Difference between revisions of "2013Q3 Reports: CL Journal Editor"
(New page: 1 Highlights Our raw submission numbers appear to keep the healthy trend of previous years, we have already received 57 new submissions and a total of 80 submissions if including resubmis...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | == Highlights == | |
| − | Our raw submission numbers appear to keep the healthy trend of previous | + | Our raw submission numbers appear to keep the healthy trend of previous years, we have already received 57 new submissions and a total of 80 submissions if including resubmissions from the beginning of the year. |
| − | years, we have already received 57 new submissions and a total of 80 | ||
| − | submissions if including resubmissions from the beginning of the year. | ||
| − | As in previous years the number of thematically or qualitatively | + | As in previous years the number of thematically or qualitatively unsuitable submissions is high (25 so far). As in previous years, a significant proportion of the inappropriate submissions are often very short (of typical conference paper length) and either outside CL's scope, or unaware of relevant literature. |
| − | unsuitable submissions is high (25 so far). As in previous years, a | ||
| − | significant proportion of the inappropriate submissions are often very | ||
| − | short (of typical conference paper length) and either outside CL's | ||
| − | scope, or unaware of relevant literature. | ||
| − | Our average time to first decision for articles for the first half of 2013 is 28 days | + | Our average time to first decision for articles for the first half of 2013 is 28 days overall and 72 days if excluding submissions rejected right away. |
| − | overall and 72 days if excluding submissions rejected right away. | ||
| − | In 2012, not including papers deemed inappropriate by the editor, this | + | In 2012, not including papers deemed inappropriate by the editor, this time delay was 64 days. |
| − | time delay was 64 days. | ||
| − | The observed slow down in due to the change in editor, the new editor is | + | The observed slow down in due to the change in editor, the new editor is probably not entirely at full speed yet. |
| − | probably not entirely at full speed yet. | ||
| − | See the numbers at the end of this report for a detailed breakdown of | + | See the numbers at the end of this report for a detailed breakdown of statistics regarding submissions. Since the beginning of 2010, we have averaged around six long articles per issue. Currently, we operate with a small number of articles in reserve, which gives us some ability to combine related articles in the same issue, and provides some insurance in case we have a temporary drying-up of material. However, articles are published (in an not-yet-proofread form) under a 'Just Accepted' tab on the MIT Press website as soon as they have been accepted for publication, so that they are accessible prior to being formally assigned to an issue. In the last two issues of 2013, however, as discussed in the winter teleconference, we have had to decide to step up to eight articles per issue to avoid what was perceived as an unacceptable delay of more than one year from acceptance to publication of the final official version. |
| − | statistics regarding submissions. | ||
| − | Since the beginning of 2010, we have averaged around six long articles | ||
| − | per issue. Currently, we operate with a small number of | ||
| − | articles in reserve, which gives us some ability to combine related | ||
| − | articles in the same issue, and provides some insurance in case we have | ||
| − | a temporary drying-up of material. However, articles are published (in | ||
| − | an not-yet-proofread form) under a 'Just Accepted' tab on the MIT Press | ||
| − | website as soon as they have been accepted for publication, so that they | ||
| − | are accessible prior to being formally assigned to an issue. | ||
| − | In the last two issues of 2013, however, as discussed in the winter | ||
| − | teleconference, we have had to decide to step up to eight articles per | ||
| − | issue to avoid what was perceived as an unacceptable delay of more than | ||
| − | one year from acceptance to publication of the final official version. | ||
| − | The journal has had a dramatic and sudden drop in impact factor last | + | The journal has had a dramatic and sudden drop in impact factor last year, which seems to be a random effect, but that we are monitoring and that I will try to investigate further. |
| − | year, which seems to be a random effect, but that we are monitoring and | ||
| − | that I will try to investigate further. | ||
| − | + | == Departments == | |
| − | + | === Book Reviews [Report by Graeme Hirst] === | |
| − | Book reviews are edited by Graeme Hirst. We publish two or three | + | Book reviews are edited by Graeme Hirst. We publish two or three reviews in each issue. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, reviews of books in the Morgan & Claypool series that Hirst edits are coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Hirst out of the loop. |
| − | reviews in each issue. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, | ||
| − | reviews of books in the Morgan & Claypool series that Hirst edits are | ||
| − | coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Hirst out of | ||
| − | the loop. | ||
| − | + | === Squibs [Report by Pierre Isabelle] === | |
See separate report by Pierre | See separate report by Pierre | ||
| Line 61: | Line 33: | ||
| − | + | == Administrative Matters == | |
| − | + | === Editorial Handover === | |
| − | Paola Merlo has officially taken over as editor-in-chief of the journal | + | Paola Merlo has officially taken over as editor-in-chief of the journal in July 2013, at which point Robert Dale has stepped down after 10 years as editor, although he is still invaluably useful if asked for advice. Robert has done a wonderful job of running the journal all these years and we are very grateful for his dedication. |
| − | in July 2013, at which point Robert Dale has stepped down after 10 years | ||
| − | as editor, although he is still invaluably useful if asked for advice. | ||
| − | Robert has done a wonderful job of running the journal all these years | ||
| − | and we are very grateful for his dedication. | ||
| − | + | === Editorial Assistance === | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | Suzy Howlett was also invaluable in making the transition smooth and | + | Suzy Howlett has finished her appointmeent as CL editor assistant around the same time as Robert and has been overlapping with Tanja Samardzic, the new editorial assistant. Suzy Howlett was also invaluable in making the transition smooth and |
overlapping with Tanja. Thank you very very much. | overlapping with Tanja. Thank you very very much. | ||
| − | + | == Statistics == | |
| − | 2013 up to 19 July | + | === 2013 up to 19 July === |
| − | |||
| − | First submissions in 2013 | + | ==== First submissions in 2013 ==== |
| − | |||
| − | + | ===== Survey proposal ===== | |
| − | Survey proposal | ||
Total: 1 | Total: 1 | ||
| Line 103: | Line 65: | ||
| − | Articles | + | ===== Articles ===== |
| − | |||
Total: 57 | Total: 57 | ||
| Line 121: | Line 82: | ||
Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)"): 72 days | Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)"): 72 days | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | ==== Resubmission of an article from 2012 or before ==== | |
| − | |||
| + | ===== Surveys ===== | ||
| Line 143: | Line 99: | ||
| − | Articles | + | ===== Articles ===== |
| − | |||
Total: 14 | Total: 14 | ||
| Line 159: | Line 114: | ||
| − | ==== | + | ==== Resubmission of an article from 2013 ==== |
| − | |||
| − | Resubmission of an article from 2013 | ||
| − | |||
| − | Articles | + | ===== Articles ===== |
| − | |||
| − | |||
Total: 5 | Total: 5 | ||
| Line 179: | Line 129: | ||
| − | ==== | + | ==== Totals (All submissions in 2013, including survey proposals) ==== |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | Totals (All submissions in 2013, including survey proposals) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Total: 80 | Total: 80 | ||
| Line 206: | Line 148: | ||
| − | Times for all submissions (incl. survey proposals) | + | ==== Times for all submissions (incl. survey proposals) ==== |
| − | |||
Average time to decision: 34 days | Average time to decision: 34 days | ||
| Line 217: | Line 158: | ||
| − | Times for all article submissions | + | ==== Times for all article submissions ==== |
| − | |||
Average time to decision: 35 days | Average time to decision: 35 days | ||
| Line 227: | Line 167: | ||
| − | Country of first author (New submissions and resubmissions from 2012 or | + | ==== Country of first author (New submissions and resubmissions from 2012 or ==== |
before) | before) | ||
| − | Articles | + | ===== Articles ===== |
| Line 295: | Line 235: | ||
| − | Survey proposals: | + | ===== Survey proposals: ===== |
| Line 310: | Line 250: | ||
| − | Book reviews are edited by Graeme Hirst. We publish two or three | + | Book reviews are edited by Graeme Hirst. We publish two or three reviews in each issue. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, reviews of books in the Morgan & Claypool series that Hirst edits are coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Hirst out of the loop. |
| − | reviews in each issue. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, | ||
| − | reviews of books in the Morgan & Claypool series that Hirst edits are | ||
| − | coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Hirst out of | ||
| − | the loop. | ||
Latest revision as of 05:31, 30 July 2013
Highlights
Our raw submission numbers appear to keep the healthy trend of previous years, we have already received 57 new submissions and a total of 80 submissions if including resubmissions from the beginning of the year.
