Editorial Board Telecon September 21, 2013

Purpose of the Telecon:  Discussion where all can voice opinions that help identify key issues and form a consensus view on how to move forward.

Background: What precipitated this interaction?  There is a new publications lead at AGU, Brooks Hanson and he would like to bring his prior experience at Science to the journals at AGU.  Space Weather has some of the same challenges as EOS.  It is one of the most expensive journals to produce and so we all need to look closely at what is driving those costs to ensure our investments are expended in the most advantageous manner possible.  Also Louis indicated he will want to step down as editor eventually, perhaps as soon as the end of December 2013.  AGU wants us to examine the new publishing opportunities provided by the Wiley platform to further our community's vision for the Space Weather Journal and the Quarterly.  Last, the two production paths for the Space Weather and for the Quarterly results in some costly inefficiencies.  AGU wants us to understand those inefficiencies and provide input as AGU works to address them. Brooks emphasized that AGU wants to promote the Space Weather Journal and Quarterly and bring more readers to it.  AGU supports and wants to continue it.  He needs our input to take potential ideas forward.

There was some discussion on the overlap between the JGR-space physics, Radio Science, and Space Weather journals.  It was noted that Space Weather covers a much broader range of topics than Radio Science. It is thought that there were as many as 10 papers in the SWJ in the past year that could have gone into Radio Science and it is thought the same in reverse could be true.  Suggestion:  Could we re-vector Space Weather Quarterly to be more like the IEEE magazines and feature papers from Radio Science Articles and JGR as well?  Perhaps there should be more tutorial-type papers?  The Space Weather Journal provides a home for articles that would not appear in, or be appropriate for the science journals.  The Editors Choice column, which is part of what makes the SWJ/SWQ unique, went away for a while but has now been re-instituted. This mechanism could be used for the purpose of bringing attention to relevant content that appears across all the relevant journals.  Also, AGU wants to find ways to help authors better vector their submissions to the most appropriate journal and will encourage more communication between the journal editors for this purpose. 

The web site notes that there is a partnership between the Space Weather Quarterly and there International Space Environment Center.  We will want to explore that partnership more and how we can utilize that partnership to bring greater visibility to the Journal and Quarterly.

There are a variety of other underlying issues that we need to take up, including how to maintain the print-version distribution list for the Quarterly.

Total yearly cost for the quarterly is on the order of $100k for ~1400 subscribers. 

Suggestion:  Examine more efficient ways to re-compose and re-layout content for the quarterly.

Is it a core value that the Quarterly must be printed?  The quarterly was underwritten by the agencies (NSF actually) for half of its life.  That support ended when the five-year grant expired.  A new grant has not been submitted but could be in the future.  Quarterly was instituted as a hardcopy compendium to be distributed to those that are not likely to access our information in other ways, especially policy and funding stakeholders.  We want them to have our information and to provide it in a form they are most likely to read.

Top-Level Points for Discussion / Is there agreement that:

• There is a need for both a Space Weather Journal (SWJ) and a Space Weather Quarterly (SWQ).  It was noted that the printed version of the Quarterly has a very important purpose.  It is easily dropped in a bag and read on the train or other leisurely activity, which is very important for time-burdened funding and policy officials.  We want to look at additional, innovative ways to deliver it and to ensure that those we want to reach with it are indeed receiving it.  For policy makers, is it the print version or the electronic version that is more effective?  For some key audience members, the print version is probably the better form at this point although that is likely to change with time as more folks turn to e-readers.  In the future, a quarterly distribution may not be the only timescale on which we want to deliver the information; we may want to be able to distribute information on other time scales as well. 

• How about advertisers for the Quarterly? How much effort has there been to get advertisers.  AGU's and Wiley's experience that for the size of the print run, it isn't traditionally thought to be cost effective.  A long term sponsorship relationship, that includes advertisements, may work.  It was mentioned that a proposal to the funding agencies might be well received at those agencies.  First, we will want to settle some of these production issues so as to write the most effective proposal.

• There is a suggestion that the Quarterly can expand its boundaries to highlight content beyond the boundaries of being a reflection of the SWJ and beyond what Howard Singer has done with the Editor's Choice. Would that be an acceptable idea?  Why not? 

• Will AGU accept in their business plan, that because the journal serves AGU, its members, and society in policy areas as well as contributing to science research, that at least temporarily, both the SWJ and the SWQ will continue while changes are evaluated (establishing a proper editorial transition process, possible new publishing formats, level of support from AGU staff, etc.). Is this something we want to recommend? How long to allow for this process?

• Regarding immediate issues, what happens on January 1? Can we entice Lou to stay on to keep the journal/quarterly progressing smoothly during this period? What do the advisory committees recommend? What is the AGU planning? How do we work together?

• Several folks voiced that it is important for Lou to stay on during this time of transition. We need an interim period where we continue what we have for now.  Brooks confirmed we need a nice logical plan and smooth transition.  Don't want to put a specific timeframe.  Some of the issues that space weather is facing concerning distribution will only fester with time and need to be addressed.  This is no criticism of the editors of Space Weather but AGU needs to correct some things that transpired before Brooks came on board. This is a high priority for Brooks.  We have good momentum and ideas to see this through.

• Regarding the new possibilities with Wiley (e.g. special collections etc.), what do we need to do to understand these better and perhaps see demos from comparable products to see how they would serve SWJ subscribers. Do the new Wiley capabilities really solve the key issues related to the SWJ and SWQ?  It will be essential to have an iterative development process between the developers and the consumers.

• What are the most important issues to focus on first? What should we be including in our next discussions?

For agenda next time.

Plan seems to be very opened ended.  What requirements are being imposed on us from AGU? We need this so we can make concrete plans as soon as possible.

Impact factor of 1.37 seems to be on the lower end.  Will addressing that be part of our work as well?  Yes.

Look at the possibility of the agencies funding more.

Should we be discussing the competing journals?  Should we understand the position of our journal in relation? It was suggested that the better we understand what they are doing, the better we inform our strategy. 

END OF TELECON