Overview of the editorial process

Submissions are received and disseminated to reviewers as e-mail attachments as Word or PDF files. In the period 2011–2015 some reviewers preferred to remit PDF documents, especially when phonetic symbols are involved, and some annotate the original PDF submissions, but in many cases, reviews can be provided quite efficiently in the body of an e-mail message. Illustrations of the IPA must be accompanied at the time of submission by audio recordings of all words and narrative material cited in the text