| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
a Colorado State Univ., Agric. Exp. Stn., Western Colorado Research Center, 1910 L Road, Fruita, CO 81521
b Ohio State Univ., OARDC-SENR, 1680 Madison Ave., Wooster, OH 44691
c Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Inst., Blacksburg, VA 24061
* Corresponding author (calvin.pearson{at}colostate.edu)
Received for publication October 24, 2005.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONFUNCTION OF ASSOCIATE EDITORSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFUNCTION OF ASSOCIATE EDITORSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
In this article we discuss the responsibilities, duties, and vital role that associate editors perform in working with authors and reviewers, and the assistance associate editors provide to authors in publishing their research findings in Agronomy Journal. If you have not served on the Editorial Board or are not acquainted with someone who has served on the Editorial Board, you may view the review process and the function of the Editorial Board as a mysterious and onerous process. A thorough understanding of the review and editorial process may help you prepare manuscripts that have a better chance for acceptance (Day, 1994). This is of particular value to authors who are just starting their scientific career or who are not experienced with the peer review process. In this article we detail the function of the Agronomy Journal Editorial Board, particularly the associate editor. The reader should keep in mind that this paper is a narrative of the editorial process and is not meant to be the authority for Agronomy Journal rules and regulations. Agronomy Journal Editorial Board policy is determined by the Editorial Board and is subject to change.
The Agronomy Journal Editorial Board consists of the Editor-in-Chief of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA); the Editor; the Managing Editor; five technical editors (one in row crops, and one in forages and related topics), production agriculture, soils, and agroclimatology/agronomic modeling; a large number of associate editors; Headquarters Assistant and Managing Editors working on the journal; the Executive Vice President; and the Publications Director (ASA, 1998). In the hierarchal structure of the Editorial Board, associate editors function directly under a technical editor (ASA, 2005b). Associate editors comprise the largest group of specialized editors on the Editorial Board. Fifty-eight associate editors served on the Agronomy Journal Editorial Board during 2004 (Pearson, 2005); this number is needed to handle the more than 300 manuscripts that are typically submitted to Agronomy Journal each year.
Appointment of Associate Editors
The Editor typically appoints associate editors based on a recommendation from a technical editor or another associate editor. An associate editor often suggests a person for their own replacement as they retire from the Editorial Board. Those selected to serve as associate editors usually rank high in their field of expertise. Accepting an appointment to serve a 3-year term as an associate editor indicates a commitment to serve the scientific community. Upon satisfactory performance, associate editors may be appointed to a second 3-year term. Occasionally, scientists volunteer to serve on the Editorial Board, and the Editor determines if there is a need for another associate editor. The volunteer may not be needed if an associate editor currently serving on the board is covering their expertise.
Serving on the Agronomy Journal Editorial Board, notably through peer interaction, derives numerous personal benefits. Becoming acquainted with peers can advance the associate editor's professional career by improving the opportunity to collaborate in preparing research proposal submissions; becoming involved in multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional research projects, in helping to organize and participate in the exchange of information at technical meetings; and in preparing original research findings and other scholarly works. Associate editors benefit from serving on the Editorial Board by learning about the latest research results, by exposure to different writing styles, and writing summary comments for reviewed manuscripts, all of which can help them become better writers themselves. Depending on employment status, serving as an associate editor of a well-respected journal can also be a valuable asset for tenure and promotion.
|
FUNCTION OF ASSOCIATE EDITORS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFUNCTION OF ASSOCIATE EDITORSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
The responsibility of corresponding and working with authors in revising papers is delegated by technical editors to associate editors (ASA, 1999). Thus, associate editors have more one-on-one contact with authors than do other editors. Associate editors do not approve or disapprove manuscripts. They recommend, in writing, a course of action to the technical editor regarding the disposition of assigned manuscripts. Associate editors should not convey to the author the impression that a manuscript will be approved or released. When an associate editor recommends a manuscript for release, that recommendation must be accompanied by supporting evidence and examples to justify release of the manuscript. In addition to editing manuscripts, associate editors also assist the Editor in defining the journal's aims, policies, editorial coverage, and in recruiting members for the Editorial Board (ASA, 1999).
