Judging whether an editor is good at the job is essential; however, this task may be difficult or even impossible. Several factors are involved, many of which are beyond the control of an editor. We examined some of such situations, which are as follows: (1) Reviewer's abuse of privileged information, in which a reviewer or an associate, who is likely to be a competitor, directs members of their laboratory to rapidly replicate the data and submit the resulting paper in the same or another journal while delaying publication of the submitted paper; (2) defective micromanagement by a stakeholder or owner, such as failure to order paper for the publication of a journal; (3) penny-wise dollar-foolish mismanagement by the owner, such as limiting the figures allowed to an absurdly low number in a dermatology journal (we have a visual specialty); (4) factional abuse, such as when members of a society use a gimmick to exercise outsized influence to effect a change in journal's content, and (5) "sto tavo (who is in charge)?," in which changes in the governance of an ownership society or publisher affect quality of the journal.