AGU Publications Research Articles

Comment on “Implementing the peer review process in AGU Publications” The peer review process in JGR”Space Physics

In recent Forum articles (Eos, October 23, 1984, p. 770), P.J. Baum and A.J. Dessler have commented on the peer review system as implemented in the Space Physics section of JGR. The issues they raise are important, and as current editor I welcome the opportunity to express my views on them.As is evident from the review form presently used in JGR‐Space Physics and shown in Figure 1, I share the concern expressed by Baum and Dessler that the review process should permit significant new and unorthodox ideas or results to be published. Apparently, Baum feels that the form is a negative influence in this respect. Eos readers may judge for themselves, but I must confess to surprise at this reaction, since the objective of maintaining the journal as an open forum for diverse scientific viewpoints is spelled out very clearly and since referees are asked to present constructive criticism whenever possible. In my experience, most referees have no difficulty relating the information on the back side of the form to the summary evaluation on the front side, and they are quite willing to recommend acceptance of high‐quality papers containing controversial but well argued views. Thus I believe the form serves its purposes well. Nevertheless, I would welcome concrete suggestions for improvement of it.

Implementing the peer review process in AGU publications

Recently, Russell and Reiff [1984] presented a flow‐diagram analysis of the AGU publication process indicating how publication delays naturally occur. Perhaps because o f space limitations, their diagram did not include some important control statements. For example, according to their diagram, all manuscripts are either published or enter an endless loop. In fact, many papers end up elsewhere: As fish wrappers, in filing cabinets, or in non‐AGU publications. (Accepted papers can end up in the same places, but they have the advantage of having been published in an AGU journal.) Significantly, the number of times the paper passes through the submission‐refereeing loop (NJ) is not just journal dependent. NJ also depends inversely on nD, the density of Dogma in the paper. We are concerned with the publication process also and are motivated by reports that NJ is unusually large in the case of certain distinguished colleagues, particularly when introducing new concepts or criticizing older approaches. Some suggestions are offered here to speed publication and consequently to assist in the smoother functioning of the scientific method in geophysics.

From the incoming President of the Hydrology Section

On July 1 I began my duties as president of the Hydrology Section of AGU. I took over a healthy Section, recognized as the leading scientific society in the field of hydrology. I also am taking over a Section whose position within AGU is strong and influential. These two facts are a tribute to my predecessors, Peter Eagleson and J im Wallis. They have shepherded the Hydrology Section through an important period of technical and political growth, I will try to maintain the pace.During my tenure as president I intend to use our new WaterWatch column as a means of communication with the membership. I hope to keep you informed on the technical and administrative issues that arise and also to use this forum to solicit your views on directions that you would like to see us take. As a first attempt at this type of interaction, I have prepared a questionaire, which appears below. If you have suggestions for technical sessions or Chapman Conferences, if you have views on the various AGU publication programs, or if you can suggest candidates for AGU awards, I urge you to fill out the questionaire and return it to me.

Geophysical and geochemical consequences of nuclear explosions

An all‐Union session on the geophysical and geochemical consequences of nuclear explosions was commissioned by the AGU Public Affairs Committee and will be given at San Francisco Wednesday morning, December 7, 1983. The session is deliberately restricted to aspects within the domain of the American Geophysical Union, and the social, political, and ethical issues will not be treated explicitly. It is inevitable that such issues will be present in the minds of the speakers and audience, but they cannot be evaluated by rigorous scientific methods. The aim of the session is to examine the possible range of geophysical and geochemical consequences of various scenarios involving nuclear explosions. Such scenarios extend from a single nuclear explosion to a major nuclear exchange involving thousands of weapons. A Wednesday afternoon session at the Fall Meeting will examine atmospheric consequences.

Public affairs committee actions

The AGU Public Affairs Committee will create an ad hoc committee to consider possible AGU position statements concerning the effects of nuclear war.The action was taken at the May 31, 1983, meeting of the Committee at the AGU Spring Meeting in Baltimore. Present were Carroll Ann Hodges, Chairman, and members Thomas J. Ahrens, David Cauffman, Jared Cohon, Stamatios Krimigis, Robert Murphy, Raymond Roble, and George Shaw. Also attending were the current Congressional Fellow Arthur Weissman and SPR—Cosmic Rays Section Secretary Miriam Forman.

New AGU style guide

A new, 16‐page manual for contributors to AGU publications, called AGU Style: A Guide for Contributors, is now available. The guide covers text style and the mechanics of preparing manuscripts for any AGU publication in any format.