A significant amount of time is required by associate editors to manage reviews of assigned manuscripts, correspond with reviewers, and to conduct their own reviews of manuscripts. Depending on the scientific merit, presentation, and nuances of the manuscript, associate editors can spend up to 20 hours working on a single manuscript (Woodford, 1986); however, most Agronomy Journal associate editors average 2 to 4 hours per week discharging their responsibilities. Four to eight manuscripts are typically assigned each year to an associate editor who serves on the Editorial Board.
Not all of the time spent by associate editors is directed at specifically reviewing manuscripts. Time is also spent corresponding with reviewers, authors, technical editors, and in accomplishing the necessary tasks that it takes to conduct quality reviews and to make sound recommendations regarding the disposition of papers. Because editing manuscripts and contributing to a scientific society as an associate editor on the Agronomy Journal Editorial Board is time-consuming, a high level of commitment is essential. New associate editors will likely experience a learning curve to ensure they have acquired a thorough knowledge of the Publications Handbook & Style Manual and Agronomy Journal Editorial Board policy.
Manuscripts are written by a variety of authors who have a variety of abilities and writing styles. By the time a manuscript has been accepted for publication it has been reviewed many times. Required changes to a manuscript from so many "in-house" and peer reviews can result in manuscripts that become little more than bland homogenous prose. Editors and reviewers should endeavor to maintain an author's unique but acceptable writing style. Editors and reviewers must not be so restrictive and demanding that authors feel that they must incorporate all suggested, nonessential changes in a revision of their manuscript or face the likelihood that their paper will not be accepted for publication. Additionally, authors are encouraged to include reasonable scientific speculation and insight into their manuscripts; however, authors should clearly identify speculation (ASA, 1998, p. 18). Discussion on controversial topics and issues are also acceptable in manuscripts if they are presented in a clear and fair manner.
Manuscript Tracker for Electronic Submissions
In March 2002, the Agronomy Journal Editorial Board officially began using Manuscript Tracker (ASA, 2003), and beginning 1 Jan. 2004 the Board required all manuscript submissions to Agronomy Journal be submitted electronically through Manuscript Tracker (Pearson, 2004). As a web-based system, Manuscript Tracker has advantages for both authors and editors, including faster reviews, minimal mailing costs, and convenient submission and status checking of manuscripts. Basic information about Manuscript Tracker is available online (ASA, 2005d).
The Manuscript Tracker system also helps editors use their time more efficiently so they can focus more on reviewing and editing, and less on administrative and clerical duties (filling out forms, filing, mailing, etc.) associated with handling paper manuscripts. Nearly all of the review process, including documentation, reporting, and much of the correspondence, is handled within the Manuscript Tracker system.
Dealing with Substandard Associate Editor Performance
Not all associate editors perform their duties with the same proficiency and exactness. Dealing with poor-performing associate editors is the responsibility of technical editors and the Editor. When an associate editor performs in a substandard manner, the technical editor contacts the associate editor to discuss the situation. Sometimes associate editors can experience a temporary situation that hampers their ability to perform their editorial duties, including health problems, family situations, or work overloads. Together, the technical editor and the associate editor can discuss the situation to find a suitable approach to deal with the problem. One solution may be suspending or decreasing the number of manuscripts assigned to the associate editor until the situation is resolved. For associate editors who do not perform editorial duties satisfactorily or in a timely manner, the technical editor may decide to stop assigning manuscripts to the associate editor and find a replacement. Given the 3-year term of appointment for associate editors and that it often takes several months and possibly even a year before poor performance becomes apparent, the matter can often be handled amicably. Underperforming associate editors are not reappointed to a second term. In some situations, technical editors may ask associate editors to resign from the Editorial Board.
Associate Editors and Reviewers
Procedural Matters
Reviewers are central to the publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts. Without willing reviewers, the peer-review system would fail. Timely and technically sound peer reviews are essential to help authors improve their manuscripts. High quality reviews help maintain the scientific relevance of Agronomy Journal and portray the journal as a positive, professional, and scientifically relevant journal. Associate editors provide a significant service to authors by selecting and using good reviewers. Instructions to reviewers have been posted on the web for those who wish to become familiar with this information (ASA, 2005c). These instructions contain useful suggestions to reviewers when performing their duties. The Council of Science Editors (1983, p. 82–83), formerly the Council of Biology Editors, also provides worthwhile advice and tips for reviewers. Expectations from reviewers go well beyond the actual review of manuscripts (Bland et al., 2001) to include considerations related to confidentiality, timeliness, scientific expertise, collegiality, plagiarism, intellectual property, conflict of interest, and bias.
