Editor Preference Selection

When submitting a manuscript to JGR Space Physics, one of the optional steps is to indicate a preference for editor.

JGRSpace-editor-list

I am writing this post to tell you a few things about this selection:

  1. After the manuscript goes through its quality control and compliance checks with an AGU HQ publications staffer, it appears in my GEMS workflow. I see every paper submitted to JGR Space Physics. After I read the author list, key points, and abstract, I then assign it to an editor. If I assign it to myself, then it stays in my workflow. If I assign it to someone else, then it is out of my hands. This takes somewhere between 30 seconds and a few minutes for each paper. Sometimes I follow up with an email to the editor, if I saw something about the manuscript that I think the editor really needs to know.
  2. You don’t have to pick anyone from the list. Just leave it at “none/no preference” and I will assign the editor based on the topic and the relative workloads of the editors.
  3. Selecting someone is no guarantee that I will assign it to that editor. I could give it to someone else. I consider each request seriously but cannot always honor them.
  4. Please don’t pick an editor at the same institution as you or any of your coauthors. And yes, I treat all of Goddard Space Flight Center as one very large institute, so he is conflicted with everyone working there. And also yes, if you work for one of the usual contractors at GSFC, then I will check your address to see if you are there or somewhere else. If you work at Goddard, then please do not pick Kepko as your preferred editor; I will ignore that request.
  5. The two new editors, Drs. Viviane Pierrard and Natalia Ganushkina, are available for selection. I am slowly ramping up their assigned-paper rate to match that of the other editors, so please feel free to select their names.
  6. Please don’t select “Test Editor” from the list. This is there for, well, testing, as well as for Editorial manuscripts involving all of the editors, like the annual Reviewer Thank You. This is an obvious statement, but just to be clear: if you choose it, then I will ignore that request.

There is also an optional step for selecting an editor with whom you are conflicted. Those I nearly always honor. The conflict can be institutional (you or a coauthor are at the same place as an editor), professional (that editor has criticized your work in the past), or personal (you have had a bad experience with that editor). Please leave a note about the conflict. Only an AGU staffer and I will see those notes; please know that we keep them confidential. If you indicate that you have a conflict with me, well, then just leave the notes section blank!

Advertisements

New Editors for JGR Space Physics

The editor search for JGR Space Physics is done and the search committee has selected two new editors for the journal: Natalia Ganushkina and Viviane Pierrard. These two are highly qualified for the role and the final decision was quite difficult. We think that they will serve the space physics research community very well. With my amazing photo-editing powers, I have added them to our group picture:

NewEditors_June2018

            Remember that AGU is rapidly approaching its 100-year birthday in 2019, and there are many plans for celebrating this existence milestone. I have appointed one of the JGR Space Physics editors as the coordinator of our Centennial activities – Larry Kepko. So, he has been pulling back from “normal” editing assignments in order to arrange our Grand Challenge paper set and organize a collection of historic perspectives from and about the pioneers of space physics. I think that Dr. Ganushkina will be picking up a lot of this workload of manuscripts on the outer magnetosphere and tail, storm physics, and substorms.

We also receive many submissions on inner magnetospheric topics, especially the radiation belts. Dr. Balikhin and I handle most of these manuscripts, but the volume is large. Because we also cover papers in other disciplines within the journal scope, this is heavy load. In addition, I would like to do more of my editor-in chief duties that sometimes get the short end of my attention, like long-range strategic planning, publications policy discussions, and communication (like paper publicity and this blog). Plus, I am now an editor liaison on the AGU Meetings Committee, which is a very interesting position but takes additional time. I think that Dr. Pierrard will be picking up a lot of the rebalanced workload of inner magnetospheric manuscripts. She will also help us better connect with the solar physics community.

The biggest selection criteria applied by the search committee were expertise in their research field, demonstrated reviewing excellence or editorial experience, and an editorial philosophy that blends well with the existing team. The search committee also took into account geographical, disciplinary, gender, and racial diversity/breadth in their decision. In fact, AGU is making a concerted effort to increase representation of women on its journal editorial boards, and JGR Space Physics was one of only two AGU journals with an all-male editor crew. The search committee happily included this criterion in its deliberations.

