Archive for August, 2014

2014 Boggess Award Winners

Wednesday, August 27th, 2014

AWRA President Mark Dunning has announced the 2014 Boggess Winners:

Using Multiple Watershed Models to Predict Water, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Discharges to the Patuxent Estuary (pages 15–39) FEB, Kathleen M.B. Boomer, Donald E. Weller, Thomas E. Jordan, Lewis Linker, Zhi-Jun Liu, James Reilly, Gary Shenk and Alexey A. Voinov.

It was a tough choice, so congratulations to all the nominees! The Award will be presented at the AWRA 2014 Annual Conference.


How is the Boggess Award selected each year?

Tuesday, August 26th, 2014

[Another in the series on editing.]

Selecting the winner is one of the more enjoyable aspects of my job. In Spring, I ask the Associate Editors for nominations, and nominate some myself. We then go through a series of ballots eliminating the less popular until a clear winner emerges.

The final ballot usually comes down to 2-4 finalists, all excellent papers. Recently, I’ve published the finalists in my blog to give them some degree of recognition

Once we select a winner, I send the name to Ken Reid, who prepares a letter by the President announcing the winner. The award is presented during the luncheon at the AWRA Annual Conference.

Why will the new Editor be titled Editor-in-Chief?

Monday, August 25th, 2014

[Another in my series on editing.]

There’s no real change, just a new title. Modern usage would call this position, “Editor-in-Chief” to reflect its managerial responsibilities. ”Editor” as used today  typically connotes actual manuscript markup, something I rarely need to do myself.

We probably should have changed the title some time ago. But, I figured if “Editor” worked for Randy Boggess, it was good enough for me. With the coming changeover, it’s time to correct the title.

Clinch River Featured Collection

Wednesday, August 20th, 2014

IMG_2403Jennifer Krstolic writes us, “The Featured Collection  (August 2014 issue – KJL) looks fabulous! I didn’t send you, Ken, or Greg Cope a photograph of our ‘Collaboration Cake’. I was extremely pleased at how well this group of authors worked together and the quality of the manuscripts that resulted. When we met for the Clinch Powell Clean Rivers Initiative meeting, I ordered a cake so we could celebrate the release of the papers. I think you’ll like how it looks.  :) –Jen”

And thanks to Jen and her colleagues for putting this together!

Do you ever disagree with an Associate Editor?

Monday, August 11th, 2014

[Another in the series on editing.]

Sometimes, but I never surprise them with my decision. If I think an Associate Editor has missed something, I contact them and we talk it over. The final decision is mine, but I give a lot of weight to what the Associate Editor thinks.

2013 odds of acceptance

Monday, August 4th, 2014

All 2013 manuscripts are in late stages of review, so we are able to estimate some statistics of interest to potential authors: (2012 numbers are in parentheses.)

  • 46% of manuscripts were accepted (vs. 51% in 2012)
  • 16% were, after review, rejected or withdrawn (21%); and
  • 38% were returned without review (28%).

Time-to-first-decision for reviewed manuscripts (i.e. excluding those returned without review) was a median 89 days, with 90% decided within 127 days. These represent improvements over 2012.

The lower acceptance rate is commensurate with a higher number of manuscripts submitted. Similarly, the shift to more “return without review” decisions represents proactive measures to control the number of manuscripts under review.