...
- Annual Report from the Editor-in-Chief , Louis Lanzerotti (5 min) -- Dr Lanzerotti reviewed the annual report and added information on some of the unique practices of this journal and his editorial practices, including the topical diversity, time to acceptance, and quality editing of articles.
- Annual Report from AGU / Wiley , Brooks Hanson (5 min)
- Presentations:
- Brooks Hanson: New Wiley capabilities for efficient production of the Quarterly (5 - 10 min)
- Robert McCoy: Relationship between AMS and AGU re Space Weather and application to the Space Weather Journal/Quarterly (5-10 min). Ref: AMS Space Weather Policy Statement
Go around the table, each person contributing their thoughts on the following (~1-2 min, each): - Suggestions for SW Journal articles, features, etc.
- Suggestions on the future direction for the Journal and Quarterly
- Suggestions for further App improvements Any other topic needing attention by this board ..
- -- Dr Hanson mentioned that this journal is the highest rated for satisfaction of the peer review process. Regarding the impact factor, the more important point is that we want to work to increase visibility of the Journal. Less concerned about impact factor, more concerned with increasing the readership. Working to get the content indexed through IEEE, which will increase visibility.
Working the partnership with URSI. Explicit co-sponsorships for all journals need refreshing including the one for ISES. Phased in development of new web site for all journals. For SW, there is new explicit branding and better search functions. Can cross reference other journals as well.
- Presentations:
- Brooks Hanson: New Wiley capabilities for efficient production of the Quarterly (5 - 10 min) -- Brooks highlighted some new publication features from Wiley. Will be able to customize widgets to feature content in ways unique to each journal. One issue is that the layout for the Quarterly is done separately and "by hand". As such, the Quarterly appears only as a PDF and is not searchable in the same way that the Journals are. This is something we want to change. One drawback now is that the editor's choice column does not go through the regular peer review submission and editing process and so doesn't appear except within the Quarterly PDF files. It is thought that the new process for creating special issues, or special collections, can be used to layout the SW Quarterly. Brooks described the special collection features, covers, specific content, editorials. Can make an ereader of it, print, etc. A collection can be added to over time. Collections will be composed by the editors or staff. Haven't yet opened the concept to sponsored collections but that can be done in time. The architecture is XML based and so it is possible to create a few layout custom templates for the presentation of SWQ content. Hopefully in the future, we should be able to create a Quarterly in about a day, perhaps even in response to a new, late breaking paper. Louis mentioned that the SWJ content lends itself very well to special collections citing satellite drag papers as an example. It will be a new task to editors to define links within a journal or to link to related content in another journal. One article can be mapped to many collections.
- Robert McCoy: Relationship between AMS and AGU re Space Weather and application to the Space Weather Journal/Quarterly (5-10 min). Ref: AMS Space Weather Policy Statement This topic did not get a thorough discussion due to lack of time. Bob mentioned that he could inquire regarding a potential partnership between AMS and AGU on this journal and/or other related activities.
- Go around the table, each person contributing their thoughts on the following (~1-2 min, each):
- Suggestions for SW Journal articles, features, etc.
- Suggestions on the future direction for the Journal and Quarterly
- Suggestions for further App improvements
- Any other topic needing attention by this board ...
Comment: we're not publication experts, we're space weather experts. There may be new ways to present content but we're not the experts to decide what publication methods make sense, is the support there for that? Answer: we have these issues across all the journals but in different forms. Brooks agrees we need to address these needs better.
To some degree the space weather community is in formation, it is a new and emerging community. Reaching the researchers, the operational practitioners, the stakeholders must take several forms and our impact can be difficult to measure.
This journal can do a great deal in the research to operations area. No organization has done a good job in this area.
How to reach those we want to reach? How to identify those with an interest in the content when the community is still emerging? Answer is not clear.
Quarterly is ideal for reaching the audience that is emerging or hidden.
AGU has new position Director of Public Affairs, Lexi Schultz, who has experience with the hill, working with us on optimizing distribution list. Art Charo has offered his distribution list as well.
Web transitions can be difficult.
This journal needs firm support from AGU because we may not have many strong space weather storms in the current solar cycle. The community needs the support from AGU in the same manner that the earthquake community needs support when there haven't been recent quakes.
Proposal to agencies? Wants to better understand what the major need is. What do we really need the support for?
Want to know that AGU wants to support this journal, other orgs may be better at this point.
Klimchuk: AGU has been supportive of space weather; there have been xcellent interactions with Brooks and Lexi. AGU cites the SWJ and SWQ as a model, they want it to be successful as the model for other disciplines.
Idea is to optimize the distribution methods to the various audiences. Optimize and target the content to the audiences.
Potential for advertisers is thought to be there. Perhaps think of this as sponsorship ads rather than traditional advertising instead?
SW has a low subscription base. What if SW was an open access model? Is that financially viable and would that provide a broader reader base, especially to those that don't traditionally subscribe to academic journals?
Who is the prime audience? This is thought to need better definition. May not have a prime audience but rather many factions, complex Venn diagram. There is no one community. Journal reaches out across all these audiences. On this basis, the impact factor is meaningless. Brooks wants to focus on seeing the the content is getting to the right audiences. Want to increase visibility.
Open access could provide educators with ability to tie the content to lesson plans. Some preliminary work on this has been done and can be looked at further.
AMS has a culture perhaps better suited to this journal? It is also thought that AGU's link to our science research community is vitally important and not to be discarded.
- Capture action items – determine next meeting/telecon datedate -- all agreed the group would continue with telecons for the near future (2 per month for now).
- Potentially will have some information on the drafting of Terms of Reference for Editor/Editorial Board
...