Difference between revisions of "2013 journal breakout"
(Created page with "We had a nice discussion about the journal, with 13 or so attending. About half of those present are on the editorial committee, including Peter Murray, Shawn Averkamp, Andrew Da...") |
(→Topics of discussion) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Too many articles per issue? Maybe. | Too many articles per issue? Maybe. | ||
| + | Many agreed with the statement that 10 seemed about the right number. Too many more and it becomes difficult to find time to read the articles. | ||
| + | There was an explicit desire from the non-editors in the group to keep to a quarterly issue schedule versus a pipeline where articles were published when they were ready. | ||
Call for new editors? Sometime soon. | Call for new editors? Sometime soon. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
We need to make the deadline for complete drafts more important to give other editors a chance to get involved earlier in the process. | We need to make the deadline for complete drafts more important to give other editors a chance to get involved earlier in the process. | ||
| − | Our pseudo-peer-review process works pretty well for the most part. | + | Our pseudo-peer-review process works pretty well for the most part. |
| + | Do we want to open up the submission discussion process broadly (while still reserving the voting for the identified editors)? | ||
| + | (As an aside, if we did this, could this be used to solicit adjunct editors for articles on topics that we don't have a depth of experience on the editorial committee?) | ||
Revision as of 16:08, 14 February 2013
We had a nice discussion about the journal, with 13 or so attending. About half of those present are on the editorial committee, including Peter Murray, Shawn Averkamp, Andrew Darby, Jonathan Rochkind, Terry Reese, and Gabriel Farrell.
Topics of discussion
Too many articles per issue? Maybe. Many agreed with the statement that 10 seemed about the right number. Too many more and it becomes difficult to find time to read the articles. There was an explicit desire from the non-editors in the group to keep to a quarterly issue schedule versus a pipeline where articles were published when they were ready.
Call for new editors? Sometime soon.
We need to make the deadline for complete drafts more important to give other editors a chance to get involved earlier in the process.
Our pseudo-peer-review process works pretty well for the most part. Do we want to open up the submission discussion process broadly (while still reserving the voting for the identified editors)? (As an aside, if we did this, could this be used to solicit adjunct editors for articles on topics that we don't have a depth of experience on the editorial committee?)
