Looking to the Future of Hydrologic Engineering

Being one of the more recent journals of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering (JHE) has made significant strides under the forward-thinking leadership of previous editors (M. Levent Kavvas, 1996–2004, and V. P. Singh, 2004–2012) since its inception in 1996. Over this time, this journal has evolved from its nascent stages and has started to find its niche among the many competing water journals. Building on the foundations laid by these previous editors, it is our goal to take the journal to new heights. Many of the best practices developed and implemented during their tenure will be continued, with new practices being formulated to keep pace with changing times.

Hydrology has evolved into a wide-ranging discipline, and new topics are continually being added. We believe in a very broad definition of hydrology that will encourage participation from a very diverse group of individuals. Thus, papers that deal with physical hydrology, statistical hydrology, experimental methods, water quality and chemical hydrology, ecohydrology, hydrogeology, hydroinformatics, hydrometeorology, watershed hydrology, low-impact development, storm water management methods, and so on are all relevant to our journal. The characterization of section editors into surface hydrology and subsurface hydrology (including both vadose zone and groundwater) is merely to manage journal processing and is not a challenging classification. Indeed, papers that deal with surface water–groundwater interactions are very welcome. Similarly, papers that deal with both water quantity and quality, and further our understanding of the relationship between hydrology and ecosystem restoration and management, are encouraged. Furthermore, we will be accepting papers in all categories, as follows: Technical Papers, Technical Notes, Case Studies, Discussions and Closures, Forum articles, Editorials, and Book Reviews. Dr. Vijay Singh, who recently completed his tenure as editor in chief of the journal, is the new editor for book reviews. We will solicit review articles that can provide a comprehensive synthesis of the state-of-the-art/science on hydrologic topics to aid both new and seasoned researchers. Researchers interested in preparing review articles are encouraged to contact us with an outline and a timeline for completion of the paper. Our goal is to publish practice-oriented papers that offer unique perspectives or design experiences that would benefit society. Special issues are encouraged on emerging and relevant topics, and again we encourage you to contact us so that appropriate proposals can be prepared for evaluation. Even if you are not prepared to act as an editor of the special issue, but have an idea for a topic that JHE readers would believe to be important, please contact one of us.

The diversity of topics within the journal is reflected in the wide expertise of our editorial board, a group of active and dedicated people who volunteer their time and energy to serve as gatekeepers and guardians of the standards of the journal by implementing a rigorous review process. Despite numerous technological advances and the convenience afforded by the online editorial manager, the role of the editorial board has not changed. Ideally, each paper receives two or three reviews from reviewers selected by the associate editor who is assigned to the paper. However, the anonymous review process generates reports and evaluations that vary in quality, depth, rigor, and often provide conflicting recommendations. The role of the editorial board is to sift through this information, suggest the nature of the revisions, and make an informed recommendation that is designed to help authors.

When submitting their articles through the editorial manager, authors are required to suggest reviewers who, in their opinion, would provide constructive, unbiased reviews. Conversely, authors have the option of providing names of persons who should not be invited to review their article. Usually, these opposed reviewers are listed in the interests of full disclosure of conflict of interest (as reviewers are collaborators in different settings), because of differences of a philosophical nature, or the perception that a biased review may be forthcoming. The editorial board is not under any compulsion to accept any of these recommendations and views these as suggestions. Sometimes the editorial board will honor the author’s request. At other times, editors may pick from the list of opposed reviewers if the reviewer is one of the few people who is knowledgeable on the topic of the paper. The editors will be mindful that comments have been sought from a researcher on the opposed list and will weigh their decision accordingly.

We take this opportunity to thank all of those who have reviewed papers for JHE and make an additional appeal at the same time. As most reviewers are authors themselves, we ask that when preparing a review, each reviewer consider what he or she would like to see in a review of their own manuscript. Reviewers are asked to provide their views on whether the motivation is strong, the ideas and methodology are reasonable, the results are believable, and if the conclusions are worthy, all in a timely and professional manner. It is the responsibility of a reviewer to point out lack of novelty and errors in technical content, to provide constructive criticism of the methods and interpretation of results, and to comment on the length and organization of the submission. However, it is not expected that errors in writing and grammar be provided in detail (although the authors would likely appreciate such corrections). Unless the premise of the analysis is poorly conceived or entirely faulty, a reviewer, whenever possible, should recommend a fix or provide a road map to correct the analysis. A common approach among reviewers is to provide a brief overview followed by a more detailed list of comments (both negative and positive) and a desired set of corrections. The timeliness of a review is an important consideration for review effectiveness. When reviewers accept an assignment, they are granted (typically) four weeks with reminders being automatically sent from the editorial manager. In the event that more time is required, a request may be made through the system and the editorial board will likely grant a reasonable extension. We realize that reviewers volunteer their time, but their help is crucial to the quality and timeliness of papers published in JHE. We find that good reviewers eventually gain the respect of their colleagues and, of course, they have a significant impact on the literature, in this case, on the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering.

We recognize that quality is subjective among readers and heterogeneous across papers. Readers want to seek out relevant, high-quality sources of information. Based on review comments and our judgment, we will continue to highlight one paper per issue on the journal website. The purpose of this practice is to show the diversity of topics that we openly seek for submission to JHE, the potential high quality of the papers we want to provide to our readers, and the positive impact that JHE papers can have on the civil engineering profession.

Serving on the editorial board of this journal for several years already, we have grown to enjoy having this role in the community of hydrologic engineers. We receive a broad preview of interesting research that is underway and hope to have a positive influence on the careers of fellow researchers and practitioners. We have made strong cases (and have perhaps gone out on a limb) for interesting manuscripts that needed some work, provided guidance on what it would take for the submission to rise to the level of a paper, and have seen them come to fruition. With the help of the editorial board and reviewers drawn from the hydrologic community, we hope to continue this service. We certainly welcome your input on ways of rendering JHE more useful to the profession.