Agronomy Journal uses a double-blind system of review (ASA, 1996). Double-blind reviews ensure that reviewers do not know author names or affiliations and authors do not know reviewer names. Given Manuscript Tracker and electronic submission, authors must prepare their manuscripts without providing their names, affiliations/addresses, or acknowledgments within the paper. Likewise, tables, figures, headers, footers, and computer software should not contain revealing information such as may be found in document summaries and properties (Pearson, 2004). These efforts are intended to avoid bias in the review process.
The double-blind review system does not work well with some papers, particularly those that deal with software, because the identity of the author is often revealed by the software or an associated website. The Agronomy Journal Editorial Board approved giving software authors the option of being known, or if they wish, they can alter their software and websites to remain anonymous for the review (ASA, 2000).
Reviewers have an obligation to assess their potential personal bias against the authors or the manuscript they have been asked to review. A cursory inspection will not always reveal such a biased connection between an author and a reviewer, and it is not always easy to eliminate potential conflicts of interest. A list of questions is available on the web at www.asa-cssa-sssa.org/publications/pdf/AJ_Reviewer_Duties_and_Info.pdf (verified 9 Jan. 2006) to help reviewers determine if they have a bias toward a manuscript (ASA, 2005c). If a reviewer answers "yes" to one or more of these questions, they should almost certainly request that the manuscript be assigned to someone else.
Identifying Potential Reviewers
One of the most critical tasks for associate editors is to identify qualified reviewers. Finding and selecting technically qualified reviewers to meet the specific needs of each manuscript can be challenging. A common complaint from authors is that the review takes too long. To reduce the time a manuscript is in review, associate editors are encouraged to locate and assign the manuscript to reviewers within a few days after the manuscript is assigned to them.
Associate editors use various ways to identify potential reviewers, including the following:
Associate editors can contact reviewers by email, telephone, post, or personal visit. Reviewers may prefer how they are contacted. Each approach has its merits and drawbacks; for example, postal services may be convenient but are slower than email or telephone. Telephone contacts and office visits offer more personal comments and allow an associate editor the opportunity to establish closer communication with the reviewer. Email and postal contacts are less personal, but for some reviewers and associate editors they are an efficient means of solicitation. Sending an initial email and following up with a phone call to the potential reviewer also has merits. Email solicitations are not ideal because emails may be filtered and may not reach the potential reviewer. Our experience suggests that most reviewers respond within 3 days. After 3 days, associate editors may try again to contact the reviewer. If no response from a potential reviewer has been received in 5 days, that potential reviewer should probably be removed from consideration, notified to disregard the request for a review, and an alternate reviewer contacted. Generally, if all commitments to review the paper can be secured within 2 weeks of receiving the paper, the decision on the paper can still be made in a timely manner.
When submitting a manuscript through Manuscript Tracker, authors have the opportunity to list potential reviewers. Authors should carefully consider the names of reviewers they suggest because associate editors try to avoid conflicts of interest between author and reviewer. Reviewer suggestions provided by the author should not be an individual who has worked closely with the author in the past or has strong connections that would prevent the reviewer from providing an unbiased review. Associate editors should review the author's most recent publications to determine if a potential conflict of interest exists.
The Review Process
Two reviewers, as a minimum, are required to review each manuscript. When identifying potential reviewers, the associate editor endeavors to find three reviewers who could provide a sound review of the manuscript. This is done in the event one of the reviewers cannot perform the review. Multiple reviews are also useful in obtaining additional suggestions for improving the manuscript. It is recommended that at least one of the reviewers possesses exceptional expertise in the subject area and that all reviewers are qualified to review. Although reviewers may have some degree of expertise, it is wise to identify one "main" reviewer who can be relied on in the case of mixed recommendations. This can make the associate editor's job easier, particularly if the paper lies outside the associate editor's general area of expertise.
The associate editor must also conduct a review of the manuscript. When a reviewer returns a quality review and both the associate editor and reviewer agree the associate editor should communicate with the authors and ask them to begin revising the manuscript (ASA, 2005b). If additional reviews come in, the associate editor should forward them to the authors to be included in the final revision.
