former editor of *Resilience*), describe Ball as someone who combines “big-picture thinking with granular management.” While such endorsements are positive, they come from a collaborator, not an independent evaluator. No third-party reviews or participant testimonials from previous ELI sessions were publicly available at the time of writing.

Ball’s approach is practical and document-focused. She advocates for repeatable processes—flowcharts, checklists, template language—that reduce cognitive load and enable smoother leadership transitions. This aligns with management literature on knowledge transfer, but it also assumes that editorial problems are primarily process-based rather than structural or resource-driven. Critics might argue that many editorial crises stem from underfunding, lack of institutional support, or volatile volunteer labor—issues that document templates alone cannot solve.

[IMAGE: A digitally stylized comparison table showing ELI vs. other editorial training options (e.g., SSP webinars, CSE workshops, self-guided resources).]

Why This Model Works (and Doesn’t): Economic and Technological Considerations

Advantages

The institute’s design reflects market realities. Editors increasingly seek asynchronous learning that fits irregular schedules. Cohort-based models, like those used by the Recurrence Institute or Write the Docs, provide peer accountability—a factor that longitudinal studies (e.g., from the Online Learning Consortium) show improves completion rates compared to fully self-paced courses.

The Zoom-enabled format eliminates travel costs, making the program accessible to international participants. The 1:1 coaching component is a differentiator; few editorial training programs offer individual feedback on specific documents.

Limitations

Despite these strengths, the model has gaps:

- Scalability: With only one instructor and capped enrollment, the program cannot address the wide variety of editorial contexts (large commercial journals, small society-run journals, university presses, etc.). Individualized feedback may be thin for participants with unusual needs.

- Cost barrier: $2,500 is prohibitive for many freelance editors, early-career scholars, or journals in the Global South. No information about financial assistance was provided for the 2023 session.

- Outcome measurement: The institute does not publicly track long-term outcomes. How many participants actually implemented their documents? Did workflow efficiency improve? Independent post-program evaluations are absent.

- Depth of DEI work: As noted, one month may be insufficient to develop a robust, context-sensitive DEI plan. The risk is that participants produce generic statements rather than actionable strategies.

Alternative training options exist. The SSP offers a three-part “Editorial Leadership” webinar series for under $300. CSE provides a free “Editor Toolkit” with templates and guidelines. Some universities have internal editorial management workshops. These are less intensive but also less costly.

[IMAGE: A photo of a diverse group of professionals looking at a laptop with spreadsheet and calendar open, but no identifiable logos.]

The Need for Editorial Leadership Training: Independent Data and Context

Claims about the “crisis” in editorial leadership are supported by some independent sources. A 2022 report from the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) noted that “editorial succession planning remains a top concern for two-thirds of publishing organizations surveyed.” A 2020 survey of journal editors by the American Sociological Association found that 58% had no formal training for their editorial role before starting.

However, these data do not necessarily validate ELI’s specific approach. The broader need for training is clear, but the market is fragmented. Many editors rely on mentoring, conferences, and informal networks. ELI’s structured, document-based method is one solution among many.

Notably, there is little peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of editorial leadership training programs. A 2021 literature review in *Learned Publishing* identified only five studies that evaluated editorial training interventions, and none were randomized or controlled. This makes it difficult to compare ELI with alternatives or to attribute improvements to the institute itself.

Conclusion: Balanced Takeaways

The Editorial Leadership Institute offers a structured, hands-on approach to a real problem: the lack of documentation and leadership planning in academic publishing. Its focus on deliverables—business plans, flowcharts, DEI integration—is practical. The cohort model and 1:1 coaching provide more support than typical webinars.

However, the program is not a panacea. Its cost limits accessibility. Its short duration may produce drafts rather than deep change. Independent evidence of its effectiveness is absent. Editors considering ELI should weigh it against cheaper or free alternatives, consider their specific workflow challenges, and be realistic about what a 30-day program can accomplish.

Ultimately, the institute fills a niche. For editors who need a kick-start to write documents they have procrastinated for years, ELI might be worthwhile. For those seeking ongoing mentorship, structural reform in their institutions, or research-backed training, other resources may be more appropriate.

[IMAGE: A professional, modern workspace with a diverse editorial team gathered around a large digital screen showing a flowchart and a calendar marking July 17 to August 18. Papers with placeholder text lie on a table. Soft natural lighting, no text or watermark. Style: clean, collaborative, educational.]