As in previous years the number of thematically or qualitatively unsuitable submissions is high (25 so far). As in previous years, a significant proportion of the inappropriate submissions are often very short (of typical conference paper length) and either outside CL's scope, or unaware of relevant literature.
Our average time to first decision for articles for the first half of 2013 is 28 days overall and 72 days if excluding submissions rejected right away.
In 2012, not including papers deemed inappropriate by the editor, this time delay was 64 days.
The observed slow down in due to the change in editor, the new editor is probably not entirely at full speed yet.
See the numbers at the end of this report for a detailed breakdown of statistics regarding submissions. Since the beginning of 2010, we have averaged around six long articles per issue. Currently, we operate with a small number of articles in reserve, which gives us some ability to combine related articles in the same issue, and provides some insurance in case we have a temporary drying-up of material. However, articles are published (in an not-yet-proofread form) under a 'Just Accepted' tab on the MIT Press website as soon as they have been accepted for publication, so that they are accessible prior to being formally assigned to an issue. In the last two issues of 2013, however, as discussed in the winter teleconference, we have had to decide to step up to eight articles per issue to avoid what was perceived as an unacceptable delay of more than one year from acceptance to publication of the final official version.
The journal has had a dramatic and sudden drop in impact factor last year, which seems to be a random effect, but that we are monitoring and that I will try to investigate further.
Departments
Book Reviews [Report by Graeme Hirst]
Book reviews are edited by Graeme Hirst. We publish two or three reviews in each issue. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, reviews of books in the Morgan & Claypool series that Hirst edits are coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Hirst out of the loop.
Squibs [Report by Pierre Isabelle]
See separate report by Pierre
Administrative Matters
Editorial Handover
Paola Merlo has officially taken over as editor-in-chief of the journal in July 2013, at which point Robert Dale has stepped down after 10 years as editor, although he is still invaluably useful if asked for advice. Robert has done a wonderful job of running the journal all these years and we are very grateful for his dedication.
Editorial Assistance
Suzy Howlett has finished her appointmeent as CL editor assistant around the same time as Robert and has been overlapping with Tanja Samardzic, the new editorial assistant. Suzy Howlett was also invaluable in making the transition smooth and overlapping with Tanja. Thank you very very much.
Statistics
2013 up to 19 July
First submissions in 2013
Survey proposal
Total: 1
Reject (not suitable): 1
Articles
Total: 57
Revise and resubmit: 6
Reject: 6
Reject (not suitable): 25
No decision: 20
Average time to decision: 28 days
Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)"): 72 days
Resubmission of an article from 2012 or before
Surveys
Total: 2
Accept: 1
Accept with revisions: 1
Articles
Total: 14
Accept: 6
Revise and resubmit: 3
Reject: 3
No decision: 2
Resubmission of an article from 2013
Articles
Total: 5
Reject: 1
No decision: 4
Totals (All submissions in 2013, including survey proposals)
Total: 80
Accept: 7
Accept with revisions: 1
Revise and resubmit: 9
Reject: 10
Reject (not suitable): 26
No review, withdrawn: 1
No decision: 26
Times for all submissions (incl. survey proposals)
Average time to decision: 34 days
Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 62 days
Times for all article submissions
Average time to decision: 35 days
Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 63 days
Country of first author (New submissions and resubmissions from 2012 or
before)
Articles
Australia 1
Brazil 2
Bulgaria 1
Canada 2
China 9
Czech Republic 1
Egypt 1
France 4
Germany 2
Hong Kong 1
India 7
Iran 3
Lithuania 1
Malaysia 2
Mexico 1
Netherlands 1
New Zealand 1
Nigeria 1 Palestinian Territory 1
Poland 1
Romania 1
Singapore 1
Spain 2
Taiwan 1
UK 8
US 13
Vietnam 2
TOTAL 71
Survey proposals:
India 1
Survey:
Vietnam 1
Book reviews are edited by Graeme Hirst. We publish two or three reviews in each issue. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, reviews of books in the Morgan & Claypool series that Hirst edits are coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Hirst out of the loop.