European Review of Agricultural Economics Editors’ Report 2017

European Review of Agricultural Economics Editors’ Report 2017 1. Editorial process The online manuscript handling system (Manuscript Central) continues to work well. The technical and administrative support from OUP is excellent with Naomi Conneely/Rebecca Fitchett being the first point of contact between the editors and OUP for the review process and all queries. The production and marketing team also works in an efficient manner both in terms of the final edited papers, the table of contents, papers in the system and with regard to the ERAE website. As is the tradition of the ERAE, the aim is to have three referees for each paper and, in most cases, this target has been maintained. Decisions can sometimes be made on the basis of two referee reports if the decision is clear cut. It is now established practice that the referees are informed of each stage of the decision process and have access to other referees’ comments and the editor’s decision when the editor’s decision is communicated to the submitting author. To formally recognise referees’ contributions, a list was included in the final 2017 edition of the ERAE of those colleagues who acted as referees during the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. In addition we have now in place an annual award for the ‘Best Reviewer’ which is recognised formally at the EAAE Tri-Annual Congress. For the process and the ‘Best Reviewer’ awards for 2017, see below. The aim is to go for an equal allocation of papers across the ERAE editors though this is contingent on the numbers of tasks that editors are holding, the timing of these tasks and any peak loads that may arise (e.g. management of the Congress edition in 2017). In addition, the distribution of papers is contingent on matching the research coverage of the editors with the papers submitted. The editors generally act autonomously and this works well. However, there is consultation between editors regarding difficult cases and where there is a conflict of interest; e.g. where submitting authors have collaborated with an editor in the past, papers will be passed to another editor to ensure impartiality. Consultation between editors also arises with regard to special issues, the congress issue and general ‘policy’ issues with regard to the ERAE. In addition, the editors are in frequent contact over on-going management issues when required. The editors also consult with regard to the table of contents, the lead article and recommendations for ‘Editors’ Choice’. Two policies regarding manuscripts were adopted during the reporting year: (i) guidelines on the use of deception involving experiments and (ii) conflict of interest guidelines. The ERAE has seen an increase in the number of submissions using experiments in agricultural economics. Deception is an issue that is commonly faced by researchers in this area. A formal statement highlighting guidelines on the use of deception involving experiments was published on the ERAE webpage. Guidance in identifying potential conflicts of interest has been included in the reviewer invitation template. In most instances, conflicts of interest can be avoided simply by continuing to exercise good judgement. The ERAE and its editors rely on the sound judgement of reviewers to prevent many such conflict situations. 2. Editors and editorial board With the four editors, we have a decent coverage across the range of research issues that comprise agricultural economics. Each editor is appointed for 4 years initially. At the start of 2017, the editorial team was composed of Iain Fraser, Giannis Karagiannis, Jack Peerlings and Ada Wossink with Miranda Meuwissen as the Book Review editor. As of September 2017, Iain Fraser ended his term. He was replaced by Carl Johan Lagerkvist. In addition, Miranda Meuwissen stepped down as Book Review editor at the end of 2017. The search process for a replacement Book Review editor is ongoing. An organisational change in early 2017 was the formal recognition of a coordinating co-editor. The specific expectations and requirements of the coordination editor were agreed with Krijn Poppe (Hon. Secretary-Treasurer, EAAEP Foundation). Iain Fraser served as the coordinator editor until September 2017 after which Ada Wossink took on this role. A renewal of the Editorial Board was completed in December 2017 with six members replaced. The current members are listed below with their affiliation and the starting date of their membership. Members of the Editorial Board provisionally serve for 3 years with most members being in place for two periods. Some members have served longer to ease the number of replacement to be made at one time. Given the current profile and expected retirement dates, a further six replacements would be expected in 2018. The current list of members of the editorial board is (with starting date): Jesús Antón (OECD, France: 2012); Kevin Balcombe (University of Reading: 2016); Štefan Bojnec (University of Primorska, Slovenia: 2009); Raushan Bokusheva (Zurich University of Applied Sciences: 2014); Alessandro Bonanno (Colorado State University: 2016); Céline Bonnet (Toulouse School of Economics, INRA: 2017); Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache (Toulouse School of Economic, INRA: 2016); Bernard Brümmer (University of Göttingen: 2016); Jean-Paul Chavas (University of Wisconsin: 2014); Andreas Drichoutis (University of Athens, Greece: 2014); Gregory Emvalomatis (University of Dundee; 2017); Roberto Esposti (Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona: 2011); Cornelis Gardebroek (Wageningen University, The Netherlands: 2011); Thomas Glauben (IAMO, Halle, Germany: 2012); Carola Grebitus (University of Arizona: 2016); Sebastian Hess (University of Kiel: 2017); George Hendrikse (Erasmus University, Rotterdam: 2012); Silke Huettel (University of Bonn: 2017); Alan Ker (University of Guelph, Canada: 2016); Karine Latouche (Lereco INRA, Rennes: 2016); Jens-Peter Loy (University of Kiel: 2011); Jill McCluskey (Washington State University, USA: 2013); Oliver Musshoff (University of Goettingen: 2017); Martin Odening (Humbolt University, Berlin: 2012); Rodolfo Nayga (University of Arkansas: 2017); Alessandro Olper (University of Milan: 2016); Timothy Richards (Arizona State University, USA: 2011); Dan Rigby (University of Manchester, UK: 2011); Johannes Sauer (Technical University Munich, Germany: 2014) and Teresa Serra (University of Illinois, USA: 2011). 