Transactions matters

Transactions has long been in the premier league of journals and this has been maintained by the extremely high quality of submitted papers, even while by the standards of other journals the volume of these has been relatively low. During the past year, however, the number of papers submitted to the journal has nearly doubled (compared to each of the two previous years). Figuring out quite why this jump has occurred is not easy. Certainly, there is something of an early RAE effect: although the next assessment of research in the UK will not take place until the end of 2007, it is clear that many journals in many disciplines are receiving more papers. It is also particularly pleasing that the number of papers written by authors from outside the UK is also rising and now accounts for around a third of submissions. As editor, increased submission rates are unequivocally to be welcomed and I have not been able to detect any appreciable change in the overall intellectual quality of the work I receive (certainly referees’ reports are, in the main, enthusiastic and supportive). However, the journal has a fixed number of pages available in a year and it is clearly unacceptable for extremely long lags to develop between final acceptance of a manuscript and its publication. Consequently, I have had to respond to the growth in two ways. First, I am increasingly ensuring that authors are aware of the journal's word limit of 8000 words. Whilst there is some latitude, papers that are significantly longer are being returned to authors. (This also reflects the comments of some of my referees who have found it extremely irksome to receive very long manuscripts.) Second, I have had to raise the bar on acceptance to a fairly significant degree. Ultimately, my job as editor depends entirely upon the goodwill of referees. Refereeing is usually an onerous task and the thud of a manuscript is rarely a welcome addition to stretched workloads. With very few exceptions, however, I have been very pleasantly surprised by the diligence and professionalism of academics, both within geography and, particularly, those from other disciplines who provide reports in a timely and perceptive manner for the modest reward of seeing their name listed among many others in the journal once a year. It is also true to say that the work in getting reports in is done by my editorial assistant, Wilma Goudappel, whose combination of a sometimes Stakhanovite approach to work and Australian humour keeps us all on our toes. Schmaltzy it may be, but thanks everyone. During the past six months I have made a series of changes to the Editorial Advisory Board (EAB), but these are very much in the spirit of Roger Lee's original thinking when he set the board up. The Editorial Advisory Board serves a crucial function for Transactions through its work in helping to set the strategic direction of the journal; advising on the suitability of submitted papers; advising the RGS-IBG on a suitable candidate for Editor when a vacancy arises; and giving signals to the community about the range and quality of involvement in the journal. Members of the board all participate fully in the life of the journal: helping me to set the strategic direction of the journal at twice-yearly meetings, holding me to account for my decisions, writing editorials and actively reviewing an inordinate number of manuscripts. I would hope that when the day comes for me to fall on my sword – or pen – the board would have a formal role in participating in the selection of my successor, although discussions need to be held with the RGS-IBG about this. Ultimately, however, the EAB acts in an advisory capacity and responsibility for the journal remains mine. On assuming the editor's position, I received letters from many of the long-standing members of the board offering their resignations, on the grounds that they expected to serve for five years but had never stopped! Although I refused these resignations in the short term, I did so on the understanding that clearer terms of appointment would be drawn up and that these would explicitly specify a start and end date. We have subsequently decided to adopt a policy where all board members serve for a period of five years and the normal expectation is that terms expire for approximately half when a new Editor is appointed and the balance expire after three years of an Editor's term. This arrangement balances the need to maintain continuity with the need to bring in new ideas. As an interim measure, some long-standing members of the board have agreed to continue to serve until the end of 2005 in order to retain some continuity. Additionally, I have always thought it a little invidious that journal review editors, who work immensely hard in an unglamorous job, are rarely on advisory boards and I have invited the two review editors to become full members. The new board, together with their terms of office, is listed below. I am acutely aware that we need to increase the number of physical geographers and will address this. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the three members of the board who retired at the end of 2003: Doreen Massey, Sue Smith and Clive Agnew. It isn’t empty rhetoric to say that each has given me support and wise counsel over the last year and this is – and will continue to be – sorely missed

League · Library science · Political science · Public relations · Quality (philosophy · Sociology · Computer Science · Geographic Information Systems Studies · Historical Geography and Geographical Thought · History