Editor's Report


Peer-Reviewed Articles

(First Editorial Decisions)

New Manuscripts Received: 1,039

Editorial Decisions Made: 999

Accepted: 4 (.40%)

Accepted With Revisions: 189 (18.92%)

Not Accepted, Revision Invited: 253 (25.33%)

Not Accepted: 553 (55.36%)

Most accurate comment by the author of a manuscript submitted to the Journal: “I am sure that editors hate it when authors of rejected articles contact them to ask for a reconsideration of the decision.”

Reader whose letters the editor always welcomes: “I know you must get tired of my telling you how grateful I am that you are at the helm of the MR journal. You are not only a steady hand but a creative one. There is never an issue in which I cannot find something to read.”

Most honest decision by an invited reviewer of a manuscript: “I just received an MR manuscript that I would be happy to review; however, I must respectfully decline as I am the second author.”

Number of articles published in 2003 that were written by British authors: 5.

Most common reason for authors of published articles to contact the Editor: “I'm being considered for promotion and tenure at my university.”

Author of a submitted manuscript most likely to miss a plane flight: The one who enclosed an e-ticket with the manuscript.

Greatest over-statement by an author of a manuscript that received a “revise and resubmit” decision: “I don't know how many people with MR/DD died . . . while you and your crew fooled around with this manuscript, but it was more than zero.”

Wrong person to ask for permission to reprint articles published in the Journal: The Editor.

Interesting statistics reported in the Journal in 2003: Average national wages of nonstate direct support workers compared with state workers (74.4%); percentage of authors publishing in the Journal over a 10-year period who are women (41%); percentage of AAMR membership who are student members (2.5%).

Worst way to submit a manuscript for publication: Through a form letter addressed to “To Whom It May Concern.”

Articles published in 2003 receiving the greatest reader response: “Cost Comparisons of Community and Institutional Residential Settings: Historical Review of Selected Research” and “The Hissom Closure Outcomes Study: A Report on Six Years of Movement to Supported Living.”

Initials of the reader most likely to disagree with a favorable review of the latest edition of AAMR's definition and classification manual: W.W.

Special thanks: To the people who took the time to serve as guest reviewers for the Journal in 2003: Rick Albin, Cynthia Anderson, George Baroff, Ellen Brantlinger, Phyllis Coleman, Beth Ferri, Mick Finlay, Norris Glick, Marquita Grenot-Scheyer, Richard Hastings, Rabbi Evan Jaffe, Frank Kohler, Khalilah O'Farrow, Jeffrey Rhoades, Martha Rose, Fredda Rosen, Philip Lambert Schein, Annegret Schubert, Jannike Seward, Paul Shattuck, Lori Simon-Rusinowitz, Scott Spreat, Amy Staples, John Trach, Richard Walls, and Tom Weisner.

To the National Institution on Disability and Rehabilitation Research for funding much of the research on which the Trends & Milestones feature is based.

To Bruce Appelgren and Anna Prabhala for their efforts to promote and increase the visibility of the Journal.

To Yvette Taylor for her good humor and hard work under deadlines.

To the Board of AAMR and Doreen Croser for their continued support of the Journal and the Editor.