Editors’ report 2004

This report covers the period January 2004–December 2004. We are pleased to report another good year for the journal. During the calendar year 2004 the Journals Office handled 85 new submissions, compared to 81 in 2003, there were 24 resubmissions and 98 papers were at various stages of review and revision. In total 183 submissions were active during the year. During the year 45 papers were accepted, 25 required minor revision, 40 major revisions and 27 were rejected. The continuous nature of the production process makes it hard to calculate an exact rejection rate. There is also a tradition of working with authors, particularly new researchers, to produce a publishable paper and this often requires more than one round of revision. In 2004 the submission rate was 7.1 papers a month, up on 6.7 in 2003 and 5.8 in 2002. Of the 33 papers published, 9 (or 27.3 per cent) were in the areas of physical and environmental geography: this compares with 26.5 per cent last year. A slight increase, despite the fact that the bumper IGU issue that took up extra pages were all human geography. If one ignores the IGU issue, then 36 per cent of papers were in the areas of physical and environmental geography, proof that the journal does live up to its mission of publishing across the entire field of geography. Furthermore, largely thanks to the IGU issue, Geographical Information Science is also well represented in the journal. It is clearly no longer the case that Area is a journal of interest only to human geographers. The four issues of Area carried 33 articles, 4 commentaries, 4 observations and 15 book reviews. The observation by Ron Johnston and Charles Pattie on the responsibility of refereeing, published in the March issue, stimulated a good debate and three commentaries were published in the September issue. The observation ‘Thinking across the divide’, published in the December issue, continues the journal's tradition of stimulating debate within the discipline. On average, each issue carried 8 papers; however, there continues to be a problem with authors failing to stay within the target word length. The target length is 5000 words, including notes and references. It is not uncommon for initial submission to be 6000–7000 words in length. While we exercise a degree of tolerance, it is recognized that the process of revision can easily add 1000–1500 words; referees seldom say they want less. This being the case, a target length of 5000 words results in a final paper of 6000–6500 words, but an initial submission over 7000 words becomes 8500, which is a Transactions-style paper and not in keeping with Area's tradition of publishing shorter papers. So please pay attention to the target word length, otherwise your paper will be returned as it is not reasonable to ask referees how to cut an over-length submission. Given that we are now in the final stages of RAE-mania, publication lead times suddenly take on new meaning. As a rule of thumb, we seek to publish an author's work within 12 months of initial submission and certainly within 12 months of acceptance. In 2004 the average time between a paper being submitted and a decision being taken, that is when two referee's reports have been received, was 4.2 months. This is about twice as long as we would like, but securing referees and then getting timely reports is an increasing problem. During 2004, lead times from acceptance to publication averaged 6.4 months. However, the dedication of 128 pages to the IGU special issue in June acted as a logjam as other papers were held back. Given these average performance figures, it is quite feasible to submit a paper to the journal and see it published within 12 months, but you need to be lucky with your referees; first, that they produce reports on time and second that they like your paper. The next stage is one we have not measured, the time taken to make revisions. This is down to the author, but it is often a source of unnecessary delay. Once revised it is back to the referees and hopefully the thumbs up. Notwithstanding theme issues, you should then see your paper in print within 6 months. So as you read this report your paper could be in the December issue. The gender distribution of authors of manuscripts is presented in Table 1– as in previous years, this includes all submissions. This is a matter of report, but the number of papers with single male authors does seem to have declined, while single female-authored papers and joint male/female papers showed an increase. Of the 123 authors involved in the 85 new submissions, 58 per cent were UK-based, compared to 63 per cent last year. Of the remaining 42 per cent non-UK authors, 5 per cent were from Africa, 9 per cent from Asia, 9 per cent from Australasia/Pacific, 10 per cent from the rest of Europe and 10 per cent from North America. When one considers that the June theme issue was UK-based, the international flavour of the remaining three issues reflects the fact that Area is now truly an internationally recognized journal as demonstrated by the global reach of its authorship. In the best traditions of polyvocalism, this report now switches from a joint report on behalf of both editors to a final comment by the out-going editor. During the five years that I have been editor there have been a number of changes made to the journal. During my first year the Society made the decision to seek the assistance of a commercial publisher and the tender process resulted in the Society's journals being published by Blackwell. To my mind this has been a great success. Not only have we benefited from their marketing expertise, we have also been at the forefront of electronic publishing. The second change came with the appointment of a Co-Editor with responsibility for physical and environmental geography. I would like to thank Heather Viles for all of her work on behalf of the journal. In characteristic style, Heather has just got on with the job and the fact that over one-quarter of the papers published this year were handled by her is testament to her hard work. The third change came in the creation of the Area Prize for the best paper by a new researcher. The prize is now in its fourth year and each year we have more papers to consider – this suggests that financial inducements work. On a more serious note, I hope that the prize is now established as something well worth winning. Behind the scenes there have been other changes in the way that the journal is produced: page proofs are now emailed from China and the Journals Office has a manuscript tracking system. Everything is now done electronically. Despite the advances in technology, it is people that make journals work. A huge thank you to Gwen Lowman and Pat Laughton in the Journals Office, who continue to work tirelessly for Area and the GJ. Thanks also to Lorraine Craig and the various members of the Editors’ Committee. A big thank you also to all the staff at Blackwell who have worked on the journal, especially Sarah Phibbs, Judy Cornish and Joy White, not forgetting Alison Foskett, who turns the most cumbersome manuscripts into typeset. Finally, many thanks to all the authors and referees who have submitted papers and reviewed submissions. As is tradition, we have listed all those who helped us this year. Over the five years I have rarely had a set of referees’ comments that were not constructive and seldom did authors question their judgement. Area occupies a special place in Geography's journals. When I took over the journal from Joe Painter five years ago it was in good shape; as I hand it over to Alastair Bonnett I'd like to think that I have done nothing to damage its special nature and that I have carried on the best traditions of the journal. I have learnt a great deal by being the editor of Area and I hope that Alastair will enjoy the job as much as I have

Geography · Library science · Political science · Publishing · Regional science · Computer Science · Geographic Information Systems Studies · Law