Weatherly, Jeffrey N.

English

St. Cloud State University

Analysis of Gambling Behavior Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 1 2011 Editorial Comment: Turning the Corner at Analysis of Gambling Behvaior Jeffrey N. Weatherly University of North Dakota, jeffrey_weatherly@und.nodak.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/agb  Part of the Applied Behavior Analysis Commons, Clinical Psychology Commons, Experimental Analysis of Behavior Commons, and the Theory and Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Weatherly, Jeffrey N. (2011) "Editorial Comment: Turning the Corner at Analysis of Gambling Behvaior," Analysis of Gambling Behavior: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/agb/vol5/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Analysis of Gambling Behavior by an authorized editor of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact tdsteman@stcloudstate.edu. Analysis of Gambling Behavior                 2011, 5, 3–4       Number 1 (Summer 2011)  3  EDITORIAL COMMENT: TURNING THE CORNER AT ANALYSIS OF GAMBLING BEHAVIOR  Jeffrey N. Weatherly University of North Dakota --------------------------  Although it may not be apparent by the current issue, Analysis of Gambling Behavior has turned a corner of sorts.  In the past, we have received a sufficient number of submis-sions from a small group of researchers and laboratories to support a high-quality journal.  We are fortunate that we are still receiving quality submissions from those same re-searchers and laboratories.  What has changed, however, is that the journal is now receiving unsolicited submissions from re-searchers and laboratories from across the country and world that represent new contrib-utors to the journal. The journal has been graced by the fact that the submissions that it has received to date have generally been good quality, behav-ior-analytic studies of gambling behavior.  We have also benefitted from the skills of a large number of reviewers, who have helped ensure that the submissions that were ulti-mately accepted for publication met high standards of scientific quality.  My compli-ments go out to both previous authors in the journal and the reviewers who helped make those contributions as strong as they could be. That is not to say, however, that the jour-nal has published all the papers that have been submitted.  It has not.  Admittedly, the ac-ceptance rate at Analysis of Gambling Behav-ior has been higher than one might find at long-standing, highly respected journals that receive far more submissions than they could possibly publish.  We have not had that luxu-ry.  However, we also have not had to deal with a large number of submissions that were clearly below the standards and mission of journal. By my calculations, the majority of the re-search papers that have been submitted to Analysis of Gambling Behavior and have ul-timately been published were initially re-viewed as “revise and resubmit.”  Nearly 15% of the research papers that have been submit-ted to the journal have not been accepted for publication and have not been published.  Again, that percentage is likely not high enough for researchers in the field to consider Analysis of Gambling Behavior a highly com-petitive journal, at least when it comes to ac-ceptance rates.  On the other hand, it does in-dicate that we do not simply publish manu-scripts because they are submitted to the jour-nal. The impetus for penning this editorial comment is to inform readers and potential contributors to Analysis of Gambling Behav-ior that the acceptance rates will most likely be decreasing in the future.  As noted before, the journal continues to receive research pa-pers from laboratories that have been con-sistent contributors to the journal since its in-ception.  It is now also receiving a solid num-ber of submissions from different laboratories that represent novel submitters to the journal.  For the first time in the journal’s history, we now stand at the point at which accepted arti-cles are queued for upcoming issues rather than being immediately published in the next issue. As the number of submissions increases, and I am certainly hopeful that the recent rise in submissions will continue, the editorial board will have the opportunity to become more discriminating in the papers that get ac-cepted.  That does not necessarily mean that 1Weatherly: Editorial Comment: Turning the Corner at Analysis of Gambling BehPublished by theRepository at St. Cloud State, 20114 Editorial Comment                                                             they will, or that they should.  Rather, it rep-resents the opportunity for the board to re-evaluate the mission of the journal and to make future decisions on submitted manu-scripts based solely on that mission.  The pe-ripheral contingencies of making sure that the journal had enough articles to publish a legit-imate issue are (hopefully) no longer in play.  And that is a good thing. I know a good number of the past contrib-utors to the journal on a personal basis.  I cer-tainly want to thank them for their efforts as well as their willingness to have their work represented on the pages of Analysis of Gam-bling Behavior.  I also sincerely hope that now, as the journal appears to have turned the corner, they continue to see the journal as a viable outlet for their research and that the journal continues to see submissions from their research programs. On the flip side, I also certainly do not want to see the journal become exclusive.  That is, where one can find journals that are the private publishing ground of the editorial board of that journal, I would like to encour-age people from outside the editorial board to submit their work when that work fits within the scope of the journal.  At present, the num-ber of submissions from this group seems to be growing.  I think I speak on behalf of the entire editorial board when I say that is a good thing and we hope that it continues. Which, in conclusion, brings me to the present issue of the journal.  As I noted at the beginning of this editorial comment, one might not be able to discern the truth of my comments given that a large proportion of the articles in the present issue come from my la-boratory.  That will hopefully not be the case in future issues.  With that said, however, I plan to continue an active research program on the behavior-analytic study of gambling behavior and I certainly view Analysis of Gambling Behavior as an excellent outlet for that work.  So, do not be surprised to see the work from my laboratory and students in fu-ture issues of the journal!  And consistent with the above comments, should the board become increasingly discriminating in what articles get accepted for publication in the journal, I certainly expect that my work will be subjected to the same standards as every other work that gets submitted to Analysis of Gambling Behavior.  Jeffrey N. Weatherly Executive Editor Analysis of Gambling Behavior  2Analysis of Gambling Behavior, Vol. 5 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 1https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/agb/vol5/iss1/1

Editorial Comment: Turning the Corner at Analysis of Gambling Behvaior

https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=agb

Editorial Comment: Turning the Corner at Analysis of Gambling Behvaior

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

St. Cloud State University