Editorial Essay: Volume 28 Number 3--4

Curtis Runnels and Norman Hammond
Editorial Essay
Journal of Field Archaeology 28 (2001) 237--238

With this double issue (Volume 28, Number 3--4) of the Journal of Field Archaeology we wish to remind readers of changes to our publication schedule. We shall continue to publish double issues until we are able to return to quarterly issues. We emphasize that we do not have any significant backlog of manuscripts. Articles submitted today require an average of twelve to fourteen months from the initial submission of a manuscript until publication, a schedule in line with the industry standard. Beginning with the next double issue, the Journal of Field Archaeology (Volume 29: 1--2) will be dated ``2002--2004'' and Volume 30 will have the current year of publication. This change will bring the date on the title page and the copyright date into alignment and more accurately reflect the timeliness of the articles. Although we are publishing double issues, the resulting volumes will still contain around 500 pages, and subscribers will receive the same number of pages and articles.

The editors receive more questions concerning the handling of manuscripts than on any other topic, and it may be useful to provide a description of the process from the receipt of a manuscript to its publication. When a manuscript is submitted for consideration for publication, its receipt is acknowledged by our office. This is typically the only communication that the author will receive until the Editor has made a decision to accept or reject the manuscript. If, however, the manuscript is not prepared according to our guidelines (e.g., it is single spaced rather than double spaced, has no title page, abstract, etc.), the manuscript will be returned to the author for formatting before it is given to the Editor. All manuscripts received are logged in and traced through the review, editing, and publication process.

Once acknowledged and logged in, a properly formatted manuscript is handed to the Editor who will, assuming that the manuscript is judged suitable for consideration for publication in the Journal of Field Archaeology, select three or four potential reviewers. The Editor selects potential reviewers from a list of specialists in many fields, and we are always happy to hear from those who wish to volunteer their services in this capacity. The office contacts potential reviewers by e-mail to determine their availability and willingness to review the manuscript in question. When a reviewer agrees, a copy of the manuscript is mailed to them. The Editor continues to contact potential reviewers until two or more have agreed to evaluate the manuscript. The process from the receipt of a manuscript until it is mailed out to reviewers may be only a matter of days, but can take longer because the Editor and the office staff are not full time employees of the Journal (the only full time employee is the Managing Editor) and there are demands on their time from other quarters.

After a manuscript has been sent to the reviewers, we allow a month to six weeks for the reviewers to complete their work. If we do not hear from them in a timely manner, we inquire whether there is a problem and ask when we can expect to receive the review. If delays are unavoidable, new reviewers are contacted and the process is repeated until the Editor has at least two useful reviews. At that point the Editor re-reads the manuscript along with the reviews. If the reviewers advise rejection, and the Editor concurs, the manuscript will be returned to the author with copies of the reviews and a letter explaining the reasons for the rejection. If the reviewers recommend publication, and the Editor agrees, the Editor edits the manuscript closely, and examines the art with the Managing Editor in order to make suggestions for improvements. This process often results in suggestions for revisions in addition to any suggested by the reviewers. When the manuscript is edited, the Editor returns it to the author with copies of the reviews and a letter explaining the revisions that are required to make the manuscript publishable.

Depending upon the time of year (holidays and summers are bad times to find archaeologists at their desks), the reviewing process takes from two to four months. Reviews and editing are the most time-consuming parts of the process, but they are also the most important. The Journal is committed to peer-reviewing and careful editing to ensure the quality and significance of the articles. Because reviewing and editing take time, but no more than necessary, authors are advised to be patient. It is not possible for us to communicate with the author at every stage of the process, and the author's first communication from us after the acknowledgement of the receipt of the manuscript is usually the Editor's letter of decision. Telephone calls and e-mails asking after the status of a manuscript, while understandable, do require us to halt production while we attend to the inquiry.

Our editorial policy is to accept for publication only manuscripts that do not require major revision. Authors should bear in mind that acceptance is in every case provisional, and final acceptance depends upon the receipt of a completely and satisfactorily revised manuscript. In the event that reviewers strongly recommend publication, and the editors recognize that a manuscript has substantial merit but requires extensive revision, the Editor will not accept the manuscript for publication. In some cases, however, when the manuscript is returned to the author the Editor may indicate that the manuscript, if revised, can be re-submitted and a decision to publish the revision could be made quickly by the Editor. When any revised manuscript is returned to the Editor, the Editor reads the manuscript again to determine if the suggested revisions have been addressed and whether any questions raised by the Editor and the reviewers still require resolution. If the manuscript is in good shape it is formally accepted for publication (the author is informed of this decision by letter) and put into production. Typically eight weeks or more are required for the author to provide revisions.

Itself another time-consuming and difficult process, production includes copyediting, typesetting, page layout and formatting, design decisions, proofreading, printing, and binding. This can take six months or more. Thus an average of twelve to fourteen months is required from receipt of the manuscript to publication. Delays occur chiefly, in our experience, in two places, both beyond our control. Reviewers contribute their time and expertise, and good reviews take time to write; although we make every effort to move a manuscript along in a timely manner, it is not feasible or collegial to apply undue pressure to obtain accelerated reviews. Because the editors require at least two peer reviews, we must hold some manuscripts until we have the requisite number of reviews. Other delays occur after an accepted manuscript is returned to an author for revision, a task commonly requiring several months.

In our experience, the most critical factor affecting the time taken to publish an article is the willingness of the author of the manuscript to make an effort to cooperate with the editors. A well written, logically organized manuscript prepared according to our guidelines will move swiftly and smoothly to publication. It is our goal to publish articles of significance and high quality, and to this end we emphasize good, clear, expository prose, informative and well designed art, and high production values for the printed book. We make every effort to work with authors to make the presentation of their research clear, accurate, and effective. If authors endeavor to do their best work, and we continue to have the services of our dedicated and hardworking reviewers, we can achieve this goal. We continue to evaluate our ``Guidelines for Contributors,'' and updated ``Guidelines'' ( html and pdf ) can be found in this issue. We would like to draw attention to the changes in the stylistic conventions for dates. The new guidelines are expanded to cover, among other things, the different conventions for reporting uncalibrated and calibrated radiocarbon dates. Among the most noticeable changes, the abbreviation A.C. will no longer be used. It is replaced with A.D. There may be some inconsistency in how abbreviations are used during the transition period, but eventually the new stylistic conventions will be consistent.

Index Page for Editorials

JFA Home Page

Maintained by Al B. Wesolowsky

abw@bu.edu