Manuscript processing time (continued) I n his Editorial last month, Dr. Christman outlined some of our concerns regarding the time it takes to process research manuscripts from receipt to publication. He also described some of the changes made during the year to reduce the time lag. Additional pages and changes in office procedures will help a lot but cooperation of reviewers in meeting our suggested deadlines for return of manuscripts with comments is still a key factor in prompt publication. W e never cease to be amazed a t the remarkable response we receive from the large majority of our reviewers. In the past twelve months we have received over 300 new manuscripts for consideration. More than 500 people assisted in the review process. Last year we found that 50% of the reviewers were academic, 25% government, and 25% industrial. That trend has continued. Authors, too, play an important role in achieving lower lag-time averages. Overall processing time is reduced considerably when authors take seriously the Editor’s admonition for strict attention to brevity. Preparation of manuscripts in accordance with our copy requirements is also a factor in reducing time a t the revision stage. W e have been pleased with author response to our requests for revision as conditions for acceptance, as well as their scholarly response to reviewer criticisms. As mail transit time is involved in all stages of manuscript processing, reduction in the number of times a manuscript is in the mail is essential in our
efforts to speed up the process. The ideal situation, which would resolve most of our problems, is to have prompt response from reviewers, prompt editorial decision, prompt revision and attention to all details by authors, and thereafter immediate acceptance and editing of manuscripts. If a reviewer doesn’t respond, it takes time to mail the manuscript to another. If an author doesn’t send every item for the finished product, such as an abstract or original drawings, it takes another mailing for our request for additional items, and another for the return. So, to the question asked most frequently by authors, “what is the average time from receipt to publication,” we say it depends on a number of variables. Although we should like to put the onus on the authors, or, failing that, on the reviewers, we still have to work a t it here. It is truly a cooperative project and cannot be otherwise. W e think our publication is “the greatest” but it-is accomplished only through the combined efforts of many. W e should like to thank each in person but since that isn’t possible, on behalf of Dr. Christman, Dr. O’Melia and the editorial staff, we take this opportunity to express our gratitude for the generous and courteous cooperation of our authors and reviewers.
Volume 12, Number 13, December 1978
1349
