See also, Information for Authors
From, the Society for Applied Anthropology Newsletter
Vol, 10, No. 3
REPORT FROM THE HO EDITOR
By Donald D. Stull
<stull@lark.cc.ukans.edu>
University of Kansas
In the May 1999 Newsletter, I introduced Human Organization's editorial and production staff. In this one, I want to review how we handle manuscripts (MSS), to make the process a bit less mysterious to authors and to try to reduce headaches for us.
Manuscripts should be sent directly to the HO editorial office at the University of Kansas. (If you're not sure whether your manuscript is a "good fit" with HO, call (785/864-2641) or e-mail me - I'll be glad to talk it over with you.) Authors should submit six double-spaced, single-sided copies of their MS. Budget and time constraints prevent us from processing MSS unless we receive the requisite number of copies. Please do not include a disk copy at this stage -- that comes later. Be sure, however, to include both an abstract and key words, since they are used to select appropriate reviewers. Within two weeks of receipt, we mail out five copies for review, retaining one for our files. Reviewers are selected for their expertise in the paper's content, geographic area, methodological, and/or theoretical orientation, using the SfAA/NAPA Membership Directory, the AAA Guide to Programs, other directories, manuscript citations, or personal knowledge.
We send out five copies, hoping for (but not expecting) five reviews. We send them "cold," which keeps down time between manuscript submission and review, costs, and demurrals of busy colleagues. We ask those who do not wish to review a MS to notify us promptly, return the manuscript, and provide names and addresses of other possible reviewers. Some do; others simply ignore us. We wish you wouldn't; we really are nice people, and journals depend on generalized reciprocity among colleagues. Remember, all those publications of yours were reviewed by as busy as you.
We ask referees to return evaluations in six weeks. After about a month, we politely remind holdouts by E-mail, and we have been gratified by how effective such reminders are. When we have received all the reviews, or at least all we think we can get, we make a final decision on the MS. Reviewers may recommend that manuscripts be accepted, accepted with revisions, or rejected. Very few reviewers recommend acceptance without revision, and we have yet to publish such an article.
In reviewing manuscripts, referees are asked to comment on: 1) probable interest to readers; 2) contribution to the literature; 3) attention to relevant literature; 4) adequacy of research design and/or analysis; and 5) style and organization. We expect referees to include substantive comments on content and how the paper should be revised for publication. Most reviews are thorough and intended to help the author improve the work. Some reviews are blunt; others so abbreviated as to be of little value. Every now and then, we receive an evaluation form without accompanying explanation - such reviews may salve the reviewer's conscience, but they do neither us nor the authors any good.
We prefer four reviews before we make a final decision on a manuscript, but we will act on three. Sometimes the best we can do is two reviews, and in those cases, I act as a third reviewer. Deciding the fate of many manuscripts is relatively easy - the reviewers pretty much agree one way or the other. Even so, we read all the evaluations before coming to a final decision (sometimes "accept with revisions" really means "reject," sometimes the flaws that precipitated the "reject" are not fatal). On those MSS with mixed evaluations, not only do I read the reviewers' comments carefully, but I also read the complete manuscript before making the final decision. The decision to accept or reject is not based merely on majority rule - reviews that make strong arguments one way or the other may carry the day.
Authors are notified by mail of the final decision, and all reviews are returned. We are very careful to ensure the anonymity of referees and remove any identifying information from their critiques. Authors' identifying information is also removed from manuscripts before review, though authors often choose to signal their identity by obvious self-citation. (In preparing your manuscripts, please format your MS so your name can be easily removed before we send it out.)
In addition to referee comments, manuscripts accepted for publication receive a formal letter of acceptance and another assigning copy-right to the published article. The SfAA holds the copyright to articles published in Human Organization, but authors have nonexclusive license to use their HO article without charge in any book they may write or edit, on the condition that they credit HO. (HO does not consider previously published manuscripts or those under review elsewhere.)
In revising MSS, authors should make every effort to respond to reviewers' recommendations and editorial instructions. Recommendations are not always in agreement, but authors should do their best to reconcile differences. Although not required, we ask authors to enclose a cover letter with their revised submission detailing how they responded to recommendations, or why they did not or could not make the recommended changes.
When revisions are complete, authors should submit two copies of the paper along with a disk. We use MS Word 97 for Windows 95 as our word-processing program and convert the text file to PageMaker for final layout. Authors can do their part to ensure peace and harmony, in a little piece of Kansas if not all over the world, by following a few simple guidelines:
1) Be sure to enclose all elements necessary for publication, including key words, abstract, and author's statement.
2) Keep endnotes to an absolute minimum - HO is not a law review. If it doesn't fit in the body of the article, chances are it isn't all that necessary. References are cited in the text, not in notes.
3) Speaking of references, make sure they are in the proper HO style and remove any and all "courtesy citations." It isn't hard to tell the difference between necessary citations and those thrown in as padding. And please get the citations right - make sure citations in the text appear in the references, and that year of publication is the same in both places. We spend more time correcting and cajoling proper citations out of authors than on any other aspect of copyediting. We want your paper to be both informative and accurate, as do you, but it is not our responsibility, nor do we have the staff or time, to hunt down correct citations, authors' first names (required in the HO format), and the like.
4) Carefully edit your own work. I copyedit each MS, and while I don't approve of intrusive copyediting, neither do I have much patience for the sloppy and excessive writing that pervades scholarly journals. The best way to ensure that what you want to say gets said is to make it as clean and as tight as you possibly can before you send it to us.
5) Make sure any tables, figures, maps, or other graphics are essential to the text and present the material in the most effective manner. Just because your word processor can turn out nifty bar graphs is no reason to use them, unless they enhance your argument and are the best way to present the data. Graphics that cannot be included on the disk in a readable format should be submitted in camera-ready copy.
Five months or so before your article is scheduled to appear in print, we put it into production. We begin by copying your disk to our hard drive and checking for incompatibilities. Next the editorial assistants check the references and query authors by E-mail to correct inconsistencies and fill in missing elements in the citations (first names, city of publication, page numbers, etc.) and elsewhere in the MS (key words, abstract, author's statement). Then I copyedit the text, contacting authors as needed. By working with authors to fill in missing information and resolve queries at this stage, we eliminate the need for extensive revisions at the galley stage.
We finish copyediting and revising the manuscripts for an issue 2.5 months before it goes to press. We then send manuscripts to our production editor, Neil Hann, in Oklahoma City. He lays out the issue and returns the galley proofs to us in 2-3 weeks. During this time, we alert authors to expect their galleys soon and ask for a current mailing address. Upon receipt of the galleys, we lightly proof them, paying special attention to titles, headings, graphics, and references. Corrections are noted, and galleys are sent to authors with instructions for their review and date of return (usually 4-5 days). Although we proof the galleys simultaneously with the authors, it is their responsibility to read their article carefully and notify us of necessary corrections.
This is the first time the authors see their MS in print - it looks different, and very often they want to make substantive changes or "correct" our editorial revisions. We willingly incorporate corrections that stem from our errors, but at this stage we cannot make substantial changes just because the author wants to reword the original. Once the galleys come back to us, we make final corrections and send them back to Neil for final revision. A month or so later, the issue is in the mail. HO does not provide offprints of articles. Authors receive an extra copy of the journal to be used to photocopy their article.
I hope you now have a better sense of the life and times of an HO manuscript. Instructions for submitting your manuscript appear on the inside back cover of each issue. Detailed guidelines will appear in the upcoming Fall 1999 issue.