Reviewers are allowed 30 days to complete a review (ASA, 2005c). The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that reviews are completed in a timely manner lies with the associate editor. Associate editors will encounter tardy reviewers and may need to reassign the manuscript to another reviewer. Contacting reviewers before assigning them a manuscript and agreeing on a realistic timetable concerning review completion may motivate a reviewer to complete the task on time. If extenuating circumstances exist, the associate editor may extend the deadline for completing the review. Reviewers who develop a reputation for tardiness should be avoided.
At times, substandard reviews are conducted. If a reviewer provides a substandard review, the associate editor may select another reviewer. Also, a poor review should be discounted or ignored by associate editors. Substandard, poor reviews should not adversely influence the final disposition of the manuscript.
Reviewer Comportment
Associate editors encourage factual and informative reviewer comments that authors can use to improve the manuscript (Shea, 2001). Comments and suggestions presented in a kind, constructive, and professional manner are encouraged. Negative commentary about the manuscript or about the authors is counterproductive. Associate editors should ask reviewers to edit out unprofessional, derogatory, or inflammatory comments in the review (Pearson, 2004). Asking reviewers to edit out their own negative or unprofessional comments should increase their awareness of providing constructive and professional reviews. If it is not possible for the reviewer to do the self-editing, then the associate editor should do it so unprofessional comments do not reach the author. The associate editor has been given the authority to edit out inappropriate reviewer comments and should only remove potentially inflammatory or degrading language in an attempt to maintain a professional exchange between the reviewer and the author. The associate editor should not change the substance or alter the decision provided by a reviewer.
Associate Editors and Authors
The responsibility for proper preparation of a manuscript rests solely with the author (Heichel et al., 1994). Editors expect authors to carefully read the "Instructions to Authors" regarding journal requirements for manuscript preparation and submission (ASA, 2005a; ASA, 1998). They also expect authors to meticulously follow manuscript preparation, formatting guidelines, style, and submission requirements, including instructions for page layout (margins, etc.); line spacing; line numbering; and formatting for references, tables, figures, and visuals (Malmfors et al., 2004).
Aside from all the rules regarding proper formatting and style, the scientific writing in a manuscript must be logical and clear (Brandner et al., 1975). Papers not written using sound logic and clear presentation are difficult for both editors and reviewers to follow. A well-written paper is more readily understood by editors and reviewers and has a better chance of being accepted and published in a timely manner with fewer revisions (Heichel et al., 1994). Manuscripts that contain poor organization, inconsistencies, and lack clarity are likely to be found unacceptable for publication by an Editorial Board (Ebel et al., 1987). Associate editors and reviewers are not expected to guess what an author intended when the writing is so vague that it is difficult to follow (Fuccillo, 1978). Editors and reviewers do not have the time and are not expected to rewrite a poorly written or poorly organized manuscript nor should they be expected to provide extensive improvement of poor grammar or shoddy style.
With recent developments in electronic media, new possibilities for publishing are available to authors. For example, supplementary information in video, color, animation, and complete data sets that are expensive or difficult to publish on paper can now be published in the online version of Agronomy Journal without additional charge (up to 50 Mbytes/issue) (Pearson, 2005). Supplementary information is only published online for manuscripts that have been accepted for publication.
Possible Review Outcomes
Three outcomes are possible for a manuscript submitted to Agronomy Journal. The first possible outcome is the manuscript is accepted as is without any or with only minor changes. This is the dream of every author; however, most manuscripts require some revision.
The second possible outcome is the manuscript is returned to the author for revision. In this case, the associate editor asks the author to revise the manuscript. When a manuscript needs only minor changes or revision, it is sent directly to the author from the associate editor. Once the manuscript has been revised, the associate editor has two options. The first option is acceptance of the manuscript, and the associate editor recommends to the technical editor that the manuscript be accepted. The second option is for the associate editor to send the revised manuscript out for another review; however, the preference is to use the second review option sparingly. Authors should address all comments and suggestions from reviewers and the associate editor during the first revision, and should provide detailed information to the associate editor on each comment from all reviewers. If suggested edits are not included in the revision, the author must provide point-by-point justification for why edits were not included. Failure by authors to conduct a thorough revision and to address all comments made by reviewers may result in release of the manuscript.
