But scientific editing is really a very important activity in the scientific community, providing the conditions for scientists to start or end their research. The results of editing cannot be ignored, nor can its procedures. The editor deals with the different rights of the author, the reviewer, and the reader, independently merges their opinions according to scientific principles, selects the most valuable contributions to the development of knowledge, and makes the journal an easy path or bridge between different communities. This complex work can never be omitted or done by other people. The problem is whether anyone can become an editor without special qualifications.
Some people call the editor a gatekeeper.
I consider an editor is more like a referee. Editors decide between different opinions about findings, especially when there is competition between different groups. They continually judge what is or is not really original, what is or is not really reasonable, and what can or cannot be published. When an author submits a manuscript, it feels like attending a football match and anxiously waiting for the final result. As this judgement is made for all scientific spectators at one time, it represents a big challenge to the editor s capability.