Manuscript Review

JHE has an editorial board consisting of one editor in chief (EIC), one section editor (SE) for surface water hydrology, one SE for groundwater hydrology, and a number of associate editors (AEs) representing different parts of the country and some parts of the world. These AEs are distributed among academia, government sectors, and the private sector; and they have expertise encompassing virtually the entire spectrum of hydrology.

In addition, there is an international board of advisers. These advisers are essentially conscience keepers whose role is to guide the journal and its direction and to keep it on track. The front of the journal lists the editors and advisers.

Instructions for submitting manuscripts are given in abbreviated form in the front of the journal, but complete information can be found on the Web site at http://pubs.asce.org/authors/journal/submission. ASCE assigns a manuscript number to each manuscript, and this number should be used in all correspondence about the manuscript. It is also important to note that ASCE communicates with the corresponding author. Therefore, if the manuscript has multiple authors, it is advisable to avoid changing the corresponding author without prior notification during the review cycle because it creates unnecessary confusion. Also, a manuscript should be submitted only once, not multiple times.

When a manuscript is submitted online, ASCE assigns it a number, acknowledges its receipt, and informs the EIC aboutits submission. The EIC reads the manuscript abstract, takes a quick glance at the text, and evaluates whether the manuscript is deserving of review. The manuscript may fall into one of four categories: (1) outside of the scope of the journal; (2) borders on being marginally related to the journal; (3) within the scope of the journal but not prepared following ASCE standards; and (4) prepared well enough to warrant review. In the first case, the EIC decides whether to send the manuscript to ASCE, stating that the manuscript was not suitable for review. In the second case, the EIC, either by himself or herself in consultation with an SE, determines whether the manuscript should go forward for review. Unless the manuscript is on the fringes, its review is conducted as a regular manuscript. The EIC and the SEs concur that hydrology should be as inclusive as possible.

The flow of a manuscript is from author to ASCE to the EIC to an SE to an AE to reviewers, and the reverse holds when the review is completed. First, consider a case when a manuscript is authored or coauthored by an editorial board member. If a manuscript is authored or coauthored by the EIC, then ASCE directly selects an SE to handle the review of the manuscript. Sometimes ASCE selects an SE to conduct the manuscript review. In the entire review process, the EIC is treated like any other author and has absolutely no direct or indirect influence on the review or its outcome. Similarly, if an SE authors or coauthors a manuscript, then the EIC bypasses him or her and directly selects an AE to handle its review. An SE exercises no influence on the manuscript review or outcome thereof, and the same process applies to AEs. Every effort is made in all sincerity to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In other cases, depending on the subject matter of the manuscript, the EIC chooses an SE who then selects an AE by matching the AE’s expertise with the manuscript theme and the workload of the AE. The selected AE seeks at least three reviewers who can provide timely reviews of the manuscript. When the reviews are completed, the AE concerned reads and synthesizes them and formulates his or her recommendation for the SE. The recommendation can be “accept as is,” “re-review,” “conversion to a technical note and re-review,” or “decline.” The SE then goes through the reviews and the AE’s recommendation and then develops his or her own recommendation and transmits all these to the EIC. The EIC then reads the reviews and recommendations and makes a decision that he or she sends to ASCE, which then informs the corresponding author and sends reviews and recommendations.

ASCE requires a majority opinion when making a decision, that is, two negative reviews for rejection, two positive reviews for acceptance, and mixed reviews for a decision in between. However, this is not as simple as it appears for several reasons. First, reviewers’ recommendations are not always clear-cut, and the same may apply to an AE’s or SE’s recommendation. When making a decision, the EIC takes a composite view, digests reviews and recommendations, and then makes the final decision. Second, disagreement among reviewers, the AE, the SE, and the EIC is not uncommon; but ultimately the buck stops at the EIC. Indeed, it frequently happens that an AE disagrees with one or more of the reviewers, the SE disagrees with the AE, and the EIC disagrees with either the AE or the SE or both.

In all of this, two principal points are never lost sight of. First, the quality of the journal is uppermost in priority, and second, the authors expect a constructive, critical, and informative review of high quality. The editors want, in all sincerity, to help the authors improve their papers and present them in publishable form. After all, it is the authors on whose shoulders the journal rests and survives and knowledge grows. Without them the journal would not survive and the growth of information would cease. Therefore, the authors’ work is held in high esteem, but it must be peer reviewed and be acceptable to the outside world.

If the decision is re-review, then authors are expected to revise the manuscript and resubmit within an allotted time, which is usually three months. Many a time, authors request that ASCE grant extra time, which is almost always approved. In this situation, every effort is made to have the same team of reviewers provide the review. Barring a few exceptions, this is the case. Sometimes one or more of the original reviewers may not be willing to provide the review in a timely manner. Then a decision may be made to seek another review. In the case of another re-review, a point-by-point reply to each review comment is almost always required, explaining where and how review comments have been included in the revised manuscript.

An important point to be noted here is that sometimes the authors do not pay as close attention to the review comments as they should. Consequently, when the same reviewers review the revised manuscript, they tend to be even more critical in their review and may recommend “reject.” It is therefore of utmost importance that the authors do an exceptional job of revising the manuscript following the reviews. In such cases, the likelihood of a manuscript being accepted becomes significantly high indeed. If disagreement occurs between the author and the reviewers, the author needs to explain and provide a rationale for disagreement. In all this process it is hoped that a sense of professionalism is maintained. Everybody is working for the same larger cause—furtherance of the hydrology profession—and hence there is no room for rancor or backbiting.

The selection of reviewers is one of the most important and key elements in the entire review process for several reasons. First, the reviewers are the single most important factor determining the timeliness of the manuscript review. Second, they provide quality, constructive, critical, and insightful review. Therefore, reviews constitute the basis for the recommendations that an AE and that an SE make to EIC. Third, the quality of the journal is significantly influenced by the quality of reviews. In most cases, reviewers do an exceptional job with little appreciation for their hard work. Theirs is truly a labor of love for the profession of hydrology.

Timeliness of reviews entails three elements: (1) authors; (2) editors and reviewers; and (3) ASCE. The foregoing discussion outlines the steps involved in the review process. When a manuscript is accepted for publication, the author is asked to prepare the manuscript following ASCE guidelines and to supply other associated material. Once ASCE receives everything and accepts the revised manuscript, it makes a determination when to publish it. It is believed that ASCE places the manuscript in the queue and publishes it in the order in which it was received, unless other manuscripts have a higher priority determined beforehand. This is often decided by the journal’s page budget and its frequency of publication. In the case of JHE, much improvement would be observed because of the journal going from bimonthly to monthly, effective January 2008.

The time it takes for a manuscript from submission to review to revision, if any, to publication has been quite large in the case of ASCE journals, and this has been a cause of great concern to ASCE and all involved. At annual editors’ workshops, this issue attracts a significant amount of discussion. The JHE editorial board continually strives to review manuscripts in time. In many cases one review may delay the entire review time by several months. In such cases, the AE, SE, or EIC may end up conducting the third review. Unfortunately, for practical reasons these editors cannot review all papers and must therefore heavily rely on outside reviews. Thus reviewers play a key role in maintaining the timeliness of the review process. The principal aim is to provide a timely review and treat the paper with respect and professionalism. The reviewers are requested to provide reviews in a timely and ethical manner.

On the other hand, the authors also need to do their part by preparing the manuscript following ASCE guidelines and submitting quality manuscripts and revisions without delay.

ASCE also needs to do whatever it can within its budgetary limitations. The ASCE journals program has witnessed a phenomenal growth in recent decades, and ASCE journals are respected throughout the world. It is up to everyone—authors, editors, reviewers, and ASCE staff members—to do his or her part in nurturing ASCE’s long history of professional excellence. Except for ASCE staff, everyone—authors, editors, and reviewers—is a volunteer and contributes to ASCE’s success without expecting anything in return. This volunteerism is a clear manifestation of the love of the profession and a sense of belonging to the ASCE family. Everyone makes his or her mark felt in a small way and can rest assured that his or her contribution is highly valued.

The Journal of Hydrologic Engineering is the journal of the entire hydrologic community, and its members must take ownership of the journal and take pride in it. Information highways have dismantled geographical boundaries, and hence hydrology knows no borders. People from as far away as Australia, China, or India can make as much of a difference as those within the United States or Canada. Editors come and go, but the journal will stay as long as the hydrologic community would like it to. Therefore, if any change is considered, then be that change, as Mahatma Gandhi used to say.

One final note. When soliciting reviews, the reviewers must be in the ASCE database. Although ASCE’s database is large, it is not nearly large enough by any means; and the editorial board constantly seeks additional reviewers. If anyone is interested in reviewing a manuscript for JHE, he or she may get himself or herself registered in the database. To register is a painless exercise and does not take more than a few minutes. Alternatively, they can contact the EIC with information on their area of expertise, phone and fax numbers, e-mail address, and affiliation. The EIC’s address and contact information is Professor Vijay P. Singh, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A and M University, Scoates Hall, 2117 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2117; office: (979)-845-7028; fax: (979)-862-3442; e-mail: [email protected].

Professor R. S. Govindaraju from Purdue University, Professor J. F. Cruise from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Professor R. Gentry from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Professor T. Ginn from the University of California at Davis, and Dr. Chandra Pathak from the South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, reviewed the editorial and made many helpful comments. Their assistance is most gratefully acknowledged.