Editor's Report, 2000Author(s): Mike BradshawSource: Area, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 5-6Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of BritishGeographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20004118 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 08:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:04:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Area (2001) 33.1, 5-6

Editor's Report, 2000

This report covers the period from the beginning of November 1999, when I took over from Joe Painter as Editor, to the end of December 2000.

At the beginning of November 1999 there were 30 papers still going through the editorial process. I am pleased to report that 21 of those papers have now been published, four have been accepted and are awaiting publication, one has been rejected, three are awaiting resubmission and one is with referees. Therefore, the backlog created by the RAE has been dealt with. Since the beginning of November 1999 a total of 68 manuscripts has been received: 56 papers, 10 observations and 2 commentaries. Of these 68 manuscripts, 23 have been accepted, usually after revision, 18 have been rejected, 12 are still with authors for revision and resubmission, nine are with the referees and five are

with the Editor. A total of 56 papers over 14 months represents a submission rate a 4 papers a month. This is down from 1999 when the rate was 4.6 and substantially down from the peak of 6.4 in 1998. I sense that, at least on the part of UK authors, there

was some RAE fatigue early in 2000 and that sub missions have now started to pick up. The mean interval between the receipt of the final version of the paper from authors and publication was 9.9 months in March, 11.9 months in June, 13.9 months in September and 12.3 months in

December. The average for Volume 32 was 11.9 months. These long lead times reflect the publication of the large number of papers submitted in 1998 and still in process at the end of 1999. This

year Area has 11 2 pages per issue and I am hopeful that we will soon be back to being able to provide publication within 12 months of initial submission of

a manuscript. That assumes that authors do not sit on their revisions. Rapid publication is one of the stated aims of this journal and the Editors and staff in the Journals office are doing all that they can to speed up the production process. Whenever poss ible, we are using electronic mail to send papers out to be refereed and receive referees' reports. More authors are submitting their papers electronically and this is to be encouraged.

The gender distribution of authors of manuscripts submitted during the year is shown in Table 1, along

with comparative figures for earlier periods. I have chosen to consider all submissions, rather than just papers submitted; observations and commentaries are an important part of the journal and I am interested in who is contributing to the journal more generally. Perhaps a complete enumeration should also include book reviews. The inclusion of obser vations and commentaries actually increases the male dominance of the journal as such submissions are mainly from male authors. On first reflection, the statistics for the past year are disappointing as they suggest a declining role for female authors. The share of papers involving a female author was 35 per cent, slightly up from 34 per cent the previous year, but down from the 47 per cent of two years ago. It may be that the share of papers involving female authors has stabilized. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that the various initiatives introduced to encourage submis sions by new researchers can also help to increase the level of female participation in the journal. Of the 68 manuscripts received 68 per cent were exclu sively UK in origin, down from 71 per cent last year and 78 per cent the year before. Evidence, perhaps, of the increasing reach of the journal encouraging

Table 1 Gender of authors (% of manuscripts submitted in the periods shown)

Nov 1999-Dec 2000 Jan-Nov 1999 Nov 1997-Dec 1998

Single male 53 45 40

Joint male 12 22 12 Single female 15 14 29 Joint female 4 4 3 Joint male/female 16 16 15

ISSN 0004-0894 (? Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2001

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:04:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

6 Editor's Report, 2000

non-UK submissions, but also RAE fatigue reducing the number of UK submissions.

As I noted in the previous issue of Area, the journal could not function without its large and diverse group of referees, whose names are listed on the following page. Part of the unwritten mission of Area is to involve new researchers in the refereeing

process and I have been very impressed by the con scientiousness of those new to refereeing. I am also grateful to the hardcore of long-standing Area ref erees who are sympathetic to the journal's mission and always willing to provide constructive criticism.

Mike Bradshaw Editor

Referees 2000

Area would not be able to function without the help and assistance of the people listed below who gave both time and effort to act as referees on manuscripts this year. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.

Aitken, S C

Allen, J

Atkins, P

Beaverstock, Blomley, N

Bowler, I

Burgess, Castree, N (2)

Charles, D

Charlesworth, A

Clark, G

Cosgrove, D

Crang, M

Crang, P

Cunningham, C

Curtis, S

Doel, M

Dorling, D

Douglas, I

Dwyer, C

England, K (2)

Findaly, A

Fotheringham, S

Gibb, R

Gilbert, D

Gregson, N

Hamnett, C

Haylett, C

Hodder, R

Holloway, S L

Horschelmann, K

Johnson, N C

Johnston, R

Jonas, A

Jones, 0 (2)

Kesley, M

Lawson, V

Lemon, A

Leyshon, A.

Little, J (2)

Lorimer, H

Martin, R

Matless, D

McEwan, C

Mitchneck, B

Mohan, G

Mohan, J

Pallot, J

Pawson, E Peet, R

Phelps, A

Phelps, N

Phillips, R

Pickles, J

Pinch, S

Pollard, J (2)

Pratt, A

Rigg, J

Robson, E Rose, G

Rydin, Y

Sibley, D

Sidaway, J

Silk, J A

Skelton, T (2)

Smith, A

Smith, S

Stenning, A

Stevenson, I

Strange, A

Swyngedouw, E Tooke, J

Unwin, T

Varley, A

Williams, A M

Williams, C

Wills, J

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:04:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions