For further details on the information presented below, please see the Summary of Editorial Activity table. To see editors’ reports from previous years, click here.
American Sociological Review
Review Process: The ASR continues to receive a large volume of first rate submissions. The acceptance rate thus remains quite low at 10 percent. We have worked hard to keep the average turnaround time low at just under 11 weeks.
Publicity Successes: Following the lead of Jerry Jacobs, the prior ASR editor, and with the encouragement of the ASA Publications Committee and ASA Council, the ASR staff is working hard to give the discipline’s best research greater public visibility. Notable successes include McPherson, Smith–Lovin, and Brashears’ article on social isolation in America, Lichter and Qian’s article on inter–racial marriage, and Hamilton, Powell and Cheng’s article on adoption successes. With the help of authors, we are preparing press friendly abstracts of selected ASR bi–monthly in coordination with the public release of the journal. Sujata Sinha, the ASA’s new press officer, and the author’s university press officers, are sent these media–friendly summaries for use in their own press releases, which are then brought to the attention of relevant media outlets. Such coordination—between the ASR office, authors’ own university media relations experts, and the ASA press office—seems to be working. We are and remain encouraged by the enthusiasm that the public holds for sociological topics, once they are translated into accessible language and packages.
Range of Submissions: The topics of the articles submitted to the ASR are extremely diverse and this speaks volumes about the discipline’s range and appeal. Areas in which only limited submission are received include qualitative and experimental research and papers that are primarily methodological in focus. As the discipline’s flagship journal we seek to publish papers that have broad interest to the discipline from all substantive and methodological approaches in the discipline. We thus encourage submissions that fully reflect that diversity, and we pledge to do our best to provide a fair and timely review for all articles received.
Editorial Board and Reviewers: One of the key ingredients to ensuring that the true richness and excitement of the field makes its way into the pages of the ASR is by assembling a strong and diverse reviewer pool. We have been doing so since July, and have been overwhelmed by the citizenship, thoughtfulness, and continued commitment of the ASR’s reviewers. We have also maintained such diversity on the editorial board itself. This includes a larger and methodologically broad group of 7 deputies, as well as the addition of 13 new board members to replace the 13 that rotated off as of January first. With the addition of new deputies and board members, the current ASR board is comprised of 68 board members, of whom 41 percent are women and 25 percent are racial/ethnic minority. We will continue to consider diversity in both background and methodological orientation as individuals rotate off and onto the board. We thank existing board members and especially those now rotating off the board after a three–year commitment. We also welcome our new board members.
Challenges: Limited page allocations and the desire to publish as many articles as possible push issues of length to the fore. Many sociology journals are restricting submissions to set limits, such as 8,500 words. We recognize that publishing diverse articles and serving a diverse audience warns against such rigid limits. However, we constantly have to encourage reluctant authors to edit their articles toward more reasonable lengths. And, truly, a significant number would be better, tighter, and more readable at two thirds the length they are initially submitted. We hope that what many experience as negative pressures for shortening articles will end up having positive consequences for creating tighter arguments and more readable prose.
Vincent Roscigno and Randy Hodson, Editors
Contemporary Sociology
Books Considered: The editorial office of Contemporary Sociology received 954. The total number of books that the editors examined was 954.
Review Process: 388 books were screened by editors and accepted for review for the year and the number of reviews received for the year was 410. 321 reviews were finished and published for Volume 35. 229 were classified as “No Review” and 212 were classified as “Take Note.” There were 122 New Books pending triage at the time of this report.
Production Lag: The editorial office, on average, schedules reviews, articles, symposia, and review essays for publication within eight weeks after the materials arrive. The journal’s managing editor, Jenny Fan, edits and formats all the work received in preparation for publication. Most contributors send electronic copies of their work. The production lag, redefined and to be calculated in the new database, will represent the time between receipt of the review and the publication date.
Items Published: The breakdown of the items published in Volume 35 contain the following: 321 book reviews, 16 symposium essays, 24 review essays, 9 comments, and 2 other. The total number of items published is 371.
Editorial Board Members and Reviewers: 16 women, 24 men, and 13 minorities compose the outgoing editorial board.
During its first year at the University of California–Irvine, Contemporary Sociology has followed through with its initiative to present symposia that highlight the ways sociology informs public debate and public policy. Some of the featured subject titles of 2006 included: “’Natural’ Disasters,” “Morality Battles,” and “Israel/Palestine.” Contemporary Sociology started off 2007 with “Religion” and some of the upcoming symposia will be on security and surveillance, states and development, labor, and “political Islam” in the post–9/11 era.
Part of the editors’ initiative included plans to disseminate symposia beyond regular subscribers to relevant lawmakers, non–profit organizations, professionals, and media interested in the topics. We have distributed several symposia, recipients including the House of Representatives, the Senate, FEMA, the Red Cross, and media centers such as CNN, NPR, and MSNBC News. We have received favorable feedback from disaster research centers, governors, and members of congress. CS will continue its plans for outreach with upcoming symposia; thanks, in advance, to the Public Affairs and Public Information program at ASA for coordinating with our efforts for specific dissemination.
Valerie Jenness, David A. Smith, and Judith Stepan–Norris, Editors
Contexts
During our second year as editors of Contexts the flow of submissions continued to increase rapidly. Because of the large number of proposals and submissions, we now have an acceptance rate comparable to that of other ASA journals. Contexts has become a desirable publication outlet. (The figures given in the table date from March 2006 only, as that is when we adopted the Journal Builder program to track submissions.)
At the ASA Annual Meeting last year in Montreal, we sponsored the first annual Contexts forum, a well–attended panel on the causes and consequences of mass murder. A version of it will appear in our May issue. At the New York meetings this coming August, we are sponsoring a forum on corporate governance.
The largest market for Contexts aside from ASA members continues to be undergraduate students. Increasing numbers of instructors are requiring articles or asking students to subscribe to the magazine. A recent Footnotes article detailed the several ways that you can get Contexts into the classroom, and there is now a page on our website (www.contextsmagazine. org) to help you do this. This summer, W.W. Norton will publish a Contexts reader containing almost 70 of our articles and keyword essays most suitable for course use.
We encourage all readers to email us with their comments and suggestions:[email protected] and [email protected]. We are also pleased that two great sociologists, Chris Uggen and Doug Hartmann of the University of Minnesota, will be taking over as editors at the end of 2007.
Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper, Editors
Journal of Health and Social Behavior
Personnel. During 2006 we had only one change in personnel at the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. Ashley B. Thompson, an advanced graduate student at Vanderbilt University, took over the position of Managing Editor for Reviews in May from Ranae J. Evenson, who took an assistant professorship at Bowling Green State University. Although Ashley’s expertise is in social psychology and the sociology of the South, she has rapidly mastered the leading researchers and subfields in medical sociology in the course of this job. Brent Winter, a freelance writer with many years of experience in production and copyediting, continues on capably as the Managing Editor for Production. Andrew Cognard–Black, Assistant Professor of Sociology at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, continues as long–term copyeditor for the journal.
Overall Operations and Manuscript Flow. JHSB published 26 articles in 2006. The number of new submissions in 2006 (N = 159) was somewhat higher than in 2005 (N = 140) but generally in line with the annual number of new submissions received by the journal from 1990 through 2006 (mean = 144).
In 2006, 268 manuscripts were considered. I made editorial decisions on 233 papers (87 percent ); the remaining papers were still out under review. Of the 233 decisions made, 36 percent were “reject,” 14 percent were “reject without review,” 27 percent were “revise and resubmit,” 12 percent were “conditional accept,” and 10 percent were “accept.” One paper was withdrawn by the author from consideration.
The mean time lag between manuscript submission and editorial decision in 2006 was 11 weeks (median = 13 weeks), consistent with the ASA guidelines of 12 weeks, or three months, to make a decision. We have maintained this mean time lag for the past two years.
The mean production lag (i.e., the time between acceptance of a paper and its appearance in print) was 7 months in 2006 (median = 5.7 months), again consistent with ASA editorial guidelines which recommend a six month lag. We have sustained this recommended lag for the past two years.
Changes in Journal Procedures. Much of our review process is now handled electronically. Most reviewers prefer to receive electronic rather than paper copies of manuscripts. Ashley Thompson converts manuscripts to read–only PDF files before emailing them to reviewers. Almost all reviewers return comments to us using our electronic review forms. Last year, Brent Winter developed procedures for copyediting manuscripts electronically. Our copyeditor has been comfortable with this change, and now our authors are correcting their copyedited papers electronically as well. The shift from paper to electronic processing continues to go smoothly.
Special Projects. With the approval of my deputy editors, Eliza Pavalko and Fred Hafferty, and the editorial board, I issued a call for papers in June 2006 for a special section of the journal on the topic of comparative health care/comparative medical systems. About six papers were submitted in response to this call; two are currently under revision and likely to be published together in 2008.
Upcoming Changes in Journal Pages. Normally, the journal has been allocated 428 pages per year by the ASA for its issues. Our typesetter recently informed us that by changing the spacing around the headings in our articles he could save about 16 pages of space without altering the appearance of our printed articles. Because most articles in JHSB take 16 printed pages on average, the typesetter’s change will allow us to publish one additional article each year, starting in 2007.
Most importantly, the ASA Council voted in February 2007 to increase the annual page allocation for JHSB by an additional 64 pages per year, starting in 2007. The increase in our page allocation from ASA was due to a combination of factors: high numbers of submissions to JHSB, a low acceptance rate, and a very high impact factor (over the past decade, the journal has ranked just under the American Journal of Sociology and always above Social Forces in its scholarly impact). The 64 page increase will enable the publication of four more articles per year. The combination of saved pages from the typesetter’s innovation and the additional pages from the ASA will permit the journal to publish a total of 31 rather than 26 articles per year, a substantial increase.
Editorial Board and Deputy Editors. Fifteen editorial board members rotated off the board at the end of 2006: Jacqueline Lowe Angel (Texas), Theodore D. Fuller (Virginia Tech), Robert A. Hummer (Texas), Corey Lee Keyes (Emory), Andrew S. London (Syracuse), William J. Magee (Toronto), Richard Allen Miech (Colorado–Denver), Samuel Noh (Toronto), Suzanne Trager Ortega (Missouri), Cynthia A. Robbins (Delaware), Jason Schnittker (Pennsylvania), Stefan Timmermans (UCLA), R. Jay Turner (Florida State), Karen Van Gundy (New Hampshire), and Nicholas H. Wolfinger (Utah). I am deeply grateful for their extraordinary service and commitment to the journal. I also thank the continuing editorial board members and the many, many additional ad hoc reviewers who have contributed their time and expertise so generously to the journal. Without their contributions, we simply could not fulfill the goal of publishing the very best papers in medical sociology submitted to the journal.
The editorial board has 13 new board members whose terms run from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009. New board members include Ralph Catalano (California–Berkeley), Brian K. Finch (San Diego State), Susan Gore (Massachusetts–Boston), Joseph G. Grzywacz (Wake Forest), Kara Joyner (Cornell), Donald A. Lloyd (Florida State), Peggy McDonough (Toronto), Fred C. Pampel (Colorado), Christian Ritter (Kent State), Stephanie A. Robert (Wisconsin), Susan Roxburgh (Kent State), Teresa L. Scheid (North Carolina–Charlotte), and Mark B. Tausig (Akron). I have already begun to rely heavily on the professional guidance of these new editorial board members along with our faithful continuing board members.
The editorial board in 2006 was a diverse group, not only in terms of gender (44 percent female) and race/ethnicity (15 percent minority), but also in terms of methodological skills and substantive specialties. The 2007 editorial board maintains an equivalent range in its composition demographically (53 percent female, 13 percent minority), methodologically, and substantively.
Current Problems and Issues. I am happy to say that we have no new problems or issues to report.
Peggy A. Thoits, Editor
Rose Series in Sociology
2006 was our first year as an editorial team and we drew extensively on the experience, advice, and help of the former editors at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst. Indeed, with only one exception, all of the accomplishments reported in this narrative should be credited to the former editors.
Four Rose books are currently in production with Russell SAGE:
Paul Atttewell and David Lavin. Passing the Torch: Does Higher Education for the Disadvantaged Pay Off Across the Generations?
Melissa Hardy and Lawrence Hazelrigg. Pension Puzzles: Questions of Principle and Principal.
Gay Seidman. Citizens, Markets, and Transnational Labor Activism.
Madonna Harrington Meyer and Pamela Herd. Retrenching Welfare, Entrenching Inequality: Gender, Race, and Old Age in the U.S.
Nine other books are currently under contract:
Rebecca Emigh, Daylan Riley, and Patricia Ahmed. The Production of Demographic Knowledge: States, Societies, and Census Taking in Comparative and Historical Perspective.
Scott L. Feld. Regulating Morality by Choice: Politics and Personal Choice in the Case of Covenant Marriage.
Frank Furstenberg, Julie Kmec, and Mary Fischer. Setting Out: Establishing Success in Early Adulthood Among Urban Youth.
Arne Kalleberg. Bad Jobs, Good Jobs, No Jobs: Changing Work and Workers in America
Pam Oliver and James E. Yocom. Racial Disparities in Imprisonment: Patterns, Causes, Consequence.
Sean O’Riain and Chris Benner. Reworking Silicon Valley.
Brian Powell, Catherine Bolzendahl, Danielle Fettes, Claudia Geist, Lala Carr Steelman. Who Counts as Kin? How Americans Define the Family.
Ellen Reese. “They Say Cutback; We Say Fight Back!” Welfare Rights Activism in an Era of Retrenchment.
Javier Auyero, Diane Barthel–Bouchier, Cynthia J. Bogard, Michael Kimmel, Daniel Levy, Timothy Moran, Naomi Rosenthal, and Michael Schwartz, Editors
Social Psychology Quarterly
Compiling a report of the activities at Social Psychology Quarterly in 2006 is a bittersweet enterprise. As I began to process manuscripts during August 2006, I expected to rely upon the guidance, generosity, and grace of Spencer Cahill, a dear friend of many. As members of this association are aware, Spencer passed away on October 6, 2006, a few months before his term as editor of SPQ was to end. Despite the encroachments of mortality, Spencer intended to fulfill his term as editor, and he completed the editing of the December 2006 issue of his journal, elegant as ever. As the new editor, I was left with fewer than ten manuscripts that awaited Spencer’s wise counsel. His term as editor will be recalled as a shining moment for sociological social psychology. Spencer extended the reach of the journal to incorporate the finest works of conversation analysis. His colleagues treasured the courtesy and honor that he brought to our collective enterprise.
Every editor smuggles an agenda. And so, a rotating editorship is a blessing. With a three–year term, we operate on the treasured assumption that should you disapprove our editorial bleats, close your ears and in a short while we will be a memory. As an ex–editor–to–be, I am no different.
As a result of the strains on the Tampa office, I inherited a problem of manuscript flow. Articles were not processed as rapidly as might have occurred under happier circumstances, and the journal often appeared late. Having been in our business for too many decades, I shared the concerns of authors. I made the quixotic pledge to provide outcome letters to authors within ten weeks. We have made great strides in reducing the time to a decision. In fact, since I began processing manuscripts the average time to outcome is 61 days and only a single manuscript has been under review for over four months. To achieve this goal, I chose my managing editor with exquisite care. I asked Susan Allan, the doyenne of sociological managing editors (the brains and brawn at AJS), who is the best young editor around. She advised me to hire Gianna Barbera. The rest is, as they say, sociology. Gianna serves SPQ as both managing editor and as copy editor. Together we have instituted new systems to facilitate manuscript processing, now distributing manuscripts and reviews electronically. In our office, a stamp is harder to find than a reference to neoclassical economics.
However, our changes go beyond this technological fix. Editing a journal is a form of pedagogy. I insist that reviewers take seriously the responsibility of providing kind, tough, and useful comments. When I request reviews, I ask for “two in two”: two pages of comments in two weeks. While this is particularly important for our graduate student colleagues, every author deserves the same courtesy. We provide authors with an update on the progress of their manuscript after two months, and after three months, I write a personal note. In organizing the journal, I asked two distinguished colleagues, Jane McLeod and Lisa Troyer, to serve as Deputy Editors. These scholars are more than super–reviewers, as they select reviewers and then write “meta–reviews” once these reviews arrive. Once an article is conditionally accepted for publication, it is reviewed by the journal’s graduate editorial assistant, Corey Fields. His mandate is to read each manuscript as a generalist, helping to shaping the essay into a form that reaches the widest range of readers. Gianna in her role as copyeditor has my blessing to be a vigorous shaper of sociological prose. My intention is to produce a journal for readers.
Journal editing is a funny business. In how many occupations are 90 percent of the work products of professionals rejected without appeal? What bozos we must be. But this is our fate as academics. The realities of journal publishing demand this, but this bitter reality is only made palatable if our colleagues are challenged to improve their thinking through serious and conscientious feedback.
Readers of Social Psychology Quarterly will note changes. After many years, we have a new look. Bypassing a color scheme redolent of borscht, I selected airy black–and–white, permitting photography on the cover. Visual sociology demands attention. Each photographer appends an essay, detailing the social psychological implications for unpoetic eyes. I also encourage brief pedagogical essays, aimed at improving the teaching of social psychology. I plan other surprises, while holding tightly to the journal’s well–deserved reputation for publishing the best and most exacting work in the discipline’s many social psychological traditions.
I eliminated the category of research notes, a perverse incentive, creating a thin set of second–class articles. SPQ now publishes longer and shorter articles, and each is judged on its contribution to microsociological theory.
Another innovation is our website. Under the direction of our undergraduate editorial assistant Kasia Kadela, we have established a web presence. The journal now permits online debate on each article, as well as feedback on the direction of the journal. We will be placing appendices and other material—statistical appendices and field notes that expand articles—on the site. Check it often on the ASA web site. Within a decade journals will be web–based, but until ASA speeds or stumbles into this future, we will use our website to create a social psychological community.
For decades I have longed to serve as editor of Social Psychology Quarterly, a journal that I love. Our journal—ASA’s second—has a fateful mandate. Sociology is people and their relations. Our responsibility is to honor Social Psychology Quarterly as “the journal of microsociologies.”
Gary Alan Fine, Editor
Sociological Methodology
In July 2006, editorial responsibility for Sociological Methodology passed from me, Ross M. Stolzenberg at the University of Chicago, to Yu Xie at the University of Michigan. I edited volumes 32 through 36 of Sociological Methodology. The journal goes to Yu Xie with something that it lacked when it came to me: a backlog. Backlogs permit editors to sleep at night and avoid anxiety attacks in the daytime. Backlogs also permit printers, proof readers and production staff to schedule their work efficiently. However, as Marxists know so well, editors are locked in class conflict with authors, who have different class interests and are alienated from the means of journal production. So it is that authors have long loathed lags in publication caused by the very same backlogs editors find so comforting. I am pleased to report to both Marxists and non–Marxists that, as Sociological Methodology passed to Yu Xie, this little piece of class conflict came to an end: articles accepted for publication in Sociological Methodology are now available in online PDF form to subscribers as soon as they are copyedited and electronically typeset. Although electronic dissemination could reduce sales of Sociological Methodology to individuals with access through their institution’s subscription, it is a significant and welcome step toward speeding the development and distribution of information about sociological methods to practitioners of social research. Reduced interclass conflict is nice too, if you want to see things that way. Regardless of one’s views of publication backlogs, I am pleased to report a smooth editorial transition to Yu Xie, who brings scholarly excellence and administrative efficiency to Sociological Methodology. I look forward to resuming life as a reader and occasional contributor to Sociological Methodology. I am confident that the journal is in good hands.
Ross M. Stolzenberg, Outgoing Editor
The year 2006 was a transition year for Sociological Methodology. In July of this year, I began taking over editorship of the journal from Ross (Rafe) Stolzenberg of the University of Chicago. Shortly after that, Rafe’s final issue was released, volume 36, a fascinating collection of articles that includes, in Rafe’s own words, “something to interest nearly every practitioner and reader of contemporary social science research.” We are all grateful to Rafe for his superb editorial work in producing five volumes of Sociological Methodology.
Our own office began processing manuscripts at the beginning of July. Our editorial staff at the University of Michigan includes myself, our managing editor, Cindy Glovinsky, and two graduate student editorial assistants, Debra Hevenstone and Haiyan Zhu. Although we were extremely busy for several months unpacking and organizing materials that the previous office sent to us and we were all new it this, we managed to continue the process of reviewing manuscripts with almost no break in the flow, thanks mainly to Rafe and his able managing editor, Ray Weathers, who met with us and showed us the ropes. We appreciate the patience of contributors who experienced the effects of our inexperience during this transition � files that we occasionally forgot to attach and such.
During 2006, Sociological Methodology received a total of 19 new manuscripts. Of these plus six manuscripts carried over from 2005, eight have thus far been accepted for volume 37. We believe that all articles we received were fairly and thoroughly reviewed and expect that volume 37 will be released on time.
One decision we made when we opened our editorial office was to do the bulk of our correspondence with authors, reviewers, copy editor, and publisher online, and we believe this has led to a significant decrease in editorial lag time, which now averages approximately 10 weeks, and has also saved ASA a signifi–cant amount of money previously spent on mailing costs. We have also set up a website that provides prospective authors with editorial guidelines atsm.psc.isr.umich.edu/instruction.htm.
Yu Xie, Incoming Editor
Sociological Theory
We are very pleased with the content and form of the journal over the past year. We feel that the articles published are of extraordinary high–quality, covering a wide range of issues of concern to the development of sociological theory. We have attempted to balance the articles published to match the many trends and tendencies which compose contemporary theory. At the same time we are additionally very happy with the internal workings of our editorial board. In this our second go–round as a collective of four editors we have not established a well working routine, but also a very lively internal intellectual discussion concerning the range and quality of the articles submitted. We hope our readers will agree that this is reflected in the quality and content of the articles we published. Much of this of course is due to the valiant efforts of our managing editor, Jason Mast. We are also supported by a diligent crew of reviewers, who not only have submitted valuable comments when asked, but also have helped in recruiting others to assist in that task. The only negative note of the year came when we were denied our request to increase our allotted pages. This is unfortunate, as it will mean that some deserving articles will go unpublished. In all though, it has been a very successful year for Sociological Theory.
Julia Adams, Jeffrey Alexander, Ron Eyerman, and Philip Gorski, Editors
Sociology of Education
This year Sociology of Education begins its 44th year as an ASA journal of empirical studies focusing on sociological questions in education. We continue to increase the number of manuscripts submitted, resulting in a six percent increase from 2005. The total number of manuscripts received in 2006 exceeds the number of manuscripts the journal has received every year for the past ten years. We recently were given a one –year 40 page increase for 2007 that will become permanent providing the number of submissions continues to grow and our turn around time on manuscript decisions continues to decline.
We have continued to broaden the scope of sociology of education and actively pursue scholars in the United States and abroad who are interested in studying global questions in education. For the past five issues we have included at least one article that addresses education from a global perspective.
There have been several organizational changes at the journal. During 2006 the deputy editor, Rub�n Rumbaut was elected to join the Council of the American Sociological Association and under association guidelines is no longer eligible to serve as deputy editor. I have been extremely fortunate, that John Robert Warren of the University of Minnesota has been approved as the journal’s new deputy editor. Professor Warren is a recognized scholar in the field of sociology of education and has published widely in a number of journals including the American Sociological Review and Sociology of Education. He and has been a great asset to our team, and has been centrally involved in determining several editorial decisions.
Manuscript flow. This report covers the manuscript activity of the journal from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. The total number of manuscripts submitted during the 2006 calendar year was 179, with 40 percent being invited as revise and resubmit manuscripts. Of these, 83 were rejected after review and only two were rejected without review. All accepted manuscripts have been drawn from resubmissions, and this is reflected in the 2006 acceptance figures: 22 resubmitted manuscripts were either accepted outright or accepted pending minor revisions. During 2006 the journal review process averaged about 15 weeks with a production lag of about 4 months (this is the time it takes for an accepted manuscript to actually appear in the journal).
Editorial Board. The 2006 editorial board consisted of 23 members, of whom 14 were women, and 6 were members of racial/ ethnic minority groups. In December of 2006, over half of the board rotated off. Serving on an editorial board is a real service to the field, and we thank these members for their time and effort, they are: Sandra Acker, Kathryn Borman, Claudia Buchmann, Scott Davies, Elizabeth Higginbotham, Charles Hirschman, Patricia McDonough, Russell Rumberger, Alan Sadovnik, Regina Werum, and Yu Xie. We would like to take this opportunity to welcome our new editorial board members: Pamela Bennett, William Carbonaro, Wade Cole, Sara Goldrick–Rab, Joseph Hermanowicz, Charles Hirschman, Sylvia Hurtado, Douglas Lee Lauen, Samuel Lucas, Kelly Raley, Salvatore Saporito, Kathleen Shaw, Christopher Swanson, William Trent, and Julia Wrigley.
Acknowledgments. We thank Karen Edwards, the ASA publications director, and Wendy Almeleh, our managing editor, who continue to support and assist with the journal. For the past two years, Michelle Llosa has been the editorial assistant for the journal. She has been a tremendous help, managing the day–to day work of the journal including maintaining the journal’s files, overseeing its budget and expenses, and the key person who provides that important message of how many reviews are in, and when a decision will be made. Michelle is primarily responsible for placing the journal on Journal Builder, the electronic journal management system of the ASA. Because we are now on Journal Builder, the actual submission numbers, editorial decisions, and decision lag time are now visible and consistent with the other ASA journals in the system. There are two graduate students at Michigan State University who also have been extraordinarily helpful in the management of the journal. I would like to thank Timothy Ford and Nathan Jones for their efforts this past year.
A high–quality journal depends on careful and thoughtful peer review. Both Robert and I are asking our over–extended and busy colleagues to please review for the journal. We look forward to receiving your manuscripts and your reviews.
Manuscript submissions. Please send your manuscripts and reviews to the editor: Barbara Schneider, Michigan State University, College of Education, 516 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. Any correspondence regarding the journal should be sent to: [email protected].
Barbara Schneider, Editor
Teaching Sociology
Manuscript Trends: In 2006, 129 manuscripts were considered; of these, 75 were new manuscripts. The number of new manuscripts processed was lower than that for the previous year (98) and represents a 10–year low (see table). Although it is impossible to know what factors account for the decline, I suspect there are two related to developments in the area of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) that are important. First, there has been a tremendous growth in SoTL journals in the past several years (by one count, there were 23 general SoTL and 57 discipline–specific journals in 2007; see www.fctl.ucf.edu/sotl/journals.html for a listing). In the past, options were more limited for sociologists publishing in SoTL and hence, some of the decline may be due to scholars diversifying their outlets.
A second factor that may account for the decline in submissions is related to the present requirement that more extensive or sophisticated assessment data be included when presenting a new exercise, strategy or approach. Before SoTL took shape, it was common for manuscripts to appear in the pages of Teaching Sociology and other SoTL journals purporting “I tried this exercise and liked it,” but lacking solid evidence that the method was actually effective in helping students learn. (Chin has documented that papers published in Teaching Sociology between 1984–99 were more likely to use some type of assessment, compared to those published between 1973–83, but most used a single, simple assessment measure. See Chin, Jeffrey. 2002. “Is there a scholarship of teaching and learning in Teaching Sociology? A look at papers from 1984–99.” TS 30:53–62.) Presently, the types and extent of assessment data used vary widely, but no article or note in TS is accepted for publication without evidence that the approach or exercise is effective in producing desired learning outcomes. Although this trend has produced higher quality manuscripts in terms of methodological rigor and has helped ensure that the proposed pedagogy is not simply appreciated by the instructor but also benefits students’ learning, it has probably had the unfortunate effect of stifling submissions of manuscripts that feature highly creative and innovative pedagogies. After all, some of the best teaching arises spontaneously in response to classroom dynamics and larger social forces, and these instructors probably didn’t have the foresight to conduct a pre–test of students’ prior knowledge or attitudes.
As the SoTL area matures, both in terms of number of outlets and standards, we might expect a decline in manuscripts submitted to a discipline–specific journal devoted to teaching. Such a decline should be short–lived, however, as the field grows and more sociologists—including those at research–oriented institutions––venture into SoTL research.
Consistent with the decline in manuscripts considered, the number of manuscripts accepted in 2006 was lower than in previous years. The acceptance rate was somewhat lower than the previous year and for 5 other years since 1997. However, the acceptance rate has hovered close to 20 percent over the past decade.
Special Issue and Themes: The January 2006 issue of TS was devoted to “Cultivating Quantitative Literacy.” Stephen Sweet (Ithaca College) and Kerry Strand (Hood College) served as guest editors of this special issue that features a variety of ways in which instructors can integrate data analysis into sociology courses.
The Application feature entered its second year with the April publication of Matthew Lee, Julia Wrigley, and Joanna Dreby’s paper describing ways to use Wrigley and Dreby’s ASR article on the safety of child care in undergraduate classrooms. A second application appearing in the July issue was written by Nancy Davis and Robert Robinson and explored ways to use their ASR article, “The egalitarian face of Islamic orthodoxy,” to enhance students’ moral reflection and global awareness. I hope to continue publishing Application pieces in the coming year that feature articles from ASR and other sociology journals.
Editorial Board: There were seven outgoing members of the editorial board in 2006: Jeanne Ballantine (Wright State University), Rachel Einwohner (Purdue University), Ed Kain (Southwestern University), Emily LaBeff (Midwestern State University), Kathleen McKinney (Illinois State University), Keith Roberts (Hanover College), and Prabha Unnithan (Colorado State University). I am extremely grateful for all the assistance and wisdom these board members provided during my first three–year term. Nine new members were appointed: Jeffrey Chin (LeMoyne College), Nancy Greenwood (Indiana University–Kokomo), Chigon Kim (Wright State University), Betsy Lucal (Indiana University South Bend), Patrick Moynihan (Fordham University), Laura Nichols (Santa Clara University), Anne Nurse (The College of Wooster), Matthew Oware (Depauw University), and Robyn Ryle (Hanover College).
The 2006 editorial board consisted of 28 members. Of these, 54 percent were women and 18 percent were racial/ethnic minorities. The board members also come from a variety of academic institutions, including small liberal arts colleges, research universities, a military academy and a community college.
Current Issues: In an attempt to make the submission and review process speedier and more efficient, TS switched to an electronic submission and review process in 2006. Although this process appears to have made things easier for authors, to our surprise and disappointment, it seems to be a deterrent for reviewers. When contacted via email by the managing editor requesting reviews, more and more potential reviewers decline the invitation to review or delete the message (we never hear back from many). In the past, when manuscripts appeared in one’s mailbox, it may have been more difficult to decline to review a manuscript in–hand and take the trouble to return it, or perhaps once reviewers took a quick peek at the manuscript, their curiosity was sparked. It has always been a challenge for editors to find reliable, consciousness reviewers; for this editor, this challenge has grown to include ways to most effectively use technology to improve the editorial process for all involved.
Liz Grauerholz, Editor