The third possible outcome is release of the manuscript. It is American Society of Agronomy editorial policy that no paper be accepted or released without at least two reviews recommending the same decision (ASA, 1999). When at least one reviewer and the associate editor recommend release of a paper, the associate editor prepares a cover letter summarizing the reasons for release. Associate editors send release recommendations automatically through Manuscript Tracker to the technical editor. A released manuscript will not receive further consideration for publication. In a few cases, the technical editor who informs the author of the release may provide suggestions for improving the manuscript and may even encourage the author to take the necessary time to revise the manuscript. Once such a manuscript has been revised, however, it must be resubmitted as a new manuscript.
Associate editors remain anonymous when recommending release of a manuscript if they have not communicated with the author. This precaution avoids unpleasant exchanges between associate editors and reactionary authors. If the manuscript is revised extensively and necessitates a re-review, the associate editor may assign the same or different reviewers. If after review of a revised manuscript the associate editor recommends to the technical editor that the paper be released, the associate editor would not retain anonymity when a manuscript is released in this situation. Regardless of the recommendation, the associate editor makes certain that the identity of reviewers is not revealed.
Recommendations for publication made by reviewers are often mixed. Recommendations for a particular manuscript may range from acceptance with only minor revision to outright release. Reviewers provide comments and suggestions for all manuscripts including those they recommend for release, but it is the associate editor who evaluates the comments of the reviewers and assesses the information and makes a recommendation to the technical editor if the paper should be published or not. Thus, the associate editor must thoughtfully consider the comments of the reviewers, read the manuscript carefully, and then decide the fate of the paper.
Scientifically sound, well written, and worthwhile manuscripts are publishable. Minor grammatical or formatting errors do not constitute sufficient justification for release of a manuscript. This is not to say that authors should submit a manuscript that does not meet journal standards, but evaluating manuscripts based on the science in them is at the heart of reviewing.
The review of scholarly manuscripts is a stressful experience for many authors (Kleinman, 2004). Yet, for most authors the review process can provide valuable constructive criticism (Woodford, 1986). Nevertheless, working with authors even under controversial conditions can proceed smoothly if authors and editors work in a collegial manner. Some associate editors, technical editors, and the Editor have experienced harsh reactions from upset authors, and abusive reactions by authors are never justified. Fortunately, this behavior rarely occurs. Abusive author behavior can be discouraging and even alarming to editors, and authors are encouraged to be professional when working with the Editorial Board. Associate editors are also expected to be professional, courteous, and ethical at all times (ASA, 2005b, 2005e; Pearson, 2004).
Author Revisions of Manuscripts
Authors must complete revisions in 90 days. Given the advent of Manuscript Tracker and electronic submissions and reviews, the Editorial Board discussed the possibility of shortening this time limit, but did not change it (Pearson, 2004). If 90 days pass and authors have not returned a revised manuscript, it may be released (ASA, 1998). Manuscripts released because of the 90-day rule must be resubmitted and must go through the entire review process again. If an author takes longer than 90 days to complete a revision, generally the associate editor, or occasionally the technical editor, will contact the author to determine the reason for the delay. If the author is having trouble allocating the necessary time to make the revision, a phone call from the associate editor may encourage the author to expedite the needed revisions. In a few cases, authors may experience extenuating circumstances that keep them from revising the manuscript. For example, authors may encounter health problems, family situations, changes inemployment, or changes in job responsibilities. The corresponding author and the associate editor can discuss the situation, and together agree on a realistic timetable for completing the revision. If authors realize they will not complete the revision within the 90-day limit, they should contact their assigned associate editor and discuss the situation. Associate editors have the authority to grant an extension for completing revisions (Pearson, 2004).
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFUNCTION OF ASSOCIATE EDITORSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Some authors may see the associate editor as an impediment to the peer review process. The fundamental role of associate editors is to see that good science, presented in good manuscripts, is published in Agronomy Journal. In this article, we sought to describe the work of associate editors and how they can help authors publish high quality papers. Associate editors mediate between authors and reviewers, and should act as an author advocate during the peer review of manuscripts. Associate editors, however, have a dual obligation in that they must endeavor to serve the needs of authors and also uphold the standards and reputation of the journal.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFUNCTION OF ASSOCIATE EDITORSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| The SCI Journals | Crop Science | Vadose Zone Journal | |||
| Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education |
Soil Science Society of America Journal | ||||
| Journal of Plant Registrations | Journal of Environmental Quality |
The Plant Genome | |||
