Deep-Sea Research, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 999-1001, 1986.

Pergamon Journals Lid. Printed in Great Britain.

EDITORIAL

Submission and review of papers to Deep-Sea Research

h uAs been two years since 1 assumed editorial duties of Deep-Sea Research. During that
time more than 350 papers have been submitted, with more than 60% increase in
submissions over the past year. After personally reading most of these papers, I realize
that some of the long-standing policies of DSR must be rethought and in some cases new
policies initiated. Beginning in this issue, the reader will note slight changes in the
editorial policy, as stated in the back pages/back cover of each issue. The rest of this
editorial expands on some of the more important changes. If the readers or prospective
authors have opinions, either positive or negative, concerning these changes, please let
me know.

1. Statement o[ Policv
The aim of Deep-Sea Research remains the same as in previous years--publication of
scientific papers dealing with the deep sea (here defined as those waters and seafloor
seaward of the continental shelf-slope break). Topics include both field and theoretical
research, instrumentation and methods, and applications. In recent years a sister
journal, Continental Shelf Research, has published papers dealing with the continental
margin where water depths are less than 100-200 m; manuscripts falling more within
CSR's purview should be submitted there. Similarly, review articles and papers longer
than 45-50 manuscript pages (including tables and figures) should be considered for
publication in Progress in Oceanography.

2. Rapid Response Papers

A new editorial policy (see February 1985 editorial) allows for the rapid publication of
timely and topical papers that may have a significant influence on the direction of current
and future research. Over the paper year we have accepted and published more than 10
Rapid Response Papers, the average time from initial submission to publication has been
6~ months. There are no special requirements as to manuscript length or number of
illustrations. For guidelines, I suggest that the prospective author read the February 1985
editorial and some of the RRP's that have been published since then.

3. Special Issues
Beginning in 1986, authors will note one or two issues each year dew)ted to special
topics. These topics can be conceptual (e.g. warm-core rings), geographic (e.g. research
in the East Asian Seas) or a commemorative/memorial issue (e.g. dedicated to a recently
retired/deceased scientist of particular eminence). The topics should be unifying, and yet
the papers also should represent various and diverse elements of that topic. For example,
a forthcoming issue on warm-core rings touches on the oceanography, chemistry and
999
1000 Editorial

biology causing and resulting from warm-core rings off the United States, Japan and
Australia. Each special issue will have a reinforced binding and special cover, since in
many instances it will be used more as a book or m o n o g r a p h than as a periodical.
Organizers or chairmen of symposia or workshops should consider DSR as an avenue for
publication of their collective presentations. Those who are interested can contact the
editor directly.

4. Manuscript requirements
For the most part, the longstanding requirements for submitted manuscripts remain
the same; they appear on the back pages/back cover of every issue of DSR. However, we
do request that authors try to confine the manuscripts to no more than 25-30 pages of
text, and a total manuscript length of 45-5{) pages including tables and figures. With the
increased number of submissions (and acceptances), papers simply need to be more
economical in terms of length. In most cases, longer papers will be returned to the
authors or forwarded to Progress in Oceanography.

5. The review process

With very few exceptions, all submitted papers must be reviewed. In most cases this
involves obtaining two reviews, at least one of which is done by or assigned by an
associate editor. The decision to publish a paper is based largely upon the revicws and the
suggestions of the associate editor. In most instances the two reviews will tend to agree in
general recommendations, but where reviews differ, the editor or associate editor
can seek a third opinion. Over the past two years we have accepted more than 65% of all
submitted papers. The average time for review is 6--9 weeks.

6. Revisio,s
Submitted papers receive two types of review--technical and editorial/grammatical.
Papers rejected on a technical basis, however, generally do not receive further review.
Accepted papers that require considerable revision may not receive editorial review until
a revised manuscript is submitted. Authors may not always agree with the technical
comments; if so they should discuss these points when submitting the revised manuscript.
The author should realize, however, that if one reviewer misinterprets a statement in the
paper, it is not unlikely that a subsequent reader may also. Sometimes changing or
rearranging a few words will suffice to answer a reviewer's criticism.
In most instances where extensive revisions have been suggested, the most common
request has been to shorten the paper. Many authors simply use too many words to
convey a thought. A useful (and short) text for prospective authors is Strunk and White's
Elements o(Style (1973, MacMillan Publ. Co., NY). One particular common overuse of
words is the description of figures and tables in the text. Not only does this usually
interrupt the "flow" of the text, but it also uses unnecessary words. Do not describe the
figure, but rather refer to it. Thus, "Figure 6 shows the suspended particle distribution in
the Yellow Sea. Concentrations are highest i n . . . ' " becomes "Highest concentrations of
suspended particles in the Yellow Sea . . . (Fig. 6)." In a 15-illustration paper, this
simple change can eliminate as much as one-half page of unneeded text as well as make
the paper more coherent.
Nearly every submitted manuscript needs some revision; if the paper is revised quickly
the author can expect publication within 8-10 months after initial submission of the
 Editorial 1001

manuscript. Because of the backlog of papers, the increasing number of papers submitted
to DSR and the timeliness of many of the papers, authors should not keep the papers in
revision for long periods of time. Unless unusual circumstances are involved (e.g. a
lengthy cruise), all papers which are in "revision" for more than 6 months must be re-
evaluated by the editors. In some instances papers requiring more than 6 months for
revision may be subsequently rejected even though they initially were accepted for
publication.
When resubmitting the manuscript, please send the original and one copy, The editor
will keep the copy for reference when reading page proofs.

7. Page prooSs'
Page proofs are generally received by the author and editor about 9 weeks after the
final (and accepted) manuscript is sent to Pergamon Press. I am a notoriously bad proof
reader, and do not always catch errors in the proof stage. The onus for catching these
errors must fall to the author--make sure you read the proofs carefully and convey
corrections clearly on the proofs (see January 1986 editorial).
JOHN D. MU.LIMAN