1. Agronomy Journal Editorial Board Meeting Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 3:00 to 5:00pm

2. 3:00-3:05Welcome 3:05-3:20ASA Publications Director, Mark Mandelbaum Digital Library and Page charges 3:20-3:25Recognize incoming and outgoing Editors 3:25-3:30AJ Statistics, 2012 (submissions, accepted, rejected, etc.) 2011 symposium papers, Barry Glaz 3:30-3:40Managing Editor’s Report, Sue Ernst (new page charges, electronic only, open access, TOC headings) 3:40-3:50Software issues, Brett Holte Impact Factor (discussion) Need to change due dates by SAE’s Easy access to web page showing AJ statistics http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=15639&tip=sid 3:50-4:00Top reasons why papers are 1) accepted, 2) rejected ASA Abstract, example (326) 4:00-4:20AJ Editorial Structure (SAE-AE-SE, versus TE-AE) Utility of the Screening Editor, fake peer reviews 4:20-4:50Added issues as raised by SAE’s and AE’s AJ board needs to encourage authors to publish in AJ (symposia from the meetings) Need for added Crops SAE (genetics) 5:00Adjourn

3.  1/01/2012 to 10/5/2012364 submitted 34 (9%) rejected and not reviewed  Acceptance, 201247%  Expected submissions, 2012480  26 SAE’s (2 retiring) 94 AE’s Average papers/SAE, 201212 Range4-16  Crop science/geneticsSAE

4.  Increased submissions: China and India  Added SAE to assist in better evaluating these papers  Science is quite good, but struggle with English  ASA recommends several web sites that can be used to improve their paper.  https://www.agronomy.org/publications/language-help https://www.agronomy.org/publications/language-help  http://virtual.parkland.edu/walker102/punct.htm http://virtual.parkland.edu/walker102/punct.htm  http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/ http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/  Instructions to Authors  https://www.agronomy.org/files/publications/aj-instructions- author.pdf https://www.agronomy.org/files/publications/aj-instructions- author.pdf

7. AJ 2007-08  Editor  Technical Editors (4-6 depending on the year)  Crops (2)  Production Agriculture  Biometry  Modeling  Soils  Associate Editors (4-12 per category)

8. AJ 2007-08  Manuscripts assigned by the Editor to TE’s  40% were “soils” papers, and 60% were crops, precision agriculture, biometry, management, etc.  Not all were papers in the actual category each TE was listed  Some papers returned to authors by the TE without sending them out to an AE. Reasons,  1. English was so poor that they would not have been given a fair chance. Asked the Author to get the paper to an “English Speaker” and for them to correct it.  2. Clearly something missing in analysis, main Table, Figures, etc.  3. English units throughout, other units

9. Technical Editor, 2001-08 Average number of papers as Technical Editor 7+ years, 78/year Total papers: 516  Review time: 141 ± 92 days (includes 2 nd review) Methods  Technical Editor  1. assigned paper by Editor  2. before assigning paper to AE, checked to see how many papers he/she had in- queue (in process).  Did not assign papers to anyone who had 3 papers in-queue (active).  Seldom assigned papers to anyone who had 2 papers in queue (active).  3. Did not assign papers to an AE with outstanding papers or who had a poor processing time record  4. Did assign papers to an AE who had already processed more than his/her fair share of papers that year, and who only had 2 papers in queue. (AE’s who just knew how to properly process papers)

10. Associate Editor Average number of papers as Associate Editor  6 years, 8-12/year Methods - Associate Editor - Assigned paper by the Technical Editor - Read abstract, methods, conclusions - Looked at the references (potential key reviewer) - Identified 2-4 potential reviewers from references - Called 2-4 of these potential reviewers on the phone. 1. “such and such have referenced your “AJ” paper of 2005. Commented on the importance of their work, and that being cited was very important. Once I had them there (respect for their work), I had them on the “hook” and they couldn’t say no to my next sentence, “can you review a paper with some similar work…..” Using this approach, I never had a potential reviewer say no.

11. Current review process  Strengths  Enlisting reviewers is very impersonal, matter of fact  Identifying potential AE’s (reviewers) is efficient  Review time is down  Weaknesses  Little communication between TE’s (now SAE’s)  Limited editorial board interaction,  Too many SAE’s, AE’s (reviewers) to encourage any kind of synergy

12. Thank you  Sue Ernst  Brett Holte  Brent Godshalk  Warren Dick  Meg Ipsen  Penny Magana  SAE’s  AE’s

13. Past 12 Months SubmittedAccepted Immediate Reject RejectMinor Revision Major Revision % Accepted 4621914718414918145.30% Journal Statistics Prior 12 Months Avg. days from submission to first decision34 Avg. Associate Editor turnaround time (days) - Original19 Avg. Reviewer turnaround time (days) - Original19 Avg. Associate Editor turnaround time (days) - Revision14 Avg. Reviewer turnaround time (days) - Revision14 Avg. Time to Assign Reviewer (days) - Original5 Avg. Time to Assign Reviewer (days) - Revision3 Avg. days from submission to final decision55

14. Manuscripts Submitted by Topic Area 1. Agronomic Application of Genetic Resources17 2. Crop Ecology and Physiology49 3. Crop Economics, Production, and Management67 4. Climatology and Water Management16 5. Biometry, Modeling, and Statistics41 6. Soil Fertility and Crop Nutrition71 7. Organic Agriculture and Agroecology11 8. Soil Tillage, Conservation, and Management23 9. Agronomy, Soils, and Environmental Quality76 Urban Agriculture0 11. Biofuels18 12. Pest Interactions in Agronomic Systems9

15. Accept/Release Report by Year Decision Made YearAcceptReleaseRelease w/o ReviewTotal % Accepted 2012861503827431.39% 20111921683939948.12% 2010209283049242.48% 2009179248743441.24% 200879942319640.31%

16. Accept/Release Report by Year Manuscript Received YearAcceptReleaseRelease w/o ReviewTotal % Accepted 20121391723834939.83% 20111911673939748.11% 2010192281247540.42% 20091992452847242.16% 20082478010223.53%

17. Submissions Report Year US Submissions Intl. Submissions Total% Intl. 201217622039655.56% 201120821942751.29% 201025827152951.23% 200923423246649.79% 200812010022045.45%