Renewing the Vision for AFS Journals
D. Derek Aday, Daniel J. Daugherty, Debra J. Murie In 2017, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) conducted a publications survey and convened a special committee in Reno, Nevada, (hereafter referred to as the “Reno meeting”) to discuss survey results and develop strategies to enhance the success and value of the AFS publications program. The meeting focused on developing specific strategies to maximize the effectiveness and attractiveness of AFS journals, determine how to effectively use journal rankings and citation‐based impact factors, provide clearer aims and scope for all AFS journals and avoid “mission creep” among them, and develop a plan for resolving journal‐associated (and, in some cases, journal‐specific) problems and concerns. One outcome of that meeting was the creation of editor‐in‐chief (EIC) positions for four of the AFS journals: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (TAFS, Aday), the North American Journal of Fisheries Management (NAJFM, Daugherty), Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science (MCF, Murie), and Fisheries, Jeff Schaeffer). Previously, the editorial boards for these journals were led by multiple co‐editors; the EIC positions were created to provide greater oversight, accountability, and mentorship; improve efficiency, consistency, and direction; and liaise with authors, readers, and associated AFS sections. As the newly appointed EICs, we wish to communicate the primary recommendations of the Reno meeting, focusing on both the programmatic and journal‐specific strategies that our journals are actively working to implement. PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS AFS journals are central to the Society, with a long history of success and a well‐established foundation on which to build new strategies to ensure that AFS is meeting the needs of fisheries and aquatic science professionals around the world. Collectively, the AFS journal suite touches nearly every aspect of research and management in freshwater and marine ecosystems, positioning the AFS journals to be global leaders in the aquatic scientific community. Although many of the survey outcomes and corresponding recommendations from the Reno meeting were specific to individual journals, some were transcendent. Most notable of these was a need to improve the consistency and quality of the peer review process. As previously noted, the EICs are charged with providing greater oversight of and mentorship within the editorial boards, which constitutes one means of improving the process. A second means is providing greater guidance to peer reviewers, facilitating more focused, concise, and comparable reviews. To that end, a new peer reviewer interface has been developed and is currently being tested in NAJFM. Following testing and revision, it will be available for adoption by the remaining AFS journals. A third means is better matching manuscript assignments to associate/subject editor expertise—an ongoing challenge given the expanding scope and breadth of several of our journals. To meet those needs, an effort is under way to expand the editorial boards where necessary. Additional approaches to improving the quality and timeliness of the peer review process involve recruiting new, qualified reviewers and providing greater incentives for contributing peer reviews. Multiple approaches are being considered, including requesting that each submitting author commit to serving as a peer reviewer for another submission, the creation of an editorial award program, and the development of a recurrent continuing education course on peer review. Our new publisher, Wiley, also participates in Publons—a free Web service that tracks, verifies, and credits the editorial contributions of reviewers while maintaining their anonymity—which might encourage some fisheries professionals to undertake more reviews. Time to publication was also noted as an area for improvement based on the survey responses. Comparison of the statistics for AFS journals with those for other fisheries journals indicates that our times to publication are consistent with industry averages. However, many of the programmatic changes discussed previously will likely improve these times. Additionally, recent adoption of the early online access option greatly advances the time at which accepted manuscripts are available to readers. To some extent, substantially reducing publication times will require a culture change within the AFS journals community, including a greater commitment among AFS members and authors to providing meaningful and timely reviews on a regular basis; stricter enforcement of the time limits on reviewers by editors and associate editors; and regular communication among the EICs, editorial boards, the AFS Publications Overview Committee, AFS journals staff and the publisher to evaluate and, as necessary, modify publication procedures to ensure an effective and efficient process. JOURNAL‐SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Transactions of the American Fisheries Society is the oldest and most widely recognized AFS journal, focused on publishing the best scientific content with the broadest disciplinary scope in the AFS portfolio. Broadly speaking—and in keeping with a Society that is similarly growing beyond the boundaries implied by its name—TAFS is intended for fisheries and aquatic science professionals around the world. Although TAFS is generally recognized as the flagship scientific journal of the Society, work remains to be done to improve its reputation among the global fisheries science community. The specific goals established by the TAFS subcommittee of the Reno meeting were to increase the journal’s impact factor (and associated citation metrics) and decrease the time to publication of articles. To address these goals, TAFS will change some aspects of current editorial policy, add a new position (a features editor), and work to increase international representation in authorship and on the TAFS editorial board. Although TAFS is generally well regarded, the consensus view of the special committee at the Reno meeting was that the EIC and the TAFS editorial board should work to improve the visibility of our best science and increase its overall impact, thereby making it more competitive with the most reputable fisheries journals. An important change in editorial policy moving forward will be a desk review by the EIC of all submitted papers. This step will facilitate more rapid desk rejection of manuscripts unlikely to find success in the full peer review process and allow redirection of papers to more appropriate AFS journals when necessary. The committee anticipates that this step, coupled with a renewed focus on publishing the best available science, will result in somewhat higher overall rejection and redirection rates for TAFS. A second important change is the establishment of a features editor position
