EDITORIAL
Manuscript processing time revisited With added pages this year, we were able to cut through our backlog of accepted manuscripts so that processing lag-time a t the production stage has been inininial, a goal we have been striving for over the past two years. Processing from receipt to acceptance is a different story. For some years, we have received, from the Advisory Board, authors, and reviewers, the suggestion that we could save much time by telephoning prospective reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. It was their contention that we would thus be assured that reviewers were willing and able to perform the task and would send coniments within the designated time (two week plus mailing time). Not so. We tried it and we didn't like it. There were some advantages to the telephoning system, as noted by Dr. Christman in his October editorial. However, improvement in processing time w a s not one of them. I t took niore time in the initial handling because of the many calls to get willing, kivailable reviewers. Our data showed that the average time per manuscript to get a positive response from two reviewers was 23 minutes (range 2-75). And we made just as many telephone calls to tardy reviewers ;IS we had in the past. N o time was saved in that part of the process. Authors whose manuscripts were delayed during this experiment (many were also rev i ewer s) were g en era 1I y u n d e r st a n d i n g a n d pa t i en t . This year we owe particular thanks to our authors for their courteous and prompt response to requests for revision, even after lengthy delays in initial handling of their manuscripts.
In the period November I , I978 through October 3 I , 1979. we received 34 I new manuscript5 for consideration in the Current Research Section. During the same period, 503 reviewers assisted us-many of them more than once. Academe accountcd for 236: government, 125; and industry, 142. We thank all our reviewers for their support of the peer review process. It is a n essential component of a quality research publication. To quote thc late Howard Gerhart from his December I975 editwial in lndiistrinl & Etigirierritig C'heniistrj',.Prorlirct KID Qiinrtrrlj.: "You are unseen and, to the authors, anonymous persons who exercise talents to write professional judgments i n support of the peer revicw process. The results come back in many forms, degrees, and emotions. Depending upon circumstances, we observe various descriptive classifications of attitude and emphasis. B u t there are the many scholars who, knowing the subject matter, pass mature judgment in a fair manner a n d recite the concurrence along with the bias in a brief-Litself worthy of publication. The replies from two or three can never be a statistic. Neither can the editor be ;in adequate impartial judge. Yet the system works. Authors need a nicdiuni; I i brarians need expanding archives, and subscribers need to be informed."
Volume 13, Number 12, December 1979
1443
