2009 JEEM Report
JEEM Managing Editor’s report, end of 2009
1. Submissions
This year has seen the largest number of submissions since 2001, the first year when automated records were kept, with 315 submissions, which reflects a more than 10% increase over last year’s submissions (the previous all-time high). At the same time, the number of co-editors is essentially the same as in past years. One response to this increase in submissions is to apply a more stringent screen at the outset, which has resulted in an increase in the number of desk-rejects. At this time we have desk-rejected 33 papers, more than any other year during my tenure. At the same time the rate at which processed papers were offered the opportunity to revise and resubmit is about 15.8% (conditional on not being desk-rejected), an historic low.
2. Processing time
One implication of the sharp increase in submissions was an increasing in processing time. Average time taken by co-editors to first decision in 2009 is similar to recent years (97.4 days), as is average total time to first decision (113.5 days). The vast majority of papers take less than five months to process (the 75th quantile is 149 days), and only about 5% of papers take more than 8 months to process. However, the fraction of papers that take more than three months to process is a bit larger than in the past (61%), which I suspect is a result of the sharp increase in processed manuscripts during 2009. One approach I have discussed with the co-editors is to reject more aggressively before sending papers out for review.
3. Acceptance rate
The available data can be used to construct ultimate acceptance rates for some of the past years. All files from 2001 through 2005 have been closed; all but one file from 2006 and all but a handful of files from 2007 are closed as well. The tabular report lists the number of submissions, desk-rejects, invited R&Rs, rejections on the second and third rounds (listed as reject2 and reject3, respectively), and total number of papers ultimately accepted. Comparing this last number to papers submitted gives the acceptance rate in the penultimate column; I also list the fraction of papers that are ultimately accepted, conditional on having been offered the chance to resubmit (in the last column). A rough estimate of the current acceptance rate can be formed by multiplying the estimated revise-and-resubmit rate for 2009 (about 15.8%) against the conditional probability of acceptance given an invitation to revise has been offered (about .814 during my tenure); this yields an estimate of 12.9%. Consistent with the goal of raising quality and tightening standards, acceptance rates have been declining since 2002. I also note the acceptance rate, conditional on resubmission, continues to rise.
4. Staffing issues
During 2009 three co-editors asked to be replaced: Chris Costello, John List and Rob Williams. In addition, Marty Smith asked to be relieved of his duties for a year while he was on sabbatical; he plans to resume his duties in July of 2010. Also, Arun Malik has recently asked to step down as soon as a suitable replacement can be found. To replace these individuals I have recruited Carol McAusland, Mike McKee and Quinn Weninger as co-editors.
5. Best Paper
This year, we instituted an award for the best paper published during the 12 month period from July 2008 to June 2009. The committee that made this year’s selection consisted of an AERE appointment, Spencer Banzhaf, a co-editor, Arik Levinson, and myself. While there were a number of strong contenders for the prize, the committee chose “Daylight Time and Energy: Evidence from an Australian Experiment,” by Hendrik Wolff and Ryan Kellogg. The award will be announced tomorrow at the AERE luncheon
6. Profile
The journal continues to have a solid reputation. While this surely reflects the journal’s name recognition associated with papers published in the less-recent past, I believe it also reflects the quality of papers printed in the last few years. This distinction is important, in that it shows that the journal’s reputation owes a lot to the flow of recently published papers.