February 16, 2008

Publication stats for EPAA

Logistical chugging along tonight: I'm afraid I didn't get to any serious manuscript thought in the last few hours, but I did figure out how to analyze about 10 months' worth of manuscripts, after excluding repeated submissions and other errors:

  • 86 total manuscripts
  • 18 still in review (about 21% of this batch)
  • 55 declined (64% of all manuscripts, 81% of manuscripts with decisions)
  • 13 manuscripts either accepted or in revise-and-resubmit cycle (15% of all manuscripts, 19% of manuscripts with at least initial decisions)

In general, I only request revisions if I am confident that the manuscript is likely to be accepted at some point, after rewriting. (I do not request a revision if one of the problems is that the data collection is insufficient.) I am not pleased right now with the speed of reviewing, but that's a combination of three bottlenecks, and since one of them is my own time crunch from last semester, it's beginning to ease, and another bottleneck is getting some lubrication thanks to some tricks in the new OJS software (the submission package we use). This will never be perfect, in part because we are what John Willinsky calls a "zero-budget journal," but it should get better... at least until a tree falls on me and interrupts the flow again.

(The last is a reference to the editor of the weekly physics- and general science-politics e-mail newsletter What's New, Bob Park, whose public-education work really was interrupted when a tree fell on him. He's doing much better, now, and the tree never got a shot as his sharp tongue, which remains.)

Listen to this article
Posted in EPAA on February 16, 2008 8:27 PM |