Editor’s Note

The success of any peer-reviewed technical or professional journal depends on the quality of manuscript reviews. Thoughtful, constructive, and competent reviews are essential to the accuracy, readability, completeness, and usefulness of manuscripts that are eventually accepted and published in the journal. Administration of the review process in an ethical and timely manner is likewise integral to the journal’s success. Readers and potential authors may be interested in the procedures that we currently follow in conducting manuscript reviews for this Journal and in anticipated procedural revisions that are aimed at improving efficiency.

At present, an author submits a manuscript in multiple hard-copy form to the ASCE Journals Department, along with related paperwork. Abbreviated submittal instructions are given in the front of the Journal. Complete instructions, including specific formatting information, are available at the Web site http://pubs.asce.org/authors/guide.html. ASCE Publications staff sends an acknowledgement letter to the author, assigns the manuscript a tracking number, and prepares the review forms, which they mail to me with sufficient copies of the paper to distribute to the reviewers.

When I receive the manuscript and review forms, I select the most appropriate reviewers from among an extensive list of qualified individuals. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities and its focus on improving practice, the list of reviewers includes representatives from the wide variety of disciplines comprising the design and construction industry and approximately equal numbers of academicians and practitioners. I select three reviewers, preferably including at least one academician and one practitioner, for each manuscript. I mail the manuscripts to the reviewers and follow the progress with occasional telephone reminders and email messages.

In the front of the Journal is a list of Associate Editors and members of the Editorial Review Board. Our list of reviewers is far more extensive, but these individuals comprise the front line of reviewers. They often conduct reviews themselves when I send them manuscripts, but they more commonly identify appropriate reviewers from their areas of expertise, thereby adding to our reviewer base. In addition, the Associate Editors assist in establishing policy and direction for the Journal.

When I receive the completed reviews, I process the final decision on the basis of at least two positive or two negative reviews. Even though the first two reviews received may agree, I usually wait for the third review since it nearly always contains further insights that may be valuable to the author. The final decision may be to accept the manuscript as written, to accept the manuscript with minor revisions, to decline the manuscript, or to defer a decision until after we receive revisions and conduct a formal rereview. I then mail the decision to ASCE Publications staff, along with reviewer comments, and the staff informs the author of the decision and requests completion of any remaining paperwork. If the review results in a deferred decision, the process begins again as soon as the author returns a revised manuscript.

When a final accepted manuscript is received along with all requested information, it is placed in the publication queue and is published in the sequence received, unless the topic is very timely or the paper is to be included in a Special Topic issue. The time in the queue is influenced by the journal’s page budget and frequency of publication. This time has been reduced for the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities by recent page budget increases and a change in frequency from quarterly to bimonthly.

These procedures usually work well, but the numerous opportunities for delays occasionally result in unacceptably long review times. This problem is a significant concern for all editors of all ASCE journals. At our ASCE Editors’ Workshop, we devote a great deal of discussion every year to the topic of timely reviews, and we constantly seek ways to improve efficiency without sacrificing quality. We value the patience of authors in accepting the inherent constraints of the peer-review process. However, we are profoundly aware patience has limits. Authors whose patience is tested to the limit will simply send their valuable manuscripts to other journals—an irreplaceable loss to ASCE and our readers.

Although there are steps in the review process that editors can make more efficient, authors themselves can address many of the unnecessary delays. Authors can ensure that their original submissions are complete and that they are in compliance with all formatting instructions. If they are not, the start of the review may be delayed. Many papers published in the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities are case studies that review the results of forensic engineering investigations. The discussion of a forensic investigation—and the lessons to be learned from it—must be carefully presented or the reputations of individuals connected with the case may be unnecessarily harmed. The presentation must be as complete as possible and have as little bias as possible, including a full disclosure of the author’s involvement with the case. For such manuscripts, we have prepared a unique set of guidelines intended to encourage thoughtful and ethical presentations. Adhering to these guidelines will expedite the reviews of case study manuscripts. “Guidelines for Case Study Papers” was most recently published in the May 2006 issue (Vol. 20, No. 2) in my “Editor’s Note.” Finally, the more timely that authors are in responding to requests for more information and in returning revised manuscripts with clear explanations of their revisions, the more timely the reviews will be.

Reviewers play the major role in assuring the timeliness of review decisions. Although the principal goal must be providing thoughtful, thorough, and constructive comments, there is no question that timeliness is essential to the continued success of the Journal. Authors simply must be satisfied that their contributions are being treated with respect. They have the right to demand timely decisions regarding their submissions. If you are selected to review a manuscript, please remember the important contribution that you can make to the overall efficiency and credibility of the operation.

One major improvement to the ASCE Journals Department is currently under way. This improvement is conversion to electronic submission and review of journal manuscripts. ASCE has purchased a state-of-the-art system that several similar publishing programs are successfully using. The system is now in place for a few of the journals and will soon be implemented for the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. Although there will no doubt be some difficulty in conversion, we look forward to the opportunities promised by the new on-line system. Authors will find it easier to submit their manuscripts, and mailing delays will be eliminated. The system provides for better tracking, including timely reminders to reviewers. Initial reports from the editors who have already implemented the system are quite positive. Those journals are also experiencing an increase in the number of manuscripts submitted, an indication that authors are adapting readily to the new procedures.

The continuing success of the ASCE Journals operation is truly remarkable. The entire program, with the exception of Publications staff, is maintained through the altruistic contributions of volunteers. Authors, editors, associate editors, editorial review board members, and manuscript reviewers all contribute their time and expertise without any monetary compensation. These contributions are motivated by the desire to share information for the advancement of the profession and for the good of the people whom we serve. Each individual who plays a role in this effort can be assured that his or her contribution is highly valued.

We are always seeking reviewers who are dedicated to improving the quality of the Journal. If you would like to contribute your time and expertise as one of our reviewers, please provide your complete contact information and identify your areas of interest or expertise. You may contact me by mail at Kenneth L. Carper, School of Architecture and Construction Management, College of Engineering and Architecture, P.O. Box 642220, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2220; by telephone at (509) 335-1229; by Fax at (509) 335-6132; or by email at [email protected].