Agronomy Journal

Editorial Board MeetingTuesday, 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

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

1/01/2012 to 10/5/2012 364 submitted34 (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

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

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 20110

100

200

300

400

500

600

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9Tot. Submitted International USA

Imp. Fac

Year

Man

uscri

pts

Imp

act

Facto

r

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 20110

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Tot. Submitted Published

% Accepted

Year

Man

uscri

pts

Perc

en

t A

ccep

ted

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)

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

Technical Editor, 2001-08

Average number of papers as Technical Editor 7+ years, 78/yearTotal 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)

Associate EditorAverage 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.

1. “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.

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

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

Past 12 MonthsSubmitted Accepte

dImmediate Reject

Reject Minor Revision

Major Revision

% Accepted

462 191 47 184 149 181 45.30%

Journal Statistics

      Prior 12 Months

Avg. days from submission to first decision 34

Avg. Associate Editor turnaround time (days) - Original

19

Avg. Reviewer turnaround time (days) - Original

19

Avg. Associate Editor turnaround time (days) - Revision

14

Avg. Reviewer turnaround time (days) - Revision

14

Avg. Time to Assign Reviewer (days) - Original 5

Avg. Time to Assign Reviewer (days) - Revision

3

Avg. days from submission to final decision 55

Manuscripts Submitted by Topic Area1. Agronomic Application of Genetic Resources 17

2. Crop Ecology and Physiology 493. Crop Economics, Production, and Management 67

4. Climatology and Water Management 165. Biometry, Modeling, and Statistics 416. Soil Fertility and Crop Nutrition 71

7. Organic Agriculture and Agroecology 118. Soil Tillage, Conservation, and Management 23

9. Agronomy, Soils, and Environmental Quality 76

Urban Agriculture 011. Biofuels 1812. Pest Interactions in Agronomic Systems 9

Accept/Release Report by Year Decision Made

Year Accept Release Release w/o

Review Total%

Accepted

2012 86 150 38 274 31.39%

2011 192 168 39 399 48.12%

2010 209 283 0 492 42.48%

2009 179 248 7 434 41.24%

2008 79 94 23 196 40.31%

Accept/Release Report by Year Manuscript Received

Year Accept Release Release w/o

Review Total%

Accepted

2012 139 172 38 349 39.83%

2011 191 167 39 397 48.11%

2010 192 281 2 475 40.42%

2009 199 245 28 472 42.16%

2008 24 78 0 102 23.53%

Submissions Report

Year

US Submissions

Intl. Submissions Total % Intl.

2012 176 220 396 55.56%

2011 208 219 427 51.29%

2010 258 271 529 51.23%

2009 234 232 466 49.79%

2008 120 100 220 45.45%