Publications: 97 | Followers: 0

Agronomy Journal -

Publish on Category: Birds 0

Agronomy Journal
Editorial Board MeetingTuesday, October 23, 2012, 3:00 to 5:00pm
3:00-3:05 Welcome3:05-3:20 ASA Publications Director, MarkMandelbaumDigitalLibrary and Page charges3:20-3:25 Recognize incoming and outgoing Editors3:25-3:30 AJStatistics, 2012 (submissions, accepted, rejected, etc.)2011symposium papers,BarryGlaz3:30-3:40 ManagingEditor’s Report, Sue Ernst (new page charges, electronic only, open access, TOC headings)3:40-3:50 Software issues, BrettHolteImpactFactor (discussion)Need to change due dates by SAE’sEasy access to web page showing AJ statistics Top reasons why papers are 1) accepted, 2) rejectedASA Abstract, example (326)4:00-4:20 AJ Editorial Structure (SAE-AE-SE, versus TE-AE)Utility of the Screening Editor, fake peer reviews4:20-4:50 Added issues as raised by SAE’s and AE’sAJboard 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 andnotreviewedAcceptance, 2012 47%Expected submissions, 2012 48026 SAE’s (2 retiring)94 AE’sAverage papers/SAE, 2012 12Range 4-16Crop science/genetics SAE
Increased submissions: ChinaandIndiaAdded SAEto assist in better evaluatingthese papersScienceis quite good, butstrugglewith EnglishASArecommends several web sites that can be used to improve their paper.
AJ 2007-08
EditorTechnical Editors (4-6 depending on the year)Crops (2)Production AgricultureBiometryModelingSoilsAssociate Editors (4-12 per category)
AJ 2007-08
Manuscripts assigned by the Editor to TE’s40% were “soils” papers, and 60% were crops, precision agriculture, biometry, management, etc.Not all were papers in the actual category each TE was listedSome 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 Editor7+ years, 78/yearTotal papers: 516Review time: 141± 92 days (includes 2ndreview)MethodsTechnical Editor1. assigned paper by Editor2. 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 notassign papers to an AE with outstanding papers or who had a poor processing time record4.Didassign 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 Editor
Average number of papers as Associate Editor6 years, 8-12/yearMethodsAssociate EditorAssigned paper by the Technical EditorRead abstract, methods, conclusionsLooked at the references (potential key reviewer)Identified 2-4 potential reviewers from referencesCalled 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.
Current review process
StrengthsEnlisting reviewers is very impersonal, matter of factIdentifying potential AE’s (reviewers) is efficientReview time is downWeaknessesLittle 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 ErnstBrett HolteBrent GodshalkWarren DickMeg IpsenPenny MaganaSAE’sAE’s





Make amazing presentation for free
Agronomy Journal -