The Health and Future of Division A‐5 and the Journal of Environmental Quality
Authors: O'Connor G. A. , Logan T. J. , Sommers L. E. 
Published: July 2010

AbstractAmerican Society of Agronomy Division A‐5, Environmental Quality, was established in 1971. Its original purpose as a separate division was to allow grouping of papers on environmental issues at the ASA annual meetings. Concurrently, a new journal, Journal of Environmental Quality (JEQ), was established (1972) to (i) provide a focus on environmental quality work, (ii) provide recognition for scientists whose research is directed toward environmental quality, and (iii) make it possible for scientists in other disciplines to locate and recognize agricultural scientists' contributions to environmental quality research more readily than in the past.Early interest in both Div. A‐5 and JEQ justified the decisions to establish the division and journal. Numbers of papers given in Div. A‐5 and published in JEQ grew steadily for the first decade (Table 1); numbers in Div. A‐5 have stabilized or declined slightly in later years, suggesting less interest in the Division, and numbers of papers have decreased in JEQ since 1984, despite continued (increasing) importance of environmental quality issues. These trends concerned Society officers and prompted the development of a questionnaire to survey ASA members as to their attitudes toward Div. A‐5 and JEQ. This editorial reports the results of the questionnaire and itemizes efforts being instituted to address member concerns.In the summer of 1987, Lee Sommers, ASA Board Representative for Div. A‐5, and the then current Program Chair, George O'Connor, developed and distributed a questionnaire concerning the status and future of Div. A‐5. Questions were also included regarding JEQ. Questionnaires were distributed to all ASA members listing A‐5 as their primary or secondary discipline choices. The mailing list and labels were provided by ASA Headquarters. A few additional questionnaires were distributed to individuals not on the list, who expressed interest in participating in the survey. Approximately 950 questionnaires were distributed, with an encouraging 30% response rate.Survey responses are summarized in Tables 2 to 5. Data are grouped by survey category for ease of presentation. The first set of questions dealt with background information (Table 2). The majority (70%) of respondents identified their primary division as Soils. Agronomic divisions dominated (55%) of the secondary division identification. Very few respondents (24) indicated Crops as either primary or secondary divisions. The vast majority (70%) of respondents held the Ph.D. degree and most (77%) were employed in academia or by the government. Although consultants constituted a significant percentage (23%) of respondents, it appears that the Div. A‐5 audience is primarily soil scientists and agronomists employed by academic or government units.Interest in Div. A‐5 was determined by asking how many papers members had presented at ASA meetings since 1980 and the reasons for changing these numbers, if any. Members were also asked to comment on the future of Div. A‐5.About half (51%) of the respondents had presented papers in Div. A‐5 at ASA annual meetings, with little change expected in the number of future presentations (Table 3). The main reasons for not presenting papers in Div. A‐5 were the
image
image following: (i) change in job responsibilities or research direction, (ii) job responsibilities or funds do not allow for oral presentations, and (iii) preference for oral presentations to discipline divisions (e.g., Div. S‐2, Div. S‐1) within ASA or to other societies (e.g., American Chemical Society, Weed Science). The first two categories of responses are perhaps not surprising, given the makeup of Div. A‐5 (i.e., consultants) and the vagaries and cyclical nature of environmental research funding. The last response, however, may suggest a more serious concern for the division. If scientists feel that research presented at Div. A‐5 meetings will neither receive as much recognition nor contribute as much to the presenter's reputation among his or her peers as research presented in the traditional divisions, the original purpose of Div. A‐5 may be in danger. This same issue dominated responses to questions concerning the future of Div. A‐5.The vast majority of respondents (84%) favored continuing Div. A‐5, but felt the division should be improved. About half (54%) felt that Div. A‐5 should be converted to a soils division, but only as a last resort alternative for improvement of Div. A‐5. Suggested improvements included the following: (i) broadening the scope of Div. A‐5 to all aspects of environmental quality by encouraging participation of other disciplines and emphasizing timely subjects (e.g., groundwater quality), (ii) encouraging topics of interest to consultants (e.g., “real life” cases of hazardous waste management), and (iii) changing the perception that Div. A‐5 is concerned with only sludge and metal research. Other suggestions for improving Div. A‐5 are tabulated in Table 5.The same type of response dominated questions regarding the Journal of Environmental Quality. Although only half of the respondents (51%) had published in JEQ, the vast majority (i) regarded the journal highly, (ii) subscribed to the journal, and (iii) read the journal regularly (Table 4). Many respondents indicated that they would increase their journal involvement if (i) the journal's scope were broadened (encouraging papers on hazardous waste management, water quality, air quality, etc.) and (ii) entire issues were devoted to single Div. A‐5 topics, such as a symposium presented at the ASA annual meetings. Competition with several new, narrowly focused journals and the cyclic nature of environmental quality research interest and funding were cited as possible reasons for reduced publications in JEQ.Overall, interest in and support of both Div. A‐5 and JEQ appears high. Numbers of papers presented in Div. A‐5 sessions in 1987 are comparable to previous years (Table 1). Numbers of papers decreased in 1985 and 1986, but have remained fairly stable at levels comparable to long‐established divisions, e.g., Div. S‐2. Submissions to JEQ increased in 1987, perhaps reflecting a return to previous levels. Nevertheless, the message from the environmental quality constituency is clear: the manner in which environmental quality research is presented, as reflected in Div. A‐5 and JEQ, deserves our attention.Concurrent with the survey of the ASA membership, an ad‐hoc committee chaired by Dennis Keeney, and with Editor Terry Logan, James Beard, Nick Frey, and Dwayne Wolf as members, was established to consider the status of JEQ and to make recommendations for change, where appropriate, to the ASA‐CSSA‐SSSA (Tri‐Society) executive committees. A report of this committee will be forthcoming in 1988. At the same time, the JEQ Editorial Board has instituted several changes, which will be effective in 1989.Following is a description of efforts being made, or soon to be instituted, which address the mandate expressed in the questionnaire for needed changes in Div. A‐5 and JEQ.