1 / 17

Agronomy Journal

Agronomy Journal. Editorial Board Meeting Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 3:00 to 5:00pm. 3:00-3:05 Welcome 3:05-3:20 ASA Publications Director, Mark Mandelbaum Digital Library and Page charges 3:20-3:25 Recognize incoming and outgoing Editors

foster
Download Presentation

Agronomy Journal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agronomy Journal Editorial Board MeetingTuesday, October 23, 2012, 3:00 to 5:00pm

  2. 3:00-3:05 Welcome 3:05-3:20 ASA Publications Director, Mark Mandelbaum Digital Library and Page charges 3:20-3:25 Recognize incoming and outgoing Editors 3:25-3:30 AJ Statistics, 2012 (submissions, accepted, rejected, etc.) 2011 symposium papers, Barry Glaz 3:30-3:40 Managing Editor’s Report, Sue Ernst (new page charges, electronic only, open access, TOC headings) 3:40-3:50 Software issues, Brett Holte Impact Factor (discussion) Need to change due dates by SAE’s Easy access to web page showing AJ statistics http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=15639&tip=sid 3:50-4:00 Top reasons why papers are 1) accepted, 2) rejected ASA Abstract, example (326) 4:00-4:20 AJ Editorial Structure (SAE-AE-SE, versus TE-AE) Utility of the Screening Editor, fake peer reviews 4:20-4:50 Added issues as raised by SAE’s and AE’s AJ board needs to encourage authors to publish in AJ (symposia from the meetings)Need for added Crops SAE (genetics) 5:00 Adjourn

  3. 1/01/2012 to 10/5/2012 364 submitted 34 (9%) rejected and not reviewed • Acceptance, 2012 47% • Expected submissions, 2012 480 • 26 SAE’s (2 retiring)94 AE’sAverage papers/SAE, 2012 12 Range 4-16 • Crop science/genetics SAE

  4. Increased submissions: China and India • Added SAE to assist in better evaluating these papers • Science is quite good, but struggle with English • ASA recommends several web sites that can be used to improve their paper. • https://www.agronomy.org/publications/language-help • http://virtual.parkland.edu/walker102/punct.htm • http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/ • Instructions to Authors • https://www.agronomy.org/files/publications/aj-instructions-author.pdf

  5. AJ 2007-08 • Editor • Technical Editors (4-6 depending on the year) • Crops (2) • Production Agriculture • Biometry • Modeling • Soils • Associate Editors (4-12 per category)

  6. AJ 2007-08 • Manuscripts assigned by the Editor to TE’s • 40% were “soils” papers, and 60% were crops, precision agriculture, biometry, management, etc. • Not all were papers in the actual category each TE was listed • Some papers returned to authors by the TE without sending them out to an AE. Reasons, • 1. English was so poor that they would not have been given a fair chance. Asked the Author to get the paper to an “English Speaker” and for them to correct it. • 2. Clearly something missing in analysis, main Table, Figures, etc. • 3. English units throughout, other units

  7. Technical Editor, 2001-08 Average number of papers as Technical Editor 7+ years, 78/year Total papers: 516 • Review time: 141 ± 92 days (includes 2nd review) Methods • Technical Editor • 1. assigned paper by Editor • 2. before assigning paper to AE, checked to see how many papers he/she had in-queue (in process). • Did not assign papers to anyone who had 3 papers in-queue (active). • Seldom assigned papers to anyone who had 2 papers in queue (active). • 3. Did not assign papers to an AE with outstanding papers or who had a poor processing time record • 4. Did assign papers to an AE who had already processed more than his/her fair share of papers that year, and who only had 2 papers in queue. (AE’s who just knew how to properly process papers)

  8. Associate Editor Average number of papers as Associate Editor • 6 years, 8-12/year Methods • Associate Editor • Assigned paper by the Technical Editor • Read abstract, methods, conclusions • Looked at the references (potential key reviewer) • Identified 2-4 potential reviewers from references • Called 2-4 of these potential reviewers on the phone. • “such and such have referenced your “AJ” paper of 2005. Commented on the importance of their work, and that being cited was very important. Once I had them there (respect for their work), I had them on the “hook” and they couldn’t say no to my next sentence, “can you review a paper with some similar work…..” Using this approach, I never had a potential reviewer say no.

  9. Current review process • Strengths • Enlisting reviewers is very impersonal, matter of fact • Identifying potential AE’s (reviewers) is efficient • Review time is down • Weaknesses • Little communication between TE’s (now SAE’s) • Limited editorial board interaction, • Too many SAE’s, AE’s (reviewers) to encourage any kind of synergy

  10. Thank you • Sue Ernst • Brett Holte • Brent Godshalk • Warren Dick • Meg Ipsen • Penny Magana • SAE’s • AE’s

More Related