3. Submissions and papers published For 2017, the number of original submissions totalled 271. This figure represents a significant increase from the 2016 number of submissions of 174 and the 2015 number of 222 as depicted below. Although one should anticipate some volatility in the number of submissions across years, the latest number indicates a healthy indication of the status of the ERAE. It is the highest number of submissions to the Review to date (Figure 1). Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Submissions to ERAE, 2012–2017. Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Submissions to ERAE, 2012–2017. During 2016, there was an ongoing discussion surrounding the issue of open access (OA) and Horizon 2020 initiated by Erik Mathijs. As a result of this discussion, the ERAE’s status was upgraded in February 2017 to ‘green’ on the SHERPA/RoMEO open-access-status website. ‘Green’ is the website’s most liberal status in regard to a journal’s policy towards authors self-archiving their articles. The SHERPA/RoMEO status is used by some research-funding agencies to limit the journals in which authors are allowed to publish articles resulting from the funding. Importantly, ERAE’s ‘green’ rating means that agricultural economists that are involved with Horizon 2020 projects are able to publish the resulting research in the Review. The geography of submissions of original articles is shown in Table 1. As in 2016, the United States was the lead country for submissions followed by Germany. The number of submissions from Germany increased to 22 (from 17) while the number from the United States increased to 40 (from 20). Aside from Germany, the leading countries from Europe were Italy (16), France (15), Spain (14) and the UK (14). Submissions from China increased to 18 papers (from eight in 2016). Table 1. Geography of submissions, 2017 Country Number of original submissions United States 40 Germany 22 China 18 Italy 16 France 15 Spain 14 UK 14 Poland 8 Tunisia 8 Australia 7 Sweden 7 Canada 6 Denmark 6 Finland 6 India 6 Netherlands 6 Norway 6 Austria 5 Belgium 5 Russian Federation 5 Other 51 Total 271 Country Number of original submissions United States 40 Germany 22 China 18 Italy 16 France 15 Spain 14 UK 14 Poland 8 Tunisia 8 Australia 7 Sweden 7 Canada 6 Denmark 6 Finland 6 India 6 Netherlands 6 Norway 6 Austria 5 Belgium 5 Russian Federation 5 Other 51 Total 271 Table 1. Geography of submissions, 2017 Country Number of original submissions United States 40 Germany 22 China 18 Italy 16 France 15 Spain 14 UK 14 Poland 8 Tunisia 8 Australia 7 Sweden 7 Canada 6 Denmark 6 Finland 6 India 6 Netherlands 6 Norway 6 Austria 5 Belgium 5 Russian Federation 5 Other 51 Total 271 Country Number of original submissions United States 40 Germany 22 China 18 Italy 16 France 15 Spain 14 UK 14 Poland 8 Tunisia 8 Australia 7 Sweden 7 Canada 6 Denmark 6 Finland 6 India 6 Netherlands 6 Norway 6 Austria 5 Belgium 5 Russian Federation 5 Other 51 Total 271 The geographical spread of submitted papers is detailed in Table 2. Against the background of a significant increase in the total number of submissions, the share of papers originating from Europe remained unchanged at about 61 per cent. Submissions from Asia accounted for 11 per cent similar to previous years. The most notable change in the source of papers was the recovery in the share of papers originating from North America which reflects the increase in the number of papers from the United States. The share of submissions from the United States increased to around 15 per cent (from 12 and 10 per cent for 2016 and 2015, respectively). Table 2. Geographical spread of submissions to ERAE, 2014–2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Africa 9 4 19 9 10 6 16 6 Asia 22 10 21 9 22 13 30 11 Europe 134 63 143 64 106 61 166 61 Latin America 3 1 5 2 7 4 5 2 North America 41 19 25 11 24 14 46 17 Oceania 4 2 9 4 5 3 18 3 Total 213 100 222 100 174 100 271 100 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Africa 9 4 19 9 10 6 16 6 Asia 22 10 21 9 22 13 30 11 Europe 134 63 143 64 106 61 166 61 Latin America 3 1 5 2 7 4 5 2 North America 41 19 25 11 24 14 46 17 Oceania 4 2 9 4 5 3 18 3 Total 213 100 222 100 174 100 271 100 Table 2. Geographical spread of submissions to ERAE, 2014–2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Africa 9 4 19 9 10 6 16 6 Asia 22 10 21 9 22 13 30 11 Europe 134 63 143 64 106 61 166 61 Latin America 3 1 5 2 7 4 5 2 North America 41 19 25 11 24 14 46 17 Oceania 4 2 9 4 5 3 18 3 Total 213 100 222 100 174 100 271 100 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Africa 9 4 19 9 10 6 16 6 Asia 22 10 21 9 22 13 30 11 Europe 134 63 143 64 106 61 166 61 Latin America 3 1 5 2 7 4 5 2 North America 41 19 25 11 24 14 46 17 Oceania 4 2 9 4 5 3 18 3 Total 213 100 222 100 174 100 271 100 3.1. Acceptance rates Table 3 reports acceptance rates and the number of desk rejects over the 2012–2017 period. The acceptance rate of 14.4 for 2017 is slightly higher than recent years. The number of desk rejects shows a sharp reduction compared to previous years. It comprises 35 per cent of total decisions and represented 82 papers out of 235 papers where final decisions were made. Table 3. Acceptance rates and desk rejects, 2012–2017 Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total number of papers with decisions 180 195 190 229 181 235 Desk rejects (%) 36 36 36 43 44 35 Acceptance rate (%) 11.7 15.6 15.3 12.7 11.1 14.4 Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total number of papers with decisions 180 195 190 229 181 235 Desk rejects (%) 36 36 36 43 44 35 Acceptance rate (%) 11.7 15.6 15.3 12.7 11.1 14.4 Table 3. Acceptance rates and desk rejects, 2012–2017 Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total number of papers with decisions 180 195 190 229 181 235 Desk rejects (%) 36 36 36 43 44 35 Acceptance rate (%) 11.7 15.6 15.3 12.7 11.1 14.4 Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total number of papers with decisions 180 195 190 229 181 235 Desk rejects (%) 36 36 36 43 44 35 Acceptance rate (%) 11.7 15.6 15.3 12.7 11.1 14.4 A large number of the immediate reject decisions are being taken by the coordinating editor. This speeds up the initial reject decision which aids submitting authors if their paper has not been targeted at the appropriate outlet, and avoids additional delays if the paper is obviously below a certain quality threshold. Excluding papers that involved ‘immediate reject’ decisions, the acceptance rate is just over 20 per cent for papers undergoing the review process in 2017. 3.2. Time line of papers and decisions Table 4 reports the time line of first decisions on papers. The average turnaround time from submission to first decision is 65 days for the 2017 period which is an improvement on previous years. It should be noted that this is an unweighted average; it does not account for the distribution of papers across editors or the number of papers in each category. In detail, immediate rejects were turned around after 11 days for the 2017 period and major revisions after 87 days. In the case of papers with a ‘minor revision’ decision in 2017, this referred to only 12 papers out of a total of 268 that these data refer to. Table 4. Number of days: submission to first decision, 2012–2017 Decision 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Immediate reject 18 18 22 22 20 11 Major revision 114 120 112 80 126 87 Minor revision – 102 146 107 – 78 Reject 98 85 99 107 90 66 Average 89 77 94 77 79 65 Decision 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Immediate reject 18 18 22 22 20 11 Major revision 114 120 112 80 126 87 Minor revision – 102 146 107 – 78 Reject 98 85 99 107 90 66 Average 89 77 94 77 79 65 Table 4. Number of days: submission to first decision, 2012–2017 Decision 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Immediate reject 18 18 22 22 20 11 Major revision 114 120 112 80 126 87 Minor revision – 102 146 107 – 78 Reject 98 85 99 107 90 66 Average 89 77 94 77 79 65 Decision 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Immediate reject 18 18 22 22 20 11 Major revision 114 120 112 80 126 87 Minor revision – 102 146 107 – 78 Reject 98 85 99 107 90 66 Average 89 77 94 77 79 65 3.3. Impact factor The impact factor (IF) and five-year impact factor (5-Yr IF) improved on year; the data for the most recent years are reported in Table 5. Table 5. IF and 5-Yr IF for ERAE Year IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 5-Yr IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 2016 1.600 91/347 (26) 6/17 (35) 2.069 90/347 (26) 4/17 (24) 2015 1.544 82/345 (24) 4/17 (24) 1.828 95/345 (28) 5/17 (29) 2014 1.271 101/333 (30) 4/17 (24) 1.887 83/333 (25) 4/17 (24) 2013 1.467 77/332 (23) 2/16 (13) 2.085 71/332 (21) 2/16 (13) 2012 1.854 57/333 (17) 2/15 (13) 2.000 64/333 (19) 2/15 (13) 2011 1.383 77/321 (24) 4/15 (27) 1.788 69/321 (21) 3/15 (20) 2010 1.065 100/304 (33) 5/14 (36) 1.783 62/304 (20) 2 /14 (14) Year IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 5-Yr IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 2016 1.600 91/347 (26) 6/17 (35) 2.069 90/347 (26) 4/17 (24) 2015 1.544 82/345 (24) 4/17 (24) 1.828 95/345 (28) 5/17 (29) 2014 1.271 101/333 (30) 4/17 (24) 1.887 83/333 (25) 4/17 (24) 2013 1.467 77/332 (23) 2/16 (13) 2.085 71/332 (21) 2/16 (13) 2012 1.854 57/333 (17) 2/15 (13) 2.000 64/333 (19) 2/15 (13) 2011 1.383 77/321 (24) 4/15 (27) 1.788 69/321 (21) 3/15 (20) 2010 1.065 100/304 (33) 5/14 (36) 1.783 62/304 (20) 2 /14 (14) Table 5. IF and 5-Yr IF for ERAE Year IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 5-Yr IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 2016 1.600 91/347 (26) 6/17 (35) 2.069 90/347 (26) 4/17 (24) 2015 1.544 82/345 (24) 4/17 (24) 1.828 95/345 (28) 5/17 (29) 2014 1.271 101/333 (30) 4/17 (24) 1.887 83/333 (25) 4/17 (24) 2013 1.467 77/332 (23) 2/16 (13) 2.085 71/332 (21) 2/16 (13) 2012 1.854 57/333 (17) 2/15 (13) 2.000 64/333 (19) 2/15 (13) 2011 1.383 77/321 (24) 4/15 (27) 1.788 69/321 (21) 3/15 (20) 2010 1.065 100/304 (33) 5/14 (36) 1.783 62/304 (20) 2 /14 (14) Year IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 5-Yr IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 2016 1.600 91/347 (26) 6/17 (35) 2.069 90/347 (26) 4/17 (24) 2015 1.544 82/345 (24) 4/17 (24) 1.828 95/345 (28) 5/17 (29) 2014 1.271 101/333 (30) 4/17 (24) 1.887 83/333 (25) 4/17 (24) 2013 1.467 77/332 (23) 2/16 (13) 2.085 71/332 (21) 2/16 (13) 2012 1.854 57/333 (17) 2/15 (13) 2.000 64/333 (19) 2/15 (13) 2011 1.383 77/321 (24) 4/15 (27) 1.788 69/321 (21) 3/15 (20) 2010 1.065 100/304 (33) 5/14 (36) 1.783 62/304 (20) 2 /14 (14) The impact data for ‘competitor’ journals are reported in Table 6. When compared to our ‘competitor’ journals, we see that despite the improvement in the IF the ERAE has fallen behind several other agricultural economics journals. It has to be kept in mind that the annual ranking based on the impact factor is rather variable, see Table 5 (columns 4 and 6). Table 6. IF for ‘Competitor’ journals in agricultural economics Journal (ranked by IF) IF 5-Yr IF Food Policy 3.086 3.676 American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.829 2.205 Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1.826 1.750 Journal Agricultural Economics 1.795 2.089 Agricultural Economics 1.758 2.099 European Review of Agricultural Economics 1.600 2.069 Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1.361 2.214 Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.052 1.154 Journal (ranked by IF) IF 5-Yr IF Food Policy 3.086 3.676 American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.829 2.205 Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1.826 1.750 Journal Agricultural Economics 1.795 2.089 Agricultural Economics 1.758 2.099 European Review of Agricultural Economics 1.600 2.069 Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1.361 2.214 Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.052 1.154 Table 6. IF for ‘Competitor’ journals in agricultural economics Journal (ranked by IF) IF 5-Yr IF Food Policy 3.086 3.676 American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.829 2.205 Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1.826 1.750 Journal Agricultural Economics 1.795 2.089 Agricultural Economics 1.758 2.099 European Review of Agricultural Economics 1.600 2.069 Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1.361 2.214 Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.052 1.154 Journal (ranked by IF) IF 5-Yr IF Food Policy 3.086 3.676 American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.829 2.205 Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1.826 1.750 Journal Agricultural Economics 1.795 2.089 Agricultural Economics 1.758 2.099 European Review of Agricultural Economics 1.600 2.069 Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1.361 2.214 Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.052 1.154 4. Congress issue, special issues and review papers 4.1. Congress issue The Congress issue was prepared in time for the EAAE Congress in Parma in August. The Congress issue comprised of an editorial and seven other papers. All papers for the Congress edition were lightly reviewed to ensure a general quality standard and conformity to ERAE style. The production of the Congress issue was overseen by Iain Fraser. 4.2. Special issues planned Proposals for two special issues were accepted in 2017. The special issue on ‘Enriching the CAP evaluation toolbox with experimental approaches’ is to be co-edited by Sophie Thoyer and Raphaële Préget together with Carl Johan Lagerkvist. The call for papers was launched on the ERAE website in late 2017. Manuscripts will undergo the normal review procedure supported by 1 day workshop in mid-2018 to which the authors of the revise and resubmit papers will be invited. This workshop will serve to provide intensive feedback in order to enhance the potential impact of each paper and the coherence in the special issue. Papers are expected to be ready for publication by mid-November 2018. The second special issues will be based on the 165th EAAE seminar entitled ‘Agricultural land markets—Recent developments, efficiency and regulations’ to be held in April 2019. The responsibility for the shortlisting of the papers, the selection of the external referees and the review process lies with the co-organisers of the EAAE seminar Martin Odening and Silke Huettel who will work with Jack Peerlings. The final papers are expected by May 2020. 4.3. Review papers The process with regard to review papers has now been fully implemented. A call for the review paper proposals was added on the ERAE webpage detailing the principles motivating the review papers, expectations on quality and timelines. Several submissions and enquiries were received during 2017. The decision about acceptance of review paper proposals is made by the four editors in consultation with editorial board members as appropriate. It is anticipated that the first review paper will be published in late 2018. 5. Awards 5.1. Best paper award The best paper award process was coordinated by Jack Peerlings. This involves several rounds of voting by the editorial board members to shortlist papers and then voting on the shortlisted papers. The winners of the best paper award for 2016 were announced during the EAAE congress, August 2017 in Parma: Lence, S. H., Hayes, D. J., Alston, J. M. and Smith, J. S. C., Intellectual property in plant breeding: comparing different levels and forms of protection. European Review of Agricultural Economics 43(1): 1–29. 5.2. Best reviewer award The ERAE introduced a best reviewer award (one per editor) in 2015 to explicitly acknowledge the high quality of reviews provided by the referees. These rewards reflect reviewer contributions in terms of quality of review, timeliness and number of reviews undertaken. This award was coordinated by Giannis Karagiannis with the details on reviewer contributions (quality of review, timeliness, number of reviews, etc.) available from the Manuscript Central interface. Four 2016 ERAE referee award winners were announced during the EAAE congress, August 2017 in Parma: Daniele Curzi, University of Milano Zein Kallas, Polytechnic University of Catalonia Sabine Liebenehm, Leibniz University Hannover Karen Macours, Paris School of Economics and INRA Acknowledgements The editors would like to acknowledge the technical and administrative support provided by OUP and the excellent work carried out by Naomi Conneely and Rebecca Fitchett. We also thank the Editorial Board for their contributions to the running of the Review during the reporting period. Finally, we thank all the referees for the effort and expertise that they contribute to reviewing, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of the ERAE. Editorial team: Iain Fraser, Giannis Karagiannis, Carl Johan Lagerkvist, Jack Peerlings and Ada Wossink. February 2018 © Oxford University Press and Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics 2018; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Review of Agricultural Economics Oxford University Press

European Review of Agricultural Economics Editors’ Report 2017

European Review of Agricultural Economics , Volume Advance Article (3) – Mar 31, 2018

Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/ou_press/european-review-of-agricultural-economics-editors-report-2017-g7sszkZMwW
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press and Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics 2018; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
0165-1587
eISSN
1464-3618
D.O.I.