Note that these two new editors are being appointed for 4 years, so they will continue to serve after I rotate off late next year, when my term as EiC ends along with the terms of the 4 other editors. This timing is intentional in order to ensure some editorial continuity between EiC terms.

We had many excellent candidates and, I would like to reiterate, it was a very difficult decision to select only two. AGU does not limit the size of our board but the search committee made the downselect to the originally-advertised two positions so that the next EiC has some flexibility in selecting new editors for their team. There are definitely some in the candidate pool that I will be encouraging to apply for the EiC or Editor positions that will open up in a year or so.

Unconscious Bias in Space Physics

I attended the Triennial Earth-Sun Summit meeting a couple of weeks ago, and there was a very good plenary session on unconscious bias in space physics. The presenters were the authors of the Clancy et al. paper in JGR Planets on bias in astronomy and planetary science. They summarized the findings of that paper, which quantified the extent of women and minorities reporting feeling unsafe or encountering a hostile work environment in these science fields. The numbers are not encouraging, with 80% of women experiencing some kind of sexist remark and two-thirds of women-of-color hearing racist remarks in the workplace. Furthermore, over a quarter of women have felt unsafe in their current position because of their gender or race. This is disturbing to me that the numbers are so large in 2018.

Unconcious Bias Plenary Handout title

            Fortunately, the conversation is not ending with the TESS plenary session. The organizers created a handout that was available to everyone at the session and online with the session description. I highly encourage everyone to read this tri-fold pamphlet. They encourage people to take the Harvard implicit bias test and read through the materials at the U of Arizona’s StepUp! by-stander intervention program. The sheet is filled with tips on how to identify and minimize implicit bias. Two of the biggest things that individuals can do immediately: amplify minority voices is group discussions (but don’t he-peat) and avoid making sexual remarks in the work environment.

As for JGR Space Physics, fighting implicit bias can be done in several ways. The first is to be cordial in your correspondence, especially to early career researchers like graduate students, and to apply the Platinum Rule in your interactions with others, thinking about how they want to be treated and considering the interaction from their perspective. Authors, please use gender-neutral pronouns in responses to anonymous reviewers. Reviewers, consider using one of the links in the handout for quantifying gender bias in writing. Finally, I hope that you all make a personal DEI pledge to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. People leave the field because of sexism in the workplace, and for our discipline, the workplace includes manuscript correspondence. I occasionally hear from advisors whose students have had a bad interaction with a reviewer.

Thanks to the TESS meeting and session organizers and for coordinating this panel discussion. Let’s continue to strive to do better to reduce implicit bias in space physics.

AGU Centennial

The American Geophysical Union is turning 100 years old next year. The society has launched a major campaign to celebrate this triple-digit milestone of existence. They even have a nice logo:

AGU100_logo_V-RGB272-768x827.png

Details of the design of this logo are explained here.

There will be special events at both the 2018 and 2019 Fall AGU Meetings, one kicking off the festivities and the other wrapping it up. Note that the 2018 Meeting will be in Washington DC, with tours of the renovated now-net-zero AGU building. One of the big activities going on right now is the AGU Narratives Project, a joint activity with StoryCorps to record conversations about our experiences conducting Earth and space science.

JGR Space Physics is participating in the Centennial in several ways. Firstly, AGU is asking all of the journals to have a series of papers on Grand Challenges in their field. We are working on this. Secondly, we are making plans for a written version of the AGU Narratives project, a collection of papers from the pioneers of space physics. JGR Space Physics actually had a special issue on this exact topic over twenty years ago. There was also a book, a couple years later, entitled, “Discovery of the Magnetosphere.” We will be doing this again. We are also actively taking part in and coordinating with the AGU Centennial celebration planning.

To lead all of this, I have appointed one of the journal editors, Larry Kepko, to be the coordinator of our activities. He has fully embraced this role and is coming up with some good ways to have space physics to be integrally involved in the Centennial celebrations. If you have questions or comments about this, you can contact either him or me.

