Editor's Report


Peer-Reviewed Articles

(First Editorial Decisions)

New Manuscripts Received: 808

Editorial Decisions Made: 769

Accepted: 4 (0.52%)

Accepted, With Revisions 147 (19.12%)

Not Accepted, Revisions Invited 177 (23.02%)

Not Accepted 441 (57.35%)

Average Number of Days for an Editorial Decision: 91.33

Range in Days: 4–307

Poorest choice of a note at the end of a manuscript submitted for publication: “Exceptional Children 10/28/99 • Mental Retardation 2/1/00”

Most appreciated article from The Chronicle of Higher Education sent by a reader: “Reviews of Journal Manuscripts: Nasty, Petty, Arrogant”

Most appreciated note sent by a reader along with the article: “Happily this is not you: Take pride in the fact that it isn't.”

Best metaphor used by a reader in a note to an author: “You have an interesting knack of shining that intellectual flashlight of yours into places the rest of us would never think to look.”

Most honest comment by an author: “I wanted to apologize for all the trouble the article may have caused due to the APA format which I am not used to working with.”

Nicest note from an author of a manuscript not accepted for publication: “You did me a big favor. Your reviewer is exactly correct, and now I know why. We are working on the necessary statistical analysis.”

Reader who should not get everything he wishes: “Were it in my power, you would be appointed ‘Editor for Life’!”

Most appropriate comment in a review: “A journal article should be succinct, relevant, important to theory or practice, and of high communication value.”

Most likely to send kind notes to authors and the editor: Hank Mann and Bob Perske.

Kindest comment to the editor on Perspectives: “Kudos to you for publishing the two perspectives of Foucault and postmodernism.. . . In contrast to the great bulk of material I have seen on this topic, this tidy collection gives the reader something to hold onto.”

Least kind comment to the editor on Perspectives: Forthcoming in MR.

Most perplexing editorial comment in a journal of another professional association: “We believe there is considerable misunderstanding of the nature of desirable diversity and the discrimination of injustice from defensible difference. We will seek to attain diversity of ethnicity, gender, and other differences among our contributors and reviewers while holding uniformly high expectations of competence.”

The MR Editor's position on “diversity”: “We will continue to hold white, European-American male authors and reviewers to the same high standards established by other contributors to the Journal.

Editorial staff member most likely to vote using a butterfly ballot: Yvette Taylor (for the last time, the Editor votes in New York and the Assistant Editor votes in Florida because they are not related).

Special thanks: To the people who took the time to serve as guest reviewers for MR in 2000: Martin Block, Philip Davidson, Joyce Dean, Eric Emerson, Maude Falcone, Elise Fullmer, Eric Geller, Jan Greenburg, Shoji Hiro, Rob Horner, Michael Kennedy, Ji-Ryun Kim, Frank Kohler, Vicki Lumley, Linda Milosky, Lisa Mills, K. M. Munir, Alfred Neufeldt, Jiyeon Park, David Pitonyak, Shridevi Rao, Nancy Rice, Diane Richler, Kenneth Robey, Michael Rogers, Fredda Rosen, Sally Sehmsdorf, Eleanor Smith, Phil Smith, Gunnar Stangvik, Bruce Thompson, Jacqueline Thousand, Bruce Uditsky, Ron Vederman, David Wetherow, Keith Widaman, and Helen Zipperlin.

To the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities for funding much of the research on which the Trends and Milestones feature is based.

To the AAMR Board, the Publications Committee, and Doreen Croser for their continued support of MR.