Archivos de Zootecnia. Editorial Report 2010

M.C. López De Bustamante, A.G. Gómez-Castro, J. Arcos Castejón, José Manuel Perea Muñoz

Description

ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. EDITORIAL REPORT 2010 ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. INFORME EDITORIAL 2010 1 1 1 1Gómez Castro, A.G. *, López de Bustamante, M.C. , Perea Muñoz, J. y Arcos Castejón, J. 1Editorial Office of Archivos de Zootecnia. Animal Production Department. University of Cordoba. Campus Rabanales. 14071 Cordoba. España. *[e-mail] ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS PALABRAS CLAVE ADICIONALES Scientific journals. Scientific manuscripts. Revistas científicas. Trabajos científicos. SUMMARY The editorial process of Archivos de Zootec- to achieve shorter editorial times is a nia during 2010 is reported below. A total of 384 persistent, and resistent, task. manuscripts were received from 33 countries, mainly from Brazil (66.9%). Consequently, the METHODOLOGICAL language most frequently used in the manuscripts CONSIDERATIONSwas Portuguese, followed by Spanish and English. The mean time between submission and publication The editorial report of 2010 follows the of a manuscript was 836.3 days. The rejection rate same methodology described in the 2009 was 50.8%. In 2010, 49 articles, 21 short notes editorial report (http://www.uco.es/organi- and 10 reviews (total 83) were published by za/servicios/publica/az/php/img/web/authors coming from 15 countries. 28_18_39_01EditorialReport2009.pdf) (Gómez Castro et al., 2010).RESUMEN Se analiza el proceso editorial de Archivos de RECEIVED MANUSCRIPTS Zootecnia durante 2010.

Informations

• Publié par: helvia
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2011
• Nombre de lectures: 21
• Licence : En savoir +
  Paternité, pas d'utilisation commerciale, pas de modification
• Langue: Español

Extrait

ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. EDITORIAL REPORT 2010
ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. INFORME EDITORIAL 2010
Gómez Castro, A.G.
1
*, López de Bustamante, M.C.
1
, Perea Muñoz, J.
1
y Arcos Castejón, J.
1
1
Editorial Office of Archivos de Zootecnia. Animal Production Department. University of Cordoba. Campus
Rabanales. 14071 Cordoba. España. *[e-mail]
A
DDITIONAL

KEYWORDS
P
ALABRAS

CLAVE

ADICIONALES
Scientific journals. Scientific manuscripts.Revistas científicas. Trabajos científicos.
SUMMARY
The editorial process of Archivos de Zootec-
to achieve shorter editorial times is a
nia during 2010 is reported below. A total of 384
persistent, and resistent, task.
manuscripts were received from 33 countries,
mainly from Brazil (66.9%). Consequently, the
METHODOLOGICAL
language most frequently used in the manuscripts
was Portuguese, followed by Spanish and English.
CONSIDERATIONS
The mean time between submission and publication
The editorial report of 2010 follows the
of a manuscript was 836.3 days. The rejection rate
same methodology described in the 2009
was 50.8%. In 2010, 49 articles, 21 short notes
editorial report (http://www.uco.es/organi-
and 10 reviews (total 83) were published by
authors coming from 15 countries.
za/servicios/publica/az/php/img/web/
28_18_39_01EditorialReport2009.pdf)
RESUMEN
(Gómez Castro
et al.,
2010).
Se analiza el proceso editorial de Archivos de
RECEIVED MANUSCRIPTS
Zootecnia durante 2010. Se recibieron 384 ma-
nuscritos procedentes de 33 países, principal-
Figure 1
shows the annual progress of
mente de Brasil (66,9%). Consecuentemente, el
manuscripts received since the creation of
lenguaje más frecuentemente usado fue el portu-
our web site (May 2005). The annual number
gués, seguido del español y el inglés. El tiempo
of manuscripts received and managed by
medio entre recepción y publicación de un manus-
Archivos de Zootecnia has remarkably
crito fue elevado ( 836.3 dias). La tasa de rechazo
increased ever since.
fue del 50,8%. En 2010 fueron publicados 49
The number of manuscripts went from
artículos, 21 notas breves y 10 revisiones (83
trabajos en total) cuyos autores pertenecían a 15
342 received in 2009 to 384 in 2010, which
países diferentes.
suggests that appeal of Archivos de Zoo-
tecnia among researchers is still increasing.
INTRODUCTION
The 384 manuscripts received in 2010 were
classified in 291 original research articles,
In the editorial reports of previous years,53 short notes, and 40 literature reviews.
excesive long times from submission toMost of the manuscripts submitted (66.9%)
printing, were reported. As the economiccame from Brazil
(table I),
a figure which is
crisis scene remains, budgetary reasonssome lesser than the previous year, probably
continue avoiding the increase of numberdue to negative effect of the long editorial
of pages published yearly, and, therefore,times although the increasing positive

Arch. Zootec. 60 (229): 3-10. 2011.

GÓMEZ CASTRO, LÓPEZ DE BUSTAMANTE, PEREA MUÑOZ Y ARCOS CASTEJÓN

Received
Acepted
Rejected
Retired
Unresolved

004053003052002051001050200520062007200820092010
raeYFigure 1.
Annual progress of manuscripts received since May 2005.
(Evolución de los
manuscritos recibidos desde mayo de 2005).
evaluation of Archivos de Zootecnia,of the Editorial Board and Advisory Council.
maintains this high preference. StudiesSubsequently, the Editorial Board at its
originating from Mexico, Nigeria, and Spain,plenary session, analyzes each submitted
represented an additional 22.0%, and themanuscript and decide if it must be reviewed
remaining 9.1%, came from other 30(in which case at least two and up to four
countries, in proportions very similar (allreviewers are assigned) or rejected.
lower than 2,0%) and generally within theReviewers are chosen from a repertoire of
scope of projection of the journal. It isnearly 900 international experts from many
remarkable that the spectrum of countries isdifferent countries.
amplified to 10 new countries respect 2009.Archivos de Zootecnia is grateful to the
As shown in
table II
, the origin of the322 experts to whom at least one manuscript
manuscripts is reflected on the languagewas sent to for review during 2010, as
used. However the Portuguese representsindicated in
annex 1
.
57.8%, which is lower than the percentageAs shown in
table III
, the average review
of items of Portuguese origin. Spanish wastime of 105.0 ± 7.8 days improved as compared
used in 25.9% of the manuscripts and Englishto 109.9 days in 2009, 133.6 days in 2008 and
in 15.0%, which is similar to the previous260.9 days in 2007. However, the time from
year, but the contributions write in spanishacceptance to publication has increased
have an important increase. Only very fewfrom 414.2 in 2008 to 491.3 days and 629.9 ±
manuscripts received (1.3%) were written in31.8 in 2010. Consequently, the time between
French. As in previous years, there were nosubmission of a manuscript and its
articles in Italian.publication has increased to 836.3 ± 31.1
which means a considerable delay over 2009.
These waiting times are too high and,
REVIEWING
although causes for this are attributed to all
Each manuscript submitted to Archivosstages, frequently the authors themselves
de Zootecnia is first reviewed by memberscaused large delays during the correction of

Archivos de zootecnia vol. 60, núm. 229, p. 4.

ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. EDITORIAL REPORT 2010
Table I
. Origin (%) of authors of manuscripts received and published during 2010.
(Origen
(%) de los autores de los manuscritos recibidos y publicados durante 2010).
ArApNrNpRrRpPrPp
Algeria0.3-1.5---0.5-
Argentine2.8--3.8--2.10.9
Austria0.1-----0.1-
Bosnia0.1-----0.05-
Brasil72.778.022.959.094.258.566.971.5
Cameroon0.5-----0.4-
Canada0.10.3----0.10.2
Chile0.10.3---2.40.10.5
Colombia1.4---0.6-1.1-
Costa Rica0.1-----0.05-
Cuba1.3-0.96.7--1.11.6
Dominican Republic-0.3-----0.2
Ecuador0.2-----0.2-
Egypt0.7-----0.6-
Gabon0.2-----0.1-
Germany0.1-----0.05-
India0.10.3----0.10.2
Iran0.1-----0.1-
Italy0.2-----0.2-
Mexico4.69.15.310.51.217.14.410.2
Nicaragua---1.0---0.2
Nigeria5.71.73.410.5--4.93.7
Peru1.3--1.9--1.00.5
Portugal-1.40.3---0.050.9
Serbia0.1-----0.1-
South Africa0.2-----0.2-
Spain3.17.365.65.73.522.012.78.3
Syria0.1-----0.05-
Tunez0.6-----0.5-
Turkey0.1-----0.1-
United Kingdom0.2-----0.1-
Uruguay0.8-----0.6-
USA0.21.0----0.10.7
Venezuela1.8--1.00.6-1.40.2
A: articles, N: short notes, R: reviews, P: total papers; r: received, p: published.
their manuscripts. However, the constraintstill a lot that can be done to further decrease
in the page number that can be publisheddelays. The accumulation of delays during
yearly, and the growing number of manus-the publication phase originates from the
cripts received, are the principal reasons forlarge number of manuscripts received and
this delay. A more detailed analysis of theseapproved, which far exceeds the maximum
data shows that the management of thenumber of pages published yearly due to
reviews and feedback from reviewers hasbudgetary reasons. The potential to shorten
substantially improved, however, there isthe waiting time to publication is scarce,
Archivos de zootecnia vol. 60, núm. 229, p. 5.

GÓMEZ CASTRO, LÓPEZ DE BUSTAMANTE, PEREA MUÑOZ Y ARCOS CASTEJÓN

Table II
. Language used (%) in the
Table IV
. Manuscripts published in 2010.
manuscripts published and received during
(Trabajos publicados en 2010).
2010.
(Idioma empleado en los manuscritos reci-
bidos y publicados en 2010).N%pages%
ArApNrNpRrRpPrPpArticles4959.048264.4
Short notes2125.38411.2
Eng18.212.38.19.52.010.015.012.0Reviews1012.016822.8
Fre1.5-1.3---1.3-News22.460.8
Ita--------Editorial report11.281.1
Por60.371.432.452.482.070.057.863.9Total83100748100
Spa20.016.358.238.116.020.025.924.1
A: articles, N: short notes, R: reviews, P: total
IV),
less than those published in 2009,
papers; r: received, p: published.
because of no supplement was published
during this year. The manuscripts were
published mainly in Portuguese (63.9%) and
especially in the current economic climate.Spanish (24.1%). Regarding the manuscripts
A solution, which Archivos de Zootecnia is
currently implementing, is the uploading of
an early online publication. At the moment
Table V
. Manuscripts (%) authored by
this early online publication, is being released
members of the University of Cordoba or by
on average three months before the
members of the Editorial staff published in
manuscript printing.
2010.
(Trabajos (%) firmados por miembros de la
The acceptance and rejection rate of
Universidad de Córdoba o del Equipo Editorial
manuscripts received, and completed, in
durante 2010).
2010 reached 4.2 % and 50.8% respectively.
University of CordobaEditorial staff