The tenure of an editor is, from a variety of viewpoints, mercifully limited. With high hopes and prodigious plans begun, the editorship soon becomes immersed in a rising tide of submissions requiring reviews and decisions in a timely manner. Toward the end of the tenure, a clearer, more balanced view emerges, motivating this stocktaking or control volume analysis, as it were, on the flow of manuscripts. The transition to an Internet-based system of submission/ review/publication was undoubtedly the major milestone defining the last four years. As the first large monthly ASCE journal to dip our toes in digital waters, we contributed our share to working out the bugs of the system. Improvements can still be made, and innovations will be added, but very few, if any, in the hydraulic research community are nostalgic for paper-based submissions. The greater degree of security, transparency, accountability, even convenience, is welcome; but the problem of overly long reviews remains resistant. In an increasingly fragmented and competitive research publishing environment emphasizing citation metrics with real consequences for research careers, the appropriate balance between review time and review quality needs to be struck. While review time can be readily quantified, a corresponding metric of review quality is not available. Even so, a positive correlation between review time and review quality may be as weak or nonexistent? , particularly beyond a certain time, as any found in sediment transport or hydrology. Some relevant data and statistics for the 40-month period 1 May 2006 to 28 Aug. 2009, covering the period of operation of the Internet system, which allows convenient compilation of such data are given in Table 1. As is often the case with flow problems, data are limited, and a stationary state may not have been established, but the analysis may still be of interest. Over 1,200 manuscripts were handled, corresponding to an inflow manuscript velocity of 1 ms/day with final decisions accept or reject, or withdrawn rendered on 74%, the remainder being at various stages of the review process. The globalization of the authorship is seen in that only 25% of the submissions originate in North America, and only about a third from English-speaking countries. The latter has particular repercussions because poor English usage or, more broadly speaking, poor presentation, can adversely affect the evaluation of a manuscript, or unduly prolong the review process. Almost 4,400 reviews were solicited, but only 3,000 reviews were submitted by over 1,000 different reviewers. Finding good reviewers and maintaining uniformly high standards continue to present challenges to the editorial board. Interestingly, once a reviewer has agreed to perform a review, the average time taken for the review is only 50 days. The contributions of all reviewers should be acknowledged, but those of Giuseppe Oliveto, Nian-Sheng Cheng, Brett Sanders, and Jochen Aberle, who each performed 12 or more reviews including rereviews during the 40-month period, merit special mention.
Read full abstract