10.1093/erae/jby007
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

1. Editorial process The online manuscript handling system (Manuscript Central) continues to work well. The technical and administrative support from OUP is excellent with Naomi Conneely/Rebecca Fitchett being the first point of contact between the editors and OUP for the review process and all queries. The production and marketing team also works in an efficient manner both in terms of the final edited papers, the table of contents, papers in the system and with regard to the ERAE website. As is the tradition of the ERAE, the aim is to have three referees for each paper and, in most cases, this target has been maintained. Decisions can sometimes be made on the basis of two referee reports if the decision is clear cut. It is now established practice that the referees are informed of each stage of the decision process and have access to other referees’ comments and the editor’s decision when the editor’s decision is communicated to the submitting author. To formally recognise referees’ contributions, a list was included in the final 2017 edition of the ERAE of those colleagues who acted as referees during the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. In addition we have now in place an annual award for the ‘Best Reviewer’ which is recognised formally at the EAAE Tri-Annual Congress. For the process and the ‘Best Reviewer’ awards for 2017, see below. The aim is to go for an equal allocation of papers across the ERAE editors though this is contingent on the numbers of tasks that editors are holding, the timing of these tasks and any peak loads that may arise (e.g. management of the Congress edition in 2017). In addition, the distribution of papers is contingent on matching the research coverage of the editors with the papers submitted. The editors generally act autonomously and this works well. However, there is consultation between editors regarding difficult cases and where there is a conflict of interest; e.g. where submitting authors have collaborated with an editor in the past, papers will be passed to another editor to ensure impartiality. Consultation between editors also arises with regard to special issues, the congress issue and general ‘policy’ issues with regard to the ERAE. In addition, the editors are in frequent contact over on-going management issues when required. The editors also consult with regard to the table of contents, the lead article and recommendations for ‘Editors’ Choice’. Two policies regarding manuscripts were adopted during the reporting year: (i) guidelines on the use of deception involving experiments and (ii) conflict of interest guidelines. The ERAE has seen an increase in the number of submissions using experiments in agricultural economics. Deception is an issue that is commonly faced by researchers in this area. A formal statement highlighting guidelines on the use of deception involving experiments was published on the ERAE webpage. Guidance in identifying potential conflicts of interest has been included in the reviewer invitation template. In most instances, conflicts of interest can be avoided simply by continuing to exercise good judgement. The ERAE and its editors rely on the sound judgement of reviewers to prevent many such conflict situations. 2. Editors and editorial board With the four editors, we have a decent coverage across the range of research issues that comprise agricultural economics. Each editor is appointed for 4 years initially. At the start of 2017, the editorial team was composed of Iain Fraser, Giannis Karagiannis, Jack Peerlings and Ada Wossink with Miranda Meuwissen as the Book Review editor. As of September 2017, Iain Fraser ended his term. He was replaced by Carl Johan Lagerkvist. In addition, Miranda Meuwissen stepped down as Book Review editor at the end of 2017. The search process for a replacement Book Review editor is ongoing. An organisational change in early 2017 was the formal recognition of a coordinating co-editor. The specific expectations and requirements of the coordination editor were agreed with Krijn Poppe (Hon. Secretary-Treasurer, EAAEP Foundation). Iain Fraser served as the coordinator editor until September 2017 after which Ada Wossink took on this role. A renewal of the Editorial Board was completed in December 2017 with six members replaced. The current members are listed below with their affiliation and the starting date of their membership. Members of the Editorial Board provisionally serve for 3 years with most members being in place for two periods. Some members have served longer to ease the number of replacement to be made at one time. Given the current profile and expected retirement dates, a further six replacements would be expected in 2018. The current list of members of the editorial board is (with starting date): Jesús Antón (OECD, France: 2012); Kevin Balcombe (University of Reading: 2016); Štefan Bojnec (University of Primorska, Slovenia: 2009); Raushan Bokusheva (Zurich University of Applied Sciences: 2014); Alessandro Bonanno (Colorado State University: 2016); Céline Bonnet (Toulouse School of Economics, INRA: 2017); Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache (Toulouse School of Economic, INRA: 2016); Bernard Brümmer (University of Göttingen: 2016); Jean-Paul Chavas (University of Wisconsin: 2014); Andreas Drichoutis (University of Athens, Greece: 2014); Gregory Emvalomatis (University of Dundee; 2017); Roberto Esposti (Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona: 2011); Cornelis Gardebroek (Wageningen University, The Netherlands: 2011); Thomas Glauben (IAMO, Halle, Germany: 2012); Carola Grebitus (University of Arizona: 2016); Sebastian Hess (University of Kiel: 2017); George Hendrikse (Erasmus University, Rotterdam: 2012); Silke Huettel (University of Bonn: 2017); Alan Ker (University of Guelph, Canada: 2016); Karine Latouche (Lereco INRA, Rennes: 2016); Jens-Peter Loy (University of Kiel: 2011); Jill McCluskey (Washington State University, USA: 2013); Oliver Musshoff (University of Goettingen: 2017); Martin Odening (Humbolt University, Berlin: 2012); Rodolfo Nayga (University of Arkansas: 2017); Alessandro Olper (University of Milan: 2016); Timothy Richards (Arizona State University, USA: 2011); Dan Rigby (University of Manchester, UK: 2011); Johannes Sauer (Technical University Munich, Germany: 2014) and Teresa Serra (University of Illinois, USA: 2011). 