Editorial (2008)

During 2007, the Geographical Journal carried 23 full papers, 33 book reviews, and a commentary piece on ‘Urbanisation and global environmental change’ based on presentations at the Opening Plenary Session of the RGS-IBG Annual Conference in August 2006. Two out of the four issues were Special Issues, the first on Environment and Development in the Former South African Bantustans in March, and the second on Critical Perspectives on Integrated Water Management in December. Both Special Issues, despite being on very different topics, were very well received, and it is our intention to plan to publish up to, but no more than, two Special Issues per year. The attraction of Special Issues for the research community is that readers can access a coherent set of papers on a specialist topic of interest to them, a kind of one-stop-shop that appears to be appreciated by the research community. Nonetheless, whether as Special Issues, or as submitted ‘stand-alone’ papers, it is important for the GJ to continue to publish the very best research and scholarship in the fields of environment and development, and especially so where these two themes overlap. However, there may be a threat, or at least a challenge, for the future in the light of current discussions on the scope and shape of the Research Excellence Framework as the successor to the Research Assessment Exercise. Although still out to consultation at the time of writing, it seems very likely that metrics, in some form, will be used to assess research excellence in the future. The extent to which such measures will be deployed depends on whether a subject area is eventually classified as a STEM subject (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine subject areas), or a non-STEM subject (the rest). However, whichever group Geography is placed in (and there are crucial debates going on in the profession at the moment on this very topic), some form of metrics will be used to a greater or lesser extent. One of the key metrics is likely to be the use of bibliometric measures; that is, papers will be judged on the numbers of citations they receive and journals on their so-called Impact Factor. Consequently, a key measure of a journal's standing in the profession is less likely to depend on the quality of the papers themselves, and is more likely to depend on the number of citations to the papers that the journal publishes, and perhaps even the number of electronic ‘hits’ the various papers experience. In other words, the Research Excellence Framework is likely to use a quantitative indicator, based on citations, as a surrogate measure of quality. At one level, this might seem appealing – it seems to do away with subjective, even prejudiced, interpretations and perceptions of a paper, for example. However, there are real dangers as well. It is clear that the most cited papers tend to be review papers or those papers of a more generic interest. Papers which present research findings in a scholarly and rigorous way, but in a relatively small, but highly important and relevant, research field attract far fewer citations, even though the quality of the paper may be exceptional, and in that small research field, the paper is a leader. This will produce a real dilemma for any editor, because he/she will be under pressure to ensure that the papers published by his/her journal receive the maximum number of citations; and so this suggests that the emphasis will move towards publishing more review and generic papers at the expense of the scholarly and rigorous research paper. However, going down this road will make it even more difficult for dedicated researchers to find outlets for their work, and, in particular, for early-career researchers who rely on being able to publish their high-quality, well-researched findings in such journals. However, despite these tensions and pressures, the GJ will remain committed to publishing the very best of research and scholarship, regardless of whether such papers are review-type contributions, or are reports of the findings of high-quality, scholarly research. With regard to activity in 2007, it is particularly pleasing to see that the number of book reviews has remained consistently high, as have the number of new paper submissions. There was a concern among many journal editors generally that submissions during 2007, and especially in the second half of the year, might tail off due to RAE fatigue. Happily, this did not happen (Table 1). The acceptance rate of papers remained at the same level as last year at 29%. In last year's report, it was noted that the number of papers submitted which included at least one female author increased from 30% of all new submissions in 2005 to 36% in 2006; this has increased again in 2007 to 39% (Table 2). Whereas in last year's report it was noted that the provenance of authors had remained broadly similar to that of 2005, this is no longer the case, at least in terms of the relative rankings (Table 3). Submissions from the UK still dominate, but the GJ continues to attract work from across the world, with an increase in submissions from the Rest of Europe and East Asia. Hopefully, some of these submissions will eventually see the light of day in the GJ. Finally, there are a number of people whose work needs to be recognised and acknowledged, and, indeed, without whose work and input the GJ would never be published. Sal Moore at Blackwells has yet again done a sterling job in supporting the GJ and ensuring that it meets its publication schedule. I would also like to thank all those referees who, during the year, have provided full and frank reports on the papers sent out to them. I know that refereeing papers is a thankless task these days, and especially in the RAE-driven environment of the UK, but without your unstinting efforts, there would be no GJ (nor any other journal for that matter). Finally, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Amy Swann for running the Journal's Office in the RGS-IBG in London, and for supporting me as editor. It has not been an easy year with the introduction of Manuscript Central, least of all for this editor, but Amy has guided me through the trials and tribulations of its introduction, something for which I am extremely grateful.