Publication Practices in Social Work

Publication practices in social work have long been regarded as problematic by social work scholars. Three recent critiques--"The Miami Statement on Publication Processes in Social Work" (Schilling et al., 2005); "The San Antonio Response to the Miami Statement" (Holden et al., 2008); and Journal Publication Practices in Social Work, a report by the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) Presidential Task Force on Publications (PTFP) (2008)--have systematically explored and codified these complaints. Half of the 14 members of the group that produced the Miami Statement (convened by Robert Schilling, PhD) and the six members of the San Antonio group (cochaired by Judith C. Baer, PhD, Gary Holden, PhD, and Bruce A. Thyer, PhD) also served on the 22-member SSWR PTFP (cochaired by Jeffrey M. Jenson, PhD and Anne E. Fortune, PhD). Although the three reports have much in common, this editorial focuses on PTFP recommendations for improving publication practices, because the PTFP report is the most comprehensive assessment of these issues and was published with the SSWR imprimatur. Readers should consult the Miami Statement and the San Antonio Response for a number of interesting recommendations that were not incorporated in the final PTFP report. Published only recently, it is too soon to know in what ways and to what extent the recommendations embodied in the Miami Statement, the San Antonio Response, and the PTFP report will materially affect publication practices in social work. It is worrisome, however, that to date these important documents seem to have engendered little in the way of formal or informal reaction from social work scholars, publication houses, and other key stakeholders in the social work research dissemination enterprise. As a potential stimulant to future discussions, I offer my initial reactions to the PTFP proposals here. USEFUL RECOMMENDATIONS Most of the PTFP recommendations seem valid and useful: Journal editors should have primary responsibility for manuscript reviewer assignments; reviewers should possess the requisite expertise to provide insightful reviews of manuscripts in specific topical or methodological areas; processes and criteria used to guide selection of journal editors should be transparent; electronic submission and processing of social work research manuscripts should be normative; and journal editors should possess scholarly expertise and experience consistent with their editorial duties. POTENTIALLY USEFUL RECOMMENDATIONS (IF MODIFIED) Several of the PTFP recommendations are appealing but not fully articulated. For example, it is clearly desirable that "data assessing the length of time that is required to assign, review, and publish manuscripts in centralized and decentralized publishing models ... be collected and compared" (p. 18) and that data assessing impact scores, journal submission and acceptance rates, and time to publication for social work journals ... be collected annually by an independent group of editors, scholars, and publishers as a way to help authors evaluate a journal's impact. (p. 22) However, these recommendations would more likely be acted on if the report specified who might fund the efforts, collect and analyze such data, and serve on an independent monitoring group of the type mentioned. It would also be especially useful if the report anticipated potential barriers to the completion of these activities, including those related to costs and political issues. Similarly, although most readers would likely agree that "deans and directors in departments and schools of social work should provide leadership in efforts aimed at finding ways to reward faculty members who serve as editors or manuscript reviewers for scholarly journals" (p. 22), this recommendation would be more useful if specific supports were delineated that deans might provide to faculty members serving social work journals and if potential constraints on the provision of such supports were identified. …