The uses of color

Color graphics in AGU publications may be valuable aids to communication, but care will have to be taken to assure that they really contain extra information instead of the same old information in a sexier package. Can anyone tell me, for example, why the essentially monochrome, yellow‐red (left) false color image on the cover of Eos, December 7, 1982, contains more information than a good black and white version would?Further, any graphical display, whether in color or not, ought to be described in comprehensible terms. The caption to the cited cover of Eos was, I found, confusing in the original version in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) (so much so that I offer a translation1 for the interested reader). The excerpted caption in Eos is all the more confusing for lack of context and illustrates the dangers of excerpting without editing.

Publication committee meeting

The Publications Committee has oversight responsibility for the entire AGU publications program. It is supported in this activity by the Journals Board, the Books Board, and the Translations Board. The 1982–1984 committee is chaired by Thomas Graedel. Serving with him are David Atlas, Grant Gross, Jurate Landwehr, Peter Molnar, George Reid, and Rob Van der Voo.At its November 3–4 meeting the new committee spent much of its time acquainting its elf with the scope of the program, the current problems, and the potential opportunities. In addition to setting the background against which the work of the next two years would take place, the committee

International activities

Relationships with the Canadian Geophysical Union and the European Geophysical Society have been given a great deal of attention by the Committee on International Participation. The copublication arrangement for Tectonics with the European Geophysical Society was one important outcome. This is the first AGU journal with editors not resident in North America.The Berkner Membership Program provides free 3‐year membership in AGU to scientists in countries where there is little or no access to AGU publications. The program is a living memorial to Lloyd Berkner, whose devotion to the encouragement of young scientists and stimulation of international activities will long be remembered. The program currently supports 63 members from the following countries.

The IMSAS scientific reviews: An introduction

The following eight papers are based on review papers presented at the International Magnetospheric Study Assessment Symposium (IMSAS) held at Goddard Space Flight Center, Maryland, in May 1981. The IMS was an international program set up under the auspices of the International Council of Scientific Unions Special Committee on Solar Terrestrial Physics, and our job as organizers of IMSAS was to use the meeting (1) to identify what data were obtained during the IMS for coordinated studies, (2) to assess the various, often innovative workshops which were convened to facilitate coordinated studies at an international or national level, and (3) to examine the status of the problems the IMS was to attack. The reader can assess our success in prosecuting aims 1 and by 2 by reading the AGU publication containing the relevant IMSAS proceedings (The IMS Source Book: Guide to the International Magnetospheric Study Data Analysis, edited by C. T. Russell and D. J. Southwood, 1982). The papers presented here are those we invited to pursue aim 3, the scientific progress due to the IMS.

Proposed change in the AGU bylaws

On May 22, 1980, the AGU Council approved for the first time a change in Bylaw 22. In accordance with Article 12b of the Statutes, proposed amendments to the Bylaws must be published in an AGU publication of general circulation no less than 30 days prior to the second consideration by the Council. The current Bylaw 22 is shown below in its entirety, followed by the Council's recommended change.The General Secretary, in accordance with the instructions of the Council of the Union, shall sign checks on the accounts of the American Geophysical Union and shall provide a surety bond in a sum set by the Council of the Union and at the expense of the Union, for funds of the Union under his control. If the General Secretary is absent or incapacitated, the President or, if he is absent or incapacitated, the President‐elect, shall sign checks against the Union accounts. The General Secretary may delegate the authority to sign checks against the accounts of the Union. The President, the President‐elect, and others with the authority to sign checks shall furnish surety bonds in the same manner and amount as the General Secretary.

International memberships to be funded

The Lloyd V. Berkner Memberships provide dues‐free membership to persons in developing countries. This is a living memorial in honor of Berkner, truly a remarkable leader in geophysics. The program, which was approved by the Council at the suggestion of the Committee on International Participation, has been developed to permit greater access to AGU publications. The funds for this program were raised from the AGU membership to stimulate scientific endeavor in geophysics and to provide inspiration and encouragement to young native scientists and students in developing countries.

Proposed change in AGU bylaws

On May 27, 1979, the AGU Council approved a change in bylaw 11. In accordance with article 12b of the statutes, which requires proposed amendments to the bylaws to be published in an AGU publication of general circulation no less than 30 days prior to action at a succeeding council meeting, the current bylaw 11 is shown below in its entirety. The proposed amendment, if adopted, would delete the entire second paragraph. 11. Standing Committees shall be: Statutes and Bylaws; Membership; Nominations; Budget and Finance; Publications Fellows and International Participation. The Committee on International Participation shall consist of the Foreign Secretary (who shall be Chairman of the Committee), the President of the Union, the President‐elect of the Union, the retiring President of the Union, the General Secretary, the Executive Director, the principal U.S. Officers of the IUGG, and six additional persons who are eminent geophysicists with knowledge and background in international organization and cooperation and who shall serve for a term identical with that of the Foreign Secretary. The Committee shall develop AGU policy, subject to Council approval, concerning Union participation in the United States National Committee for the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics and concerning the relationship of the Union with international scientific societies whose objects pertain to geophysics.

