Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 7175–7177
The Impact of Editor Glaze on Environmental Science & Technology
RHONDA SAUNDERS
JOSEPH M. SUFLITA University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
It is all but impossible to reflect on the career of William (Bill) Glaze and not consider his impact on Environmental Science & Technology. As the Editor-in-Chief of the publication from 1988 to 2002, Bill’s efforts are inextricably linked with the evolution of the journal. The Glaze era was a remarkable time and easily the “exponential phase” of journal growth in both prestige and influence. In his capacity as Editor, Bill had the final responsibility for overseeing a wide variety of journal operations as well as the formulation of editorial policies. He also wrote a monthly column that was sometimes provocative and always thoughtful. While such duties could easily fill anyone’s days, Bill was simultaneously a professor and chair of his department at the University of North Carolina (1989-1997), Director of the Carolina Environmental Program (1997-2002), and Chair of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (2001-2003). So it is certainly fair to suggest that he adroitly managed his myriad professional responsibilities. With this article, I would like to specifically reflect on Bill’s tenure as Editor. ES&T readers will have an intuitive 10.1021/es102573u
2010 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 09/29/2010
understanding of what editors do and how they come to decisions based on the advice of peers. Writing in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing, the former ES&T Associate Editor (AE) (1992-1996) Cass Miller and coauthor Juliana Harris describe editors as “...servants of the scientific community, who... have agreed to make a significant commitment in time and energy to the advancement of their discipline”. Further, “Editors are motivated to maintain and improve the quality of the journals they serve, since the health and prestige of the journal is a reflection of their leadership.” (1). In consistent fashion, I once asked Bill why, in the face of many other very pressing duties, he agreed to assume the responsibility of ES&T Editor. Succinctly, Bill realized that environmental science was in its formative stages and underappreciated by many as a valid and serious science endeavor in its own right. Bill was determined to rectify what he viewed as an injustice and ES&T became an essential vehicle for expanding the boundaries of the discipline. To fully appreciate the Glaze era, it is important to examine the history of the discipline as reflected by the number of manuscripts published under the rubric of environmental science and technology (Figure 1). Before the journal existed, scholars published papers that would easily be classified as such. I’ve called this the preES&T era (Figure 1). There was a far lower level of activity than that associated with the inauguration of the journal. From 1967, the first year of ES&T, and for 20 years thereafter, there was a steady increase in the number of papers published by the journal until it leveled off at about 200 manuscripts per year (Figure 1). This was a tumultuous time in U.S. society and environmental science in particular. It was marked by the passage of a plethora of landmark legislative acts including the Endangered Species Conservation Act (1969), the Clean Water Act (1972), the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), the Toxic Substances Control Act (1974), and Superfund (1980). This was also the time when the EPA was started (1970), the first Earth Day was organized (1970), and leaded gasoline was being phased out. Against this backdrop, the founding ES&T editor, Jim Morgan as well as his successor, Russ
FIGURE 1. The content growth for ES&T became exponential in the Glaze era, and continues similarly today. Note that “preES&T” era comprises manuscripts on the concept of “environmental chemistry” as selected by SciFinder. VOL. 44, NO. 19, 2010 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
7175
Christman, steered the ES&T ship and helped establish it as a premier journal in the discipline. The scientific conscience, if you will, of the environmental movement. When Bill took over as ES&T Editor, he could have hardly known the pressures he was about to experience. Under the leadership of his predecessors, the journal was largely balanced between pure chemistry and engineering contributions. As Editor, it was expected that Bill would handle water chemistry papers; Phil Singer’s bailiwick was water and wastewater quality and engineering, while John Seinfeld handled papers on atmospheric and indoor air chemistry and physics. These two individuals were the only AEs for the journal in 1988. Bill reasoned that the journal couldn’t possibly continue to attract first-rate papers in the broad spectrum of scientific disciplines and interdisciplinary areas that constituted environmental science if the journal retained only three editors. He vigorously sought out more AEs and expanded the range of disciplines represented by the Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) membership. This was done in spite of a vocal faction of the EAB that wanted to narrow the journal scope and to change its name to “The Journal of Environmental Chemistry”. The strategy seemed to work. Under the leadership of Bill Glaze, the sheer number of contributions submitted to and published by the journal increased dramatically (Figure 1). Bill was absolutely instrumental in managing this growth. This was no small task. With the help of a dedicated staff, an erudite EAB and 5 AEs (in 1991), not a single gathering of these individuals went by without earnest discussions about where the journal was headed, how growth was to be managed, how the highest scholarly standards were to be maintained, and seemingly endless discussions of what truly constituted the most substantive reports in environmental science and technology. While a very challenging time, the overriding concern was on maintaining the standards of the journal. As noted above, ES&T earned a sterling reputation, but Bill correctly reasoned that it was imperative to maintain that status, even in the face of unprecedented growth. The general trend in the rate of publication continues today (Figure 1) and represents an equal challenge for Bill’s successor, Jerry Schnoor, the EAB, the staff, and the now 14 AEs. So what is it that Bill did to manage growth and maintain journal standards? One of the really important things was to change the manuscript processing time. This is a pretty simple and standard process these days where an author submits an article to a central manuscript office where it is assigned to an AE (or the Editor), who then identifies and solicits reviewers. These respond to the AE who then transmits a decision based on the advice that he or she may receive. However, it wasn’t always that way. In the earlier system, all communication by authors, AEs, the Editor, and reviewers at all phases of manuscript development was with a central office. This might have initially served the journal well, but proved quite cumbersome in light of the explosive growth in manuscript submissions. It simply took too long to process the evaluations of manuscripts. The changeover to the current system was, after several fits and starts, more or less seamless to authors and readers of the journal. However, the changes effectively reduced manuscript-processing time in half. There is no doubt in my mind that Bill’s effort to catalyze these changes were critical in keeping ES&T an attractive and desirable place to publish important papers. Growth per se, was hardly unique to the environmental sciences. While a pragmatic reality in the Glaze era, the ES&T experience was probably not substantially different from the general trends in scholarly publishing at the time (2). The advent of cheap but powerful computers introduced in the mid-1980s changed the way scientists and engineers did their scholarly work. The widespread introduction of the 7176
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 44, NO. 19, 2010
FIGURE 2. The Glaze era made a lasting mark on ES&T. Data collected from ISI Web of Science. World Wide Web in the early 1990s made information more available and catalyzed the inevitable march of ES&T and all journals to electronic manuscript handling and publishing. From 1975 to 1995, there were several general publication trends including increases for the: (i) average number of journal issues, (ii) average number of articles per title, and (iii) average total number of journal pages (2). Similar growth in manuscript pages was experienced by other journals that published papers in environmental science or environmental engineering. But what accounts for the dramatic increase in scholarly activity in environmental science and engineering in the Glaze era? Certainly, there was a general raising of environmental consciousness among the general public during this time. Given its high profile, one might expect that there would be substantial increases in environmental funding trends. However, this does not appear to be the case (http://www. aaas.org/spp/rd/guidisc.htm). The federal funding trends from all sources for environmental science has remained stagnant for years, sometimes decades. So, funding doesn’t seem to explain the rapid growth in knowledge in the discipline. So if it is not funding, it almost has to be people actively engaged in the discipline. Certainly, environmental issues are not constrained by national borders. Bill recognized this fact and instituted a serious effort to increase the visibility of the journal in international circles. When the journal was inaugurated, non-U.S. authors accounted for 6.6% of the journal contributions. In 1980 to the start of Bill’s tenure, non-U.S. authors were easily less than 20% of the contributors. Bill was very aggressive in establishing an ES&T office in Europe, garnering leading international figures on the ES&T EAB, and generally pushed hard to make sure the journal was much more than just an “American” journal. I suspect that it must be very gratifying for Bill to know that when he left the journal foreign authorship was at 48%, a trend that continues to this day. In 2009, ES&T had 52% non-U.S. authorship and contributions were received from 68 countries. As noted previously, Bill was absolutely insistent on establishing and maintaining the highest scholarly standards for the journal. Every EAB meeting would assess how the journal was doing relative to others in the discipline. There are many ways to assess the quality of a journal, but arguably, one of the more meaningful gauges is a function of the citations to ES&T published papers relative to non-ES&T work in both environmental science and environmental engineering (Figure 2). Clearly, the trend established in the Glaze era continues and is even more pronounced today. So, by this criterion, Bill’s goals for the journal have indeed been realized.
One last comment about the scope of ES&T as influenced by Bill Glaze. After careful strategic consideration and advice from many circles, Bill systematically expanded the scope of the journal into areas such as environmental biology, ecotoxicology, and environmental policy, all the while planning and plotting various ways to attract the very best articles in these areas. At one EAB meeting, Bill indicated that he wasn’t certain the journal would succeed in such endeavors, but he was absolutely confident that it was important to try. This sentiment was skillfully expressed in an ES&T editorial entitled “Chemistry And The Quality Of Man’s Environment” (3). The editorial clearly indicated that the journal will cover “...all aspects of environmental chemistry, ...including biology, ecology, economics, meteorology, climatology, hydrology, geochemistry, limnology, toxicology, biological engineering, medical sciences and soil science...”. However, Bill Glaze did not author this policy. Rather, it was written by Jim Morgan in volume 1, issue 1 in 1967. So in a very real sense, Bill helped the journal realize its original vision.
Final Thoughts Bill once indicated that one of the toughest parts of being ES&T Editor was telling your friends that they could do better. He effectively did that and helped make us all better in the process. He knew how to be forceful without being abrasive.
It is perhaps the highest compliment to a former editor that most will recall his decisions as fair-minded and well reasoned. He was clearly a skilled administrator who first managed the explosive growth of the journal, while insisting on maintaining the highest of scholarly standards and yet decreased manuscript processing time. He strategically increased the journal scope as well as its international visibility. He did a remarkable job as Editor of ES&T and helped maintain its status as the premier journal in the discipline. It is entirely fitting to thank him and to recognize his efforts with this tribute issue.
Acknowledgments Thanks to Darcy J. Gentlemen for expert advice and editing of the article.
Literature Cited (1) Miller, C. T.; Harris, J. C. Scholarly journal publication: Conflicting agendas for scholars, publishers, and institutions. J. Scholarly Publ. 2004, 35 (2), 73–91. (2) Tenopir, C.; King, D. W. Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers; SLA Publishing: Washington, DC, 2000; p 181. (3) Morgan, J. J. Chemistry and the quality of man’s environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1967, 1 (1), 1.
ES102573U
VOL. 44, NO. 19, 2010 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
7177