To make time for this, Dr. Kepko is pulling back a bit from the normal duties of being assigned “regular” submissions to the journal. I will still be assigning him a few papers, but far less than before. So, when you submit a manuscript, you can still request him as your preferred editor, but there is less chance that I will assign it to him because I am intentionally keeping his manuscript workload down.

This new role for Dr. Kepko, combined with a slowly increasing number of manuscript submissions over the years, is the need for adding two new editors to the JGR Space Physics board. The announced application deadline was yesterday (February 23), but you can still submit for a couple more days. I am off to the Editor-in-Chief meeting, which will occupy my time for the first half of next week. So, the deadline is unofficially extended until February 28. On March 1, when I am back in my office, I will start coordinating with the others on the search committee to begin the selection process. So, there is still time to apply for this position. If you have any questions, then please send me an email, or contact any of the current editors.

Annotating Manuscripts with Hypothes.is

A few months ago, AGU introduced a new feature in GEMS – annotating the merged PDF of the manuscript. Senior AGU Pubs staff wrote an Eos Editors’ Vox article about it. AGU has partnered with hypothesis.is, an online annotation tool, so that reviewers can highlight text and insert comments. Editors can then add additional comments before making a decision about the paper. The comments are labeled “reviewer 1,” “Editor,” etc., so that the author can identify which of the assessors made the remark. During the revision process, authors can respond to these comments directly in the annotated PDF.

hypothesis_logo

            I have used it a couple of times and I have seen ~10 reviewers use it over the last few months. I think it works really well, so it is it time to publicize this feature and make the community aware of this powerful resource.

When you agree to review a manuscript, you will see this new section on the review page:

hypothesis_entry_button

It’s just below the link to retrieve the paper and the link for submitting your review. When you click on it, you get a new browser window with the manuscript PDF:

hyothesis-screenshot

This page already has several sections of text highlighted with example comments written. There are controls across the top bar for navigating around the document. When you highlight some text, a small pop-up window appears below it with the word “annotate” in it:

hypothesis_annotate

This opens a text box in the right-hand column in which you can type your comment:

hypothesis_textbox

The “You” at the top indicates the originator of the comment, then the highlighted text is repeated, and then a box for writing your comment, including rich text features like inserting hyperlinks, images, and LaTeX-based equations. Along the bottom of the text box is a row of buttons for specifying the type of remark you are making. Is it an overview comment? Pick “Summary.” Do you want to designate it as a “major” or “minor” concern? Go for it. Are you suggesting a small English usage correction? Then pick “Edit.” Are you suggesting a new reference or two, or commenting on a figure? Click that button, then. Finally, there is a “Confidential?” button that you can click if the remark is just to the Editor and not meant for the author. I promise to look through the comments and read these.

Back on the main reviewer page, you can actually see if there are annotations on the “annotated merged PDF.” It should appear as a new link, “Show Summary Table,” like this:

hypothesis_summary-table-link

When you click on this, all of the comments in the hypothes.is PDF are shown:

hypothesis_summary_table

Nice, huh?

Note that you still need to click the link on the main reviewer page to complete the review:

Review_the_manuscript_button

You should answer the pull-down-menu questions and fill in any comments you want in the review text box. It is helpful if you, at the least include a sentence like, “Please see my detailed comments in the online annotated PDF.” This reminds the Editor to go to the annotated PDF and see your comments there. It is also helpful to include a short paragraph summary of your review there. In fact, you can make your review a hybrid of the two, with major comments in the review text box and specific comments embedded in the annotated PDF.

In addition to the Eos article and this blog, there are also more detailed author instructions, reviewer instructions, and even editor instructions at the AGU website. The hypothes.is website also has a really good tutorial. Also, one caveat: it is an interactive web-based tool, so you have to be online to use it.

Also, this whole thing is optional. You don’t have to use it. So far, I’d say that most reviewers do not use it. But most reviewers could be using it, so please consider it. Many reviews include line-identified comments, and this new feature should be easier than typing the location coordinates into your review.