‘AGU and the body politic’

Regarding President Cox's article (September 1978 EOS, page 835):AGU membership and services have always been ‘accessible’ to women. Some of us have been members and recipients of benefits therefrom for more years than most present male members. Nonetheless, except for the challenging support of a few civilized members who have also been leaders in AGU, in our daily work and association with male colleagues we have been made to feel unwelcome, unwanted, intrusive, and downright inferior. This attitude has been doubly reinforced in AGU publications and AGU efforts to acquire and retain for members taxpayer (female and male) money for the support of male geophysicists. All protestations to the contrary, such efforts have of necessity been political. We love our work, and thanks to millions of less fortunate humans who pay the bill, we are allowed to pursue it in relative comfort.

Nominees for President‐Elect of AGU: William M. Kaula

A member since 1954, I have always felt that the American Geophysical Union is the prime agent of communication and interaction in geophysics, as evidenced by about 30 publications in refereed AGU journals and 35 talks at AGU meetings. My principal organizational contributions have been concerning the journals: associate editor of JGR, 1963–1965; editor of RGSP, 1970–1974; and, since 1976, member for journals of the AGU Publications Committee.

President's page: A look ahead for GRL

As the new editor of Geophysical Research Letters I am pleased to have this opportunity to review the achievements of the journal and to look ahead to its future.Members of AGU should think of Geophysical Research Letters as the quick way to publish their exciting new ideas, techniques, and observations in a properly reviewed and well‐respected journal. The majority of papers accepted appear in the journal within 90 days of receipt by the editor. Referees assure that the scientific content is of the high quality usually associated with AGU publications. Contributions from many nations and one of the highest circulations among journals devoted to geophysics testify to the respect that Geophysical Research Letters has achieved in its first 3 years. The success of this journal is due mainly to the enthusiasm and hard work of its first editor, Noel Hinners, his assistant editor, Frank Martin, and the AGU production staff. Noel Hinners, with the help of many hard‐working reviewers, has established a high standard for the journal and has demonstrated that rapid review and author‐produced copy can result in a significant decrease in both publication time and cost. All of us in the Union owe Noel and his co‐workers a great deal of appreciation and thanks for a job well done.

President's page: On freedom and responsibility in research

It has been the custom to report the financial statement of the AGU to the council, and there has been little pressure to provide this information more generally. On the other hand the membership should be more aware of the way the union functions, and this report (see back of this page), prepared in my capacity as treasurer of the union, is intended as an educational feature.It will surprise no one to learn that more than 95% of the union's activity is involved with publishing. Our journals constitute 70% of this, the remainder being absorbed by Russian Translations and various monograph series. (The executive director's office has prepared a ‘Report on AGU Publications, Calendar Year 1974,’ which appears in the AGU section of this issue.)

Highlights of the Council Meeting, April 7, 1974

At its meeting on April 7, 1974, the AGU council considered a variety of new programs and took several actions of substantial significance for the next year.It was necessary either to increase income or to reduce expenses in 1975. The first alternatives discussed were (1) increasing member dues and (2) reducing the amount of material published and altering the publication option allowed under the present dues arrangement. Since it was felt that an increase in dues beyond $20 was undesirable, and since the reduction in published material required by alternative two would have been too great, a third alternative was adopted: In 1975, members will receive EOS; will be accorded all the customary membership privileges, such as reduced meeting registration fees and the right to submit their papers for consideration; and will have the right to subscribe at member rates to the other AGU publications. There will be no publication option allowed under the basic dues payment. The member rate for each journal, instead of being set at a flat amount as in the past, will reflect the cost of publication. It is expected that the member subscription rates will range between $5.00 and $20.00. If we relate the charge for journals to the cost of service, the election of members to take or not to take a journal will not affect the budget, since income will balance expense.

Union, section, and committee activities

1. Change in AGU publication. Water Resources Research, which began quarterly publication in 1965, is growing rapidly and exceeding expectations. Starting in February 1968, the journal will be published bimonthly to accommodate the increasing number of pages.