February 2009 // Volume 47 // Number 1 // Editorial // 1ED1
JOE by the Numbers 2008
In "JOE by the Numbers 2008" I report on the 2008 submission and readership rates and announce JOE's current acceptance rate: 32.4%. I also highlight yet again the Top 50 Most Read Articles lists. In "JOE Redesign" I flag the obvious-JOE's new look-and explain that its beauty is more than skin deep. In "February JOE" I spend just a few more words urging you to read this month's issue.
As usual this time of year, I report on the previous year's submission rate and readership statistics. And I announce JOE's current acceptance rate. I also call attention to one of the most interesting features of the JOE site (and one of my favorites).
JOE received 279 submissions in 2008, just six down from last year's all-time high.
I'm happy to report that JOE has more than recovered from the slight "dip" in readership rates I reported last year. In 2008, there were 2,179,375 "visitors" to the JOE site who viewed 6,234,493 pages. That's 64,315 more visitors and 1,954,028 more pages than in 2007. And both 2008 figures represent new all-time highs.
Also in 2008, JOE attracted readers from 182 nations and territories. You can find these nations and territories listed at http://www.joe.org/website-statistics/nations.php.
In 2003, we started collecting the data that would allow us to post an annual acceptance rate for JOE, but posting annual acceptance rates caused confusion. It also failed to account for submissions that were submitted in one year but reviewed in another. We now have enough reliable data from enough years to post a single rate.
JOE's current acceptance rate is 32.4%. (This figure is the average of submission data from 2004 through 2008.) JOE is an increasingly rigorous journal in which Extension professionals and other scholars can be proud to be published.
The Top 50 Most Read Articles
You can find the list of the Top 50 Most Read Articles in 2008 as well as lists from previous years at http://www.joe.org/about-joe-website-statistics.php. Now included are indications of which articles are new to the list and how the articles ranked in 2007. You'll see that there are six new entries on the 2008 list, one an article that was published in 1995. It all makes for interesting reading-and potentially useful information.
These lists are not a reflection on the quality of the JOE articles that "made the lists" as opposed to those that didn't. But they do say a lot about the degree of interest readers from around the world have in some of the topics discussed in JOE.
You've surely noticed that the February 2009 issue of JOE has a whole new, more contemporary look. So does the entire JOE site. And appearance is not the only or most important thing that has changed. The site is also considerably easier to navigate, a significant improvement given the wealth of information on the JOE site beyond the issues of the journal.
These improvements come courtesy of Texas AgriLife Extension Service Web Designer Trey Rice, who deserves all the kudos I can give, as do former and current JOE Web Developers Brian Weaver and Brian Freytag, respectively. They have worked hard to turn Rice's redesign into reality.
And we've taken advantage of the redesign to present new introductions to the JOE homepage and the JOE Submission Guidelines. The intros put renewed emphasis on JOE's rigor by reporting the current acceptance rate, describing our review process, and, in the latter, explaining that all submissions should include scholarly citations, including citations of relevant JOE articles.
We will continue to refine and improve the site, but we think we're off to a great start.
I'm afraid I've come too close to the word limit I set for myself to do justice to the February issue. You'll just have to read it. You'll be glad you did.
The Commentary raises the issue of accents as "one of the last acceptable areas for discrimination." The first two Features, on Extension employee perceptions of scholarship in the workplace and on Extension agent turnover, just might "speak" to each other. They should certainly speak to us. And the first two Tools of the Trade articles offer help in addressing complex issues.
Then there are the other 24 articles. Gosh, we're all good.