Archive for July, 2013

2012 odds of acceptance

Friday, July 26th, 2013

All 2012 manuscripts are in late stages of review, so we are able to estimate some statistics of interest to potential authors: (2011 numbers are in parentheses.)

  • 51% of manuscripts were accepted (vs. 47% in 2011)
  • 21% were, after review, rejected or withdrawn (27%);¬†and
  • 28% were returned without review (25%).

Time-to-first-decision for reviewed manuscripts (i.e. excluding those returned without review) was a median 97 days, with 90% decided within 144 days. 75% of reviewed manuscripts met our target of 120 days to first decision.

Thanks to AE’s

Wednesday, July 24th, 2013

“The Associate Editor has provided an excellent summary below.” How I love to add those words to a decision letter! It means my job on this paper was made a lot easier. As I work though a post-vacation backlog, my heartfelt thanks go to the AE’s who make this possible.

Back home

Sunday, July 21st, 2013

Hiking in the Cotswolds.

After a wonderful time in England and France — that’s us, in the Cotswolds — we hopped back across the Pond this weekend. My manuscript queue is formidable, but I will whittle it down over the coming week. Thank you for your patience.

July offline

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013

Please be aware both Susan and I will be offline for parts of July. Be patient, and we will get back to you! Have a nice summer!

AE, Water Quality Modeling

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013

I am please to announce the selection of Song S. Qian, of the University of Toledo, as JAWRA Associate Editor for Water Quality Modeling. With undergraduate and graduate degrees from China, Song earned a Ph.D. from Duke University, and has experience in consulting and academia. He has an extensive list of publications (including some in JAWRA) on a wide variety of water topics. He should fit right in with our multidisciplinary outlook!

Please join me in welcoming Song to the JAWRA Editorial Team!

Refreshing honesty

Tuesday, July 2nd, 2013

Scientific ethics are alive and well! With his paper nearing publication, one of our authors discovered problems in the data set. He promptly notified us, and we almost literally stopped the presses. We’re examining the impact of the errors in deciding how to proceed.

Our reviewers had noticed a few anomalies. However, they could be explained away as normal sampling variations. Hard to tell if we should have caught the problems. One lesson: Pay a little more attention when a flag is raised.

How many scientists would have the integrity to do this? Most, I hope. Or, would some be tempted to let it slide, get the publication credit, and hope nobody notices?

I won’t disclose names, to save embarrassment for the original mistake. But, here’s a loud “BRAVO!” to an honest man!