Two distinct efforts were undertaken by the Task Force to gather input from journal editors about the challenges they face, efforts they have undertaken, and possible future directions. The first effort was undertaken by Dan Chambliss as head of the Process Subcommittee with assistance from Sue Ferguson, Ken Land and Bernice Pescosolido. The second effort was undertaken by Teresa Sullivan, in a more informal manner, asking social science editors a central question. Each data collection effort is discussed, in turn, below.

The ASA Editors Interviews. Interviews were completed with 8 recent former editors of ASA peer reviewed journals, asking primarily questions about how the process of putting a journal together affects the diversity of material therein, in line with the Task Force's mission.

• What do you (the editor) see as the ways in which the process shapes what kind of work is published? Are there hindrances to publishing some of what you see as high-quality work? Are there constraints in our system that limits the range, say, of new or controversial material, in ways that might be appropriately changed or modified?
  
  
• Are some fields over-represented -- and if so, why is this? (e.g., the work is of higher quality, more submissions, clearer "formula for success," etc.)
  
  
• Do you have suggestions for broadening the appeal, both for submission and for readership, of your journal? Does that seem like a legitimate goal to you?
  
  
• How do editors create a panel of reviewers? How, in practice, are old reviewers maintained with a journal, and new reviewers recruited? Is there a method for the recruitment of a wide range of new reviewers? And does the makeup of a panel of reviewers create, in some predictable ways, a known outcome of the review process?
  
  
• Is a shortage of reviewers in some fields hampering work in those fields?
  
  
• What would you think of the following possible changes, if implemented at your journal (or ASR, etc.):
  
  

a) Editor is allowed a number of "editor's choice" articles to be submitted on her/his own prerogative, each year; or that each deputy editor, say, would have some such right

b) A shortening of page limits, so that more articles can be published during a year

c) The formal recognition of different kinds of articles, e.g., research notes, critical or review essays, "leadership essays" that periodically lay out issues for a given field, etc., or "cutting edge" articles, deliberately selected as provocative or pioneering. (Science magazine, for instance, takes this approach).



• What do you regard as dangers in changes that could be made to the editorial processes, such as the ones we've asked about?

• Journals draw their audience and authors from a community of scholars who tend to view the journal as "theirs," publishing, reviewing, and reading articles published there. These communities produce certain kinds of work, with certain standards, and varying degrees of consensus on what constitutes good work.
  
  
• Editors and journals are dependent on the flow of papers submitted. An editor may encourage submissions, but ultimately is at the mercy of what comes in. Subfields rise and fall in the amount and quality of work produced, and editors have no control over that.
  
  
• Good reviewers are typically hard to find, and are very valuable. Most of the editors interviewer stated quite strongly the importance they placed on good reviewers and the skill of reviewing.
  
  
• Most journals have a clear image or tradition, and because of that and the factors above (e.g., the "community of scholars" factor) changing a journal's content or image in a major way is quite difficult. Even for an editor who wants to make major changes - or was actually chosen in order to make such changes - the task is very, very difficult. The combination of a community with a strong vested interest with a "sticky" public image makes change difficult.
  
  
• Some editorial influence in selecting articles is good, but it should be very limited. Editors may solicit pieces, encourage submissions, or perhaps give a "revise and resubmit" on an interesting, but weakly reviewed article; in all these ways they may shepherd work they see as valuable. But editors were clearly protective of the peer review process and would oppose any changes that threaten peer review. Such changes would destroy the credibility and quality of the journals, in their view.
  
  
• No journal exists alone; journals live in an "ecology" of journals, often competing with journals from other disciplines as well as sociology. A number of editors named a number of other journals and disciplines their journal competed with, often and even typically outside of sociology. Overlaps of authors and even reviewers may be with other disciplines, not with sociology. [Note: "ASA journals" may not, then, be an appropriate unit of analysis for the Task Force.)]
  
  
• Many editors saw some modest changes that would be good: especially varying formats somewhat to allow different kinds of work beyond research articles (e.g., reviews, "research notes," and the like). Improved readability and visual appeal were also cited; one editor noted that as an empirical matter, the most successful scientific journals in the world used the "multi-style" approach of having editorials, research articles, research notes, reviews, etc.
  
  
• When questioned on increasing page lengths to increase diversity in journals, editors generally - though this varied - felt that the non-ASR journals should be wary of such a move, since quality could slip. But the ASR itself, its former editors felt, could easily be expanded quite dramatically with no reduction in quality.

• Invite authors of interesting papers from professional meetings to submit an article, with no commitment to publish. It is optimal to "recruit" in areas not presented well in the current journal offerings. Potential Problem: May appear as favoritism rather than an effort to broaden the submission pool. Further, authors may misinterpret the likelihood of publication, despite statement about review through the usual process.
  
  
• Issue general invitations to specialty area. This has been done, for example, by the ASR editors to all chairs of ASA sections. These invitations received fairly wide distribution, often through including this invitation in Section Newsletters. Along the same lines, some editors write to department chairs or others to explain the submission process and encourage submission. Some have printed up colorful posters to increase the visibility of and access to this information.
  
  
• Write to authors of interesting articles in other journals, asking them to consider submitting to this journal. Potential Problem: Selectivity and time commitment on the part of the editors.
  
  
• Commission a special edition on topics that are not well represented in the journal. Potential Problems: Some editors warned that this strategy involved some risk. Some subscribers do not want special issues if they supplant a regular issue of the journal. Extra issues avoid this problem but are expensive.
  
  
• Write to authors of recent dissertations, identified from Dissertations Abstracts International. Perhaps combine submissions that meet peer review standards in a special issue or new section called "New Voices". Waive submission fees at a time in the occupational career when discretionary income in smaller. Potential Problem: The newest scholars have the most difficulty turning their material into an article, making a special section difficult to time.
  
  
• Widen the range of reviewers by trying out new scholars. For those who review well, send a letter reminding them to think about submitting to the journal. Using new scholars as fourth or fifth reviewers allows them to see how more experienced reviewers judge submission and also see articles that are professional judged to be "good" or "bad". Potential Problem: This is a longer-term strategy. While it has lower risk, it may also have lower pay-off.
  
  
• Examine publications that list upcoming conferences (e.g., the Chronicle of Higher Education), writing to conference organizers regarding potential papers of interest. Potential Problem: Very labor intensive.
  
  
• Highlight articles that are "novel" or more novel for the journal, making them lead articles, issue a press release, noting them in promotional materials sent to potential subscribers.
  
  
• Hold annual publication sessions at the ASA and some of the regional meetings.