3. Submissions and papers published For 2017, the number of original submissions totalled 271. This figure represents a significant increase from the 2016 number of submissions of 174 and the 2015 number of 222 as depicted below. Although one should anticipate some volatility in the number of submissions across years, the latest number indicates a healthy indication of the status of the ERAE. It is the highest number of submissions to the Review to date (Figure 1). Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Submissions to ERAE, 2012–2017. Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Submissions to ERAE, 2012–2017. During 2016, there was an ongoing discussion surrounding the issue of open access (OA) and Horizon 2020 initiated by Erik Mathijs. As a result of this discussion, the ERAE’s status was upgraded in February 2017 to ‘green’ on the SHERPA/RoMEO open-access-status website. ‘Green’ is the website’s most liberal status in regard to a journal’s policy towards authors self-archiving their articles. The SHERPA/RoMEO status is used by some research-funding agencies to limit the journals in which authors are allowed to publish articles resulting from the funding. Importantly, ERAE’s ‘green’ rating means that agricultural economists that are involved with Horizon 2020 projects are able to publish the resulting research in the Review. The geography of submissions of original articles is shown in Table 1. As in 2016, the United States was the lead country for submissions followed by Germany. The number of submissions from Germany increased to 22 (from 17) while the number from the United States increased to 40 (from 20). Aside from Germany, the leading countries from Europe were Italy (16), France (15), Spain (14) and the UK (14). Submissions from China increased to 18 papers (from eight in 2016). Table 1. Geography of submissions, 2017 Country Number of original submissions United States 40 Germany 22 China 18 Italy 16 France 15 Spain 14 UK 14 Poland 8 Tunisia 8 Australia 7 Sweden 7 Canada 6 Denmark 6 Finland 6 India 6 Netherlands 6 Norway 6 Austria 5 Belgium 5 Russian Federation 5 Other 51 Total 271 Country Number of original submissions United States 40 Germany 22 China 18 Italy 16 France 15 Spain 14 UK 14 Poland 8 Tunisia 8 Australia 7 Sweden 7 Canada 6 Denmark 6 Finland 6 India 6 Netherlands 6 Norway 6 Austria 5 Belgium 5 Russian Federation 5 Other 51 Total 271 Table 1. Geography of submissions, 2017 Country Number of original submissions United States 40 Germany 22 China 18 Italy 16 France 15 Spain 14 UK 14 Poland 8 Tunisia 8 Australia 7 Sweden 7 Canada 6 Denmark 6 Finland 6 India 6 Netherlands 6 Norway 6 Austria 5 Belgium 5 Russian Federation 5 Other 51 Total 271 Country Number of original submissions United States 40 Germany 22 China 18 Italy 16 France 15 Spain 14 UK 14 Poland 8 Tunisia 8 Australia 7 Sweden 7 Canada 6 Denmark 6 Finland 6 India 6 Netherlands 6 Norway 6 Austria 5 Belgium 5 Russian Federation 5 Other 51 Total 271 The geographical spread of submitted papers is detailed in Table 2. Against the background of a significant increase in the total number of submissions, the share of papers originating from Europe remained unchanged at about 61 per cent. Submissions from Asia accounted for 11 per cent similar to previous years. The most notable change in the source of papers was the recovery in the share of papers originating from North America which reflects the increase in the number of papers from the United States. The share of submissions from the United States increased to around 15 per cent (from 12 and 10 per cent for 2016 and 2015, respectively). Table 2. Geographical spread of submissions to ERAE, 2014–2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Africa 9 4 19 9 10 6 16 6 Asia 22 10 21 9 22 13 30 11 Europe 134 63 143 64 106 61 166 61 Latin America 3 1 5 2 7 4 5 2 North America 41 19 25 11 24 14 46 17 Oceania 4 2 9 4 5 3 18 3 Total 213 100 222 100 174 100 271 100 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Africa 9 4 19 9 10 6 16 6 Asia 22 10 21 9 22 13 30 11 Europe 134 63 143 64 106 61 166 61 Latin America 3 1 5 2 7 4 5 2 North America 41 19 25 11 24 14 46 17 Oceania 4 2 9 4 5 3 18 3 Total 213 100 222 100 174 100 271 100 Table 2. Geographical spread of submissions to ERAE, 2014–2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Africa 9 4 19 9 10 6 16 6 Asia 22 10 21 9 22 13 30 11 Europe 134 63 143 64 106 61 166 61 Latin America 3 1 5 2 7 4 5 2 North America 41 19 25 11 24 14 46 17 Oceania 4 2 9 4 5 3 18 3 Total 213 100 222 100 174 100 271 100 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Number Share (%) Africa 9 4 19 9 10 6 16 6 Asia 22 10 21 9 22 13 30 11 Europe 134 63 143 64 106 61 166 61 Latin America 3 1 5 2 7 4 5 2 North America 41 19 25 11 24 14 46 17 Oceania 4 2 9 4 5 3 18 3 Total 213 100 222 100 174 100 271 100 3.1. Acceptance rates Table 3 reports acceptance rates and the number of desk rejects over the 2012–2017 period. The acceptance rate of 14.4 for 2017 is slightly higher than recent years. The number of desk rejects shows a sharp reduction compared to previous years. It comprises 35 per cent of total decisions and represented 82 papers out of 235 papers where final decisions were made. Table 3. Acceptance rates and desk rejects, 2012–2017 Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total number of papers with decisions 180 195 190 229 181 235 Desk rejects (%) 36 36 36 43 44 35 Acceptance rate (%) 11.7 15.6 15.3 12.7 11.1 14.4 Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total number of papers with decisions 180 195 190 229 181 235 Desk rejects (%) 36 36 36 43 44 35 Acceptance rate (%) 11.7 15.6 15.3 12.7 11.1 14.4 Table 3. Acceptance rates and desk rejects, 2012–2017 Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total number of papers with decisions 180 195 190 229 181 235 Desk rejects (%) 36 36 36 43 44 35 Acceptance rate (%) 11.7 15.6 15.3 12.7 11.1 14.4 Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total number of papers with decisions 180 195 190 229 181 235 Desk rejects (%) 36 36 36 43 44 35 Acceptance rate (%) 11.7 15.6 15.3 12.7 11.1 14.4 A large number of the immediate reject decisions are being taken by the coordinating editor. This speeds up the initial reject decision which aids submitting authors if their paper has not been targeted at the appropriate outlet, and avoids additional delays if the paper is obviously below a certain quality threshold. Excluding papers that involved ‘immediate reject’ decisions, the acceptance rate is just over 20 per cent for papers undergoing the review process in 2017. 3.2. Time line of papers and decisions Table 4 reports the time line of first decisions on papers. The average turnaround time from submission to first decision is 65 days for the 2017 period which is an improvement on previous years. It should be noted that this is an unweighted average; it does not account for the distribution of papers across editors or the number of papers in each category. In detail, immediate rejects were turned around after 11 days for the 2017 period and major revisions after 87 days. In the case of papers with a ‘minor revision’ decision in 2017, this referred to only 12 papers out of a total of 268 that these data refer to. Table 4. Number of days: submission to first decision, 2012–2017 Decision 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Immediate reject 18 18 22 22 20 11 Major revision 114 120 112 80 126 87 Minor revision – 102 146 107 – 78 Reject 98 85 99 107 90 66 Average 89 77 94 77 79 65 Decision 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Immediate reject 18 18 22 22 20 11 Major revision 114 120 112 80 126 87 Minor revision – 102 146 107 – 78 Reject 98 85 99 107 90 66 Average 89 77 94 77 79 65 Table 4. Number of days: submission to first decision, 2012–2017 Decision 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Immediate reject 18 18 22 22 20 11 Major revision 114 120 112 80 126 87 Minor revision – 102 146 107 – 78 Reject 98 85 99 107 90 66 Average 89 77 94 77 79 65 Decision 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Immediate reject 18 18 22 22 20 11 Major revision 114 120 112 80 126 87 Minor revision – 102 146 107 – 78 Reject 98 85 99 107 90 66 Average 89 77 94 77 79 65 3.3. Impact factor The impact factor (IF) and five-year impact factor (5-Yr IF) improved on year; the data for the most recent years are reported in Table 5. Table 5. IF and 5-Yr IF for ERAE Year IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 5-Yr IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 2016 1.600 91/347 (26) 6/17 (35) 2.069 90/347 (26) 4/17 (24) 2015 1.544 82/345 (24) 4/17 (24) 1.828 95/345 (28) 5/17 (29) 2014 1.271 101/333 (30) 4/17 (24) 1.887 83/333 (25) 4/17 (24) 2013 1.467 77/332 (23) 2/16 (13) 2.085 71/332 (21) 2/16 (13) 2012 1.854 57/333 (17) 2/15 (13) 2.000 64/333 (19) 2/15 (13) 2011 1.383 77/321 (24) 4/15 (27) 1.788 69/321 (21) 3/15 (20) 2010 1.065 100/304 (33) 5/14 (36) 1.783 62/304 (20) 2 /14 (14) Year IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 5-Yr IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 2016 1.600 91/347 (26) 6/17 (35) 2.069 90/347 (26) 4/17 (24) 2015 1.544 82/345 (24) 4/17 (24) 1.828 95/345 (28) 5/17 (29) 2014 1.271 101/333 (30) 4/17 (24) 1.887 83/333 (25) 4/17 (24) 2013 1.467 77/332 (23) 2/16 (13) 2.085 71/332 (21) 2/16 (13) 2012 1.854 57/333 (17) 2/15 (13) 2.000 64/333 (19) 2/15 (13) 2011 1.383 77/321 (24) 4/15 (27) 1.788 69/321 (21) 3/15 (20) 2010 1.065 100/304 (33) 5/14 (36) 1.783 62/304 (20) 2 /14 (14) Table 5. IF and 5-Yr IF for ERAE Year IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 5-Yr IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 2016 1.600 91/347 (26) 6/17 (35) 2.069 90/347 (26) 4/17 (24) 2015 1.544 82/345 (24) 4/17 (24) 1.828 95/345 (28) 5/17 (29) 2014 1.271 101/333 (30) 4/17 (24) 1.887 83/333 (25) 4/17 (24) 2013 1.467 77/332 (23) 2/16 (13) 2.085 71/332 (21) 2/16 (13) 2012 1.854 57/333 (17) 2/15 (13) 2.000 64/333 (19) 2/15 (13) 2011 1.383 77/321 (24) 4/15 (27) 1.788 69/321 (21) 3/15 (20) 2010 1.065 100/304 (33) 5/14 (36) 1.783 62/304 (20) 2 /14 (14) Year IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 5-Yr IF Economics rank (%) Ag Econ/Pol rank (%) 2016 1.600 91/347 (26) 6/17 (35) 2.069 90/347 (26) 4/17 (24) 2015 1.544 82/345 (24) 4/17 (24) 1.828 95/345 (28) 5/17 (29) 2014 1.271 101/333 (30) 4/17 (24) 1.887 83/333 (25) 4/17 (24) 2013 1.467 77/332 (23) 2/16 (13) 2.085 71/332 (21) 2/16 (13) 2012 1.854 57/333 (17) 2/15 (13) 2.000 64/333 (19) 2/15 (13) 2011 1.383 77/321 (24) 4/15 (27) 1.788 69/321 (21) 3/15 (20) 2010 1.065 100/304 (33) 5/14 (36) 1.783 62/304 (20) 2 /14 (14) The impact data for ‘competitor’ journals are reported in Table 6. When compared to our ‘competitor’ journals, we see that despite the improvement in the IF the ERAE has fallen behind several other agricultural economics journals. It has to be kept in mind that the annual ranking based on the impact factor is rather variable, see Table 5 (columns 4 and 6). Table 6. IF for ‘Competitor’ journals in agricultural economics Journal (ranked by IF) IF 5-Yr IF Food Policy 3.086 3.676 American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.829 2.205 Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1.826 1.750 Journal Agricultural Economics 1.795 2.089 Agricultural Economics 1.758 2.099 European Review of Agricultural Economics 1.600 2.069 Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1.361 2.214 Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.052 1.154 Journal (ranked by IF) IF 5-Yr IF Food Policy 3.086 3.676 American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.829 2.205 Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1.826 1.750 Journal Agricultural Economics 1.795 2.089 Agricultural Economics 1.758 2.099 European Review of Agricultural Economics 1.600 2.069 Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1.361 2.214 Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.052 1.154 Table 6. IF for ‘Competitor’ journals in agricultural economics Journal (ranked by IF) IF 5-Yr IF Food Policy 3.086 3.676 American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.829 2.205 Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1.826 1.750 Journal Agricultural Economics 1.795 2.089 Agricultural Economics 1.758 2.099 European Review of Agricultural Economics 1.600 2.069 Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1.361 2.214 Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.052 1.154 Journal (ranked by IF) IF 5-Yr IF Food Policy 3.086 3.676 American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.829 2.205 Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1.826 1.750 Journal Agricultural Economics 1.795 2.089 Agricultural Economics 1.758 2.099 European Review of Agricultural Economics 1.600 2.069 Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1.361 2.214 Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1.052 1.154 4. Congress issue, special issues and review papers 4.1. Congress issue The Congress issue was prepared in time for the EAAE Congress in Parma in August. The Congress issue comprised of an editorial and seven other papers. All papers for the Congress edition were lightly reviewed to ensure a general quality standard and conformity to ERAE style. The production of the Congress issue was overseen by Iain Fraser. 4.2. Special issues planned Proposals for two special issues were accepted in 2017. The special issue on ‘Enriching the CAP evaluation toolbox with experimental approaches’ is to be co-edited by Sophie Thoyer and Raphaële Préget together with Carl Johan Lagerkvist. The call for papers was launched on the ERAE website in late 2017. Manuscripts will undergo the normal review procedure supported by 1 day workshop in mid-2018 to which the authors of the revise and resubmit papers will be invited. This workshop will serve to provide intensive feedback in order to enhance the potential impact of each paper and the coherence in the special issue. Papers are expected to be ready for publication by mid-November 2018. The second special issues will be based on the 165th EAAE seminar entitled ‘Agricultural land markets—Recent developments, efficiency and regulations’ to be held in April 2019. The responsibility for the shortlisting of the papers, the selection of the external referees and the review process lies with the co-organisers of the EAAE seminar Martin Odening and Silke Huettel who will work with Jack Peerlings. The final papers are expected by May 2020. 4.3. Review papers The process with regard to review papers has now been fully implemented. A call for the review paper proposals was added on the ERAE webpage detailing the principles motivating the review papers, expectations on quality and timelines. Several submissions and enquiries were received during 2017. The decision about acceptance of review paper proposals is made by the four editors in consultation with editorial board members as appropriate. It is anticipated that the first review paper will be published in late 2018. 5. Awards 5.1. Best paper award The best paper award process was coordinated by Jack Peerlings. This involves several rounds of voting by the editorial board members to shortlist papers and then voting on the shortlisted papers. The winners of the best paper award for 2016 were announced during the EAAE congress, August 2017 in Parma: Lence, S. H., Hayes, D. J., Alston, J. M. and Smith, J. S. C., Intellectual property in plant breeding: comparing different levels and forms of protection. European Review of Agricultural Economics 43(1): 1–29. 5.2. Best reviewer award The ERAE introduced a best reviewer award (one per editor) in 2015 to explicitly acknowledge the high quality of reviews provided by the referees. These rewards reflect reviewer contributions in terms of quality of review, timeliness and number of reviews undertaken. This award was coordinated by Giannis Karagiannis with the details on reviewer contributions (quality of review, timeliness, number of reviews, etc.) available from the Manuscript Central interface. Four 2016 ERAE referee award winners were announced during the EAAE congress, August 2017 in Parma: Daniele Curzi, University of Milano Zein Kallas, Polytechnic University of Catalonia Sabine Liebenehm, Leibniz University Hannover Karen Macours, Paris School of Economics and INRA Acknowledgements The editors would like to acknowledge the technical and administrative support provided by OUP and the excellent work carried out by Naomi Conneely and Rebecca Fitchett. We also thank the Editorial Board for their contributions to the running of the Review during the reporting period. Finally, we thank all the referees for the effort and expertise that they contribute to reviewing, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of the ERAE. Editorial team: Iain Fraser, Giannis Karagiannis, Carl Johan Lagerkvist, Jack Peerlings and Ada Wossink. February 2018 © Oxford University Press and Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics 2018; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

European Review of Agricultural EconomicsOxford University Press

Published: Mar 31, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off