See also, Information for Authors
From, the Society for Applied Anthropology Newsletter
Vol, 11, No. 2
REPORT FROM THE HO EDITOR
By Donald D. Stull
<stull@lark.cc.ukans.edu>
University of Kansas
Human Organization managed to survive the end of the 20th century and my first year of stewardship more or less intact. And since I couldn't find anyone else to write my column for this Newsletter, I thought you might like to hear how things went last year. In 1999 (Volume 58), we published a total of 468 pages: 37 articles, 3 Malinowski lectures, 3 special features, 9 commentaries, 2 editorials, and a volume index. We reviewed a total of 204 manuscripts (mss) during 1999: 150 were submitted in 1999 and 54 were carryovers from the previous editor. Of the 150 mss received in 1999, 39 (26%) were accepted and 66 (44%) were rejected. The remaining 45 (30%) were under review when these figures were compiled in mid-February.
Of the 150 mss we received in 1999, 124 were from the United States (83%) and 26 were from other countries (17%). Thirty-eight states and territories are represented in the submissions from the U.S., but three states -- California (14), Florida (12), and New York (10) -- accounted for almost one-third of the mss (29%). Of the 26 international submissions, more than one-third (38%) came from three countries -- Canada (4), France (3), and Mexico (3). (Three other countries had two submissions each -- Israel, the Netherlands, and Norway.) From these figures, it appears that concentration is no less a problem in applied social science than it is in the corporate world.
One of my main goals as editor has been to process manuscripts promptly and to bring completed works to publication in a timely fashion. I am very proud of our accomplishments on this front. Three factors influence how long it takes to publish a manuscript: processing time; revision time; and time to publication. Processing time is calculated from the date we receive a manuscript to the date we reach a final decision on it. (We round each month to 30 days and include weekends.)
In 1999, the average time it took us to process a manuscript was 89 days; the range was from 6 to 156 days. Revision time refers to the interval between the date of acceptance and the date the author returns the revised manuscript. On average, authors took 67 days to revise their mss after being notified of its acceptance (range 21-132). To calculate publishing time, we subtract the date we receive a revised manuscript from the date it is published. The average publishing time during 1999 was 146.5 days; the range was 72-242. (We use March 1, June 1, September 1, and December 1 as the target dates of publication for HO, and if the issue comes out within the scheduled month, we consider it to have been published on time. Unlike many other scholarly journals, the trains run on time at HO.) From the time a manuscript arrived in our mailbox until it reached our readership in published form took an average of only 303 days in 1999. We're mighty proud of those numbers. Our motto is, after all, "get it out the door."
As editor, I get to puff out my chest, flap my wings, and crow about Human Organization. But I play only a part in bringing the journal to you. My editorial assistants, Li Jian, George Gotto, and Kristin Lundberg compiled these figures. More importantly, they are the primary reason things run so smoothly, from start to finish. They take care of HO business -- and keep me in line -- while juggling classes, teaching, new babies, and dissertations. As a matter of fact, "Lee" defended his dissertation with honors and will receive his doctorate in anthropology in May.
Neil Hann and Laura Kriegstrom are responsible for layout and inlook.lb This past year we've played around a little and had a false start or two, but I think we've worked out most of the kinks. Not only is HO continuing its long tradition of publishing only the finest scholarship in applied social science, but we're doing it in a format that is ineasy on the eyes.lr Jeff Longhofer has single-handedly taken HO into the digital age with a Web site that is now integral to our journal. And Robert Hackenberg's essays on "advancing applied anthropology" are always engaging and provocative. And last, but far from least, I want to recognize our many reviewers -- without them nothing else we do would be possible. We thank them by name in the summer issue, which will appear in your mailbox come June.
We made it through our first year without iigetting too much blood on the floor.ln (I can't help it, meatpacking metaphors are so poetic.) We're well into our second year and getting the hang of it. Of course, I've got to do a better job of finding someone else to write my column.
