RobertDale at 20:59, 2 March 2011

2011-03-02T20:59:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, 2 March 2011
Line 17:		Line 17:
	2 Submissions		2 Submissions

	See the attached tables for submission statistics for 2009 and 2010.		2.1 Papers

			See the attached tables ([[Media:Submission Counts.pdf]], [[Media:Submissions_by_Country.pdf]])
			for submission statistics for 2009 and 2010.
	As noted above, our submissions are up, but it should be pointed out		As noted above, our submissions are up, but it should be pointed out
	that our immediate rejection of papers considered to be inappropriate		that our immediate rejection of papers considered to be inappropriate
	for CL more than covers our submissions increase.		for CL more than covers our submissions increase.

			2.2 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.

	3 Administrative Matters		3 Administrative Matters

RobertDale: New page: CL Journal Report for Calendar Year 2010 Robert Dale, Editor Wednesday 2nd March 2011 1 Summary A good year for the journal: a healthy increase in submissions, with first submissions u...

2011-03-02T09:14:19Z

New page: CL Journal Report for Calendar Year 2010 Robert Dale, Editor Wednesday 2nd March 2011 1 Summary A good year for the journal: a healthy increase in submissions, with first submissions u...

New page

CL Journal Report for Calendar Year 2010

Robert Dale, Editor

Wednesday 2nd March 2011

1 Summary

A good year for the journal: a healthy increase in submissions, with
first submissions up from 69 last year to 78 this year, and the total
number of papers processed, including resubmissions, up from 93 to
133. At the same time, our reviewing turnaround time has also
improved very significantly, from 148 days to 58 days. The year saw
some changes in our administrative processes (described below), as
well as the signing of a new contract with MIT Press.

2 Submissions

See the attached tables for submission statistics for 2009 and 2010.
As noted above, our submissions are up, but it should be pointed out
that our immediate rejection of papers considered to be inappropriate
for CL more than covers our submissions increase.

3 Administrative Matters

3.1 Editorial Assistance

Mary Gardiner and Suzy Howlett shared the role of editorial assistant
in 2010. As of the beginning of 2011, this role is now solely carried
out by Suzy, while Mary has separately contracted to do some work on
extending the functionalities of the Open Journal Systems manuscript
management software that we use.

As always, running the journal would be impossible without the help of
both Suzy and Mary; we’re very fortunate to have such capable and
proactive assistance.

3.2 Editorial Board

Eight new members have joined the editorial board for the period 2011-2013:

Eneko Agirre, University of the Basque Country
Anja Belz, University of Brighton
Hal Daumé III, University of Maryland, College Park
Julia Hockenmaier, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Anna Korhonen, University of Cambridge
Ryan McDonald, Google, Inc.
Roberto Navigli, Sapienza Universita' di Roma
Martha Palmer, University of Colorado

At the same time, the following members of the board have reached the
end of their three-year periods on the board:

James Curran, University of Sydney
Daniel Gildea, University of Rochester
Jan Haji?, Charles University, Prague
Katja Markert, University of Leeds
Raymond J Mooney, University of Texas at Austin
Patrick Pantel, Yahoo! Inc
Mark Stevenson, University of Sheffield
Ming Zhou, Microsoft Research Asia

Their invaluable assistance in conscientiously reviewing papers for
the journal is much appreciated.

3.3 Manuscript Processing

In 2010 we completed the transition to the Open Journal Systems
manuscript management system. During the year we implemented a
number of workflow enhancements to the platform, and incorporated a
new structured review form that makes it easier to process reviews.

3.4 Author Support

As a consequence of some of the streamlining of the workflow process,
some of Suzy’s time has been freed up; this has allowed us to commence
work on updating the style guide, to work on documenting the journal’s
LaTeX style files, and to begin creating a list of 'recommended
packages’ for use with LaTeX.

4 Upcoming Changes

During 2011 we will switch to the new production workflow, where the
copy editor will make changes to the source LaTeX files (previously
changes were indicated on a hard copy by a copy editor, and input by a
third-party typesetting company). This was a key element in the
reduction in costs we negotiated as part of the new contract with The
MIT Press.

The journal is getting bigger: I foresee that within one or two years
we will be 50% above our current target page count of 640 pages per
year. This will have cost implications.

2011Q1 Reports: CL Journal - Revision history

RobertDale at 20:59, 2 March 2011

RobertDale: New page: CL Journal Report for Calendar Year 2010 Robert Dale, Editor Wednesday 2nd March 2011 1 Summary A good year for the journal: a healthy increase in submissions, with first submissions u...