See also, Information for Authors
From, the Society for Applied Anthropology Newsletter
Vol, 14, No. 2
REPORT FROM THE HO EDITOR
By Donald D. Stull
<stull@lark.cc.ukans.edu>
University of Kansas
Last month in Portland, I presented my 2002 annual report on Human Organization. I was surprised that only a fraction of attendees showed up for the SfAA business meeting—I suppose most folks just couldn’t resist the sunny skies and 72-degree weather outside, or maybe they were searching for the elusive Church of Elvis. But as the saying goes, “You can run but you cannot hide,” so here are the highlights of my report on Volume 61 of Human Organization (HO).
In 2002, HO published 32 articles, 1 Malinowski Award Lecture, and 2 Peter K. New Prize papers, for a total of 35 publications and 404 pages. Submissions were up last year—we received 118 new submissions— 29 more than we received in 2001 (but still 8 fewer than in 2000). By the beginning of March, we had evaluated 112 of these manuscripts (MSS); of these 42% had been accepted and 58% had been rejected. This acceptance rate was roughly double acceptance rates for the two previous years (28% in 2001 and 23% in 2000).
Two factors contributed to higher acceptance rate. First, 26 of the 112 manuscripts came to us as part of special collections, and the guest editors who compiled these collections worked closely with my associate editor, Robert Hackenberg, and me to ensure their submissions were of high quality. When we remove those 26 submissions from our computations, the acceptance rate dips to 35%, 7% higher than the 2001 rate. Interestingly, in its most recent annual report American Anthropologist reported a similar increase in acceptance rates over the previous year—from 27% to 36%. These figures point to a second explanation for greater acceptance rates—authors are taking more care with their manuscripts before they submit them. And for that, we are grateful.
The staff of HO continues to make every effort to process submissions in a timely manner. Our goal has always been to reach a decision on each new submission within 90 days. For the third year in a row, the average time it took us to reach a decision bested our goal. In 2002, manuscript (MS) processing time averaged 84 days; by comparison, American Anthropologist averaged 150 days. Authors averaged 81 days to revise their manuscripts after being notified of its acceptance. Once we received a suitably revised manuscript, the average time to publication was 169 days. From the time a manuscript arrived in our mailbox until it reached our readership in published form took an average of only 272 days in 2002. Our motto remains, “Get it out the door.”
Of the 186 authors who submitted MSS to HO in 2002, 58% were men and 40% were women (2% are undetermined). Of the 118 manuscripts submitted, 98 (83%) were from the United States and 20 (17%) were from other countries. U.S. submissions came from 35 states and 1 territory, with California (11) and Texas (8) accounting for the most submissions. The 20 international submissions came from 12 countries—Australia and Mexico tied for the lead with 4 MSS each.
This year we went beyond sex and nationality to examine “professional status” of our authors. We classified authors into four types: student, professor/instructor, other professional within the academy, and nonacademic. We then went back and looked at each of the 315 authors we have published in the past four years. Here’s what we found:
- Student 34 (11%)
- Professor/Instructor 184 (58%)
- Others w/in academy 44 (14%)
- Nonacademic 53 (17%)
In my view, the figures contained in this report are cause for celebration, but they also point to areas that need improvement. The Society for Applied Anthropology is an international organization, and this should be reflected in its publications. Over the last three years, HO has received submissions from 44 states and territories in the United States and 27 countries. We strongly encourage our international colleagues to submit their best works to HO.
Human Organization has long been criticized for its failure to serve the needs of, and speak to, practicing anthropologists. Critics often say it is primarily an outlet for the publication of research by university professors with a bent toward application. Some might look at the numbers on professional status of our authors and come to this same conclusion. But I read these numbers differently. Yes, most of the authors we have published in my four years as editor have been “traditional academics”—professors for whom scholarly publication is a normal part of their professional activity, if not a necessity. But the second largest category of published authors consists of nonacademic practitioners (17%), followed close behind by academic practitioners (14%) and students (11%). In fact, HO’s authors are spread widely across the spectrum of applied social science—from professionals in training to practitioners, both within and beyond the academy, to professors and instructors. Some might argue that more needs to be done to achieve “publication parity” in the pages of HO. I believe the distribution reflects the realities of our profession—realities of research and writing skills, of professional expectations and rewards, of time, of inclination.
The editorial staff of HO is dedicated to the publication of the very finest scholarship on “the principles controlling the relations of human beings to one another . . . and the wide application of those principles to practical problems.” We depend on you to provide us with that scholarship. So get cracking!
