While the averages reported for short notes are significantly larger for 1997 than for 1996, we are dealing with a small number of papers. Half the short notes made it through the review process in less than 20 weeks. A large number of the short notes that took longer than 20 weeks were delayed because they required multiple revisions by the authors to render them acceptable for publication. The peer review process is limited only by the willingness of people in the seismological community to participate by providing timely and thorough reviews. We look upon the peer review process as satisfying an obligation to both our authors and our readers.
Authors benefit by the improvement in their manuscripts that results from the peer review process.
Hopefully, this makes authors' work more intelligible and increases its value. The time it takes for a paper to wind its way through the peer review process is mainly a function of the time it takes to find willing reviewers, the time it takes peer reviewers to review manuscripts, the time it takes for Associate Editors to act on the peer reviewer's comments and correspond with authors, and the time it takes for authors to revise their manuscripts in response to the Associate Editor's instructions. Since all our Associate Editors volunteer their time while juggling busy schedules, speeding their response time has had varying degrees of success. It is our hope that the expansion of the Editorial Board over the past few years will result in more rapid response by Associate Editors as we reduce the number of manuscripts for which each is responsible. Our policy for finding reviewers is to contact candidates prior to sending them a paper for review.