Should I still submit a manuscript to a journal if a member of the editorial board is advancing a competing theory that is incompatible with my work? I have completed (my first) manuscript, which falls well within the scope of a particular journal.

However, a member of that journal's editorial board (or, to be precise, the editor's student) is aggressively advancing a model that, if valid, would essentially negate much of my work. At this time, the evidence for both competing models remains circumstantial, with the bulk of publications (but not quite a consensus) currently favouring my approach.

Of the individuals on that journal's editorial board, this editor works in the subdiscipline closest to mine, so my concern is that this person would be, from the journal's perspective, the most logical choice for my submission.

Is my unease over the possibility of editorial bias warranted?

What would be the most appropriate course of action in this case?



(Another potentially relevant note/complication: The work in which the editor is advancing this competing model is unpublished, and I am aware of it only because of word from colleagues. I received substantial evidence that the unpublished work exists; this is not based on hearsay. I note this because it makes it impossible to point out the potential for bias or a competing interest by referring to the extant corpus of literature.)
Many journals will allow you to suggest a handling editor, and pretty much every journal will allow you to specify reviewers that you believe should not review your paper due to conflict of interest.  This is an appropriate situation to invoke these options.

Depending on the particular forms the journal uses for submission, the right place to put an explanation of your concern may be either the submission forms or the cover letter.  You do not need to go into much detail, simply saying:


  "Editor X's student is working on a competing model, so I am concerned about bias."


If you are dealing with an honorable journal, that should be enough: this is an entirely normal and reasonable concern you should not have to back this up with published evidence (people understand that scientists talk, pre-publication), nor do you need to denigrate the character of Editor X in any way.  They have many editors for a reason, and many possible reviewers they can draw from as well, and every good scientist understands that it's usually better to be safe than sorry when it comes to dealing with conflict of interest concerns.