Instructions for Associate Editors


Below are guidelines for Associate Editors for the Journal of the World Association of Soil and Water Conservation (JWASWC)

The associate editors of JWASWC are critical to the success of JWASWC, and to WASWC.
　　　Readers of JWASWC require reporting of high quality work that is well written,
　　　important, valid, and is easy to read. Peer review puts a stamp of approval on the work
　　　by WASWC and the peers that evaluate manuscripts. It says that we think this work is
　　　good, and the recommendations and results are accurate and well supported, and are
　　　the result of using the best in science and technology.

　　　Authors want to publish in good journals. They want their work to be widely
　　　disseminated that reach those that need this information. They want their work to be
　　　published in a timely manner. They want their work to be published in an efficient
　　　manner. They want their work to be part of a larger body of work of high quality.

The associate editors are the ones that select the peer reviewers, that manage the manuscripts through the review process, and that prepare recommendations that will lead to high quality manuscripts being published.

When a manuscript is received from the Editor in Chief (EIC):
　1. Select 3 peer reviewers that are capable of providing a high quality review and
　　　recommendations within a month. Send the manuscript and peer review forms within a week
　2. Follow up with reminder emails when needed to insure that reviews are received in a month
　　　(perhaps a reminder in 3 weeks?)
　3. Review peer reviewers evaluations, summarize these, and within a week, formulate and
　　　transmit a recommendation for the EIC (furnish all individual peer review sheets to the EIC).
　　　The recommendation by the AE to the EIC (who makes the final determination and is the only
　　　person that communicates with the author) would be one of the following:
　　　　a. Accept as is with minor editing
　　　　b. Revise as suggested and return to the EIC to be published
　　　　c. Revise as suggested and return to the EIC for further evaluation
　　　　d. Reject and return to the author.
　4. For those manuscripts that have a recommendation that they be revised and returned to the
　　　EIC for further evaluation, the Associate Editor may need to send the MS again for further
　　　peer review. This will be decided on an individual MS basis by the EIC in consultation with
　　　the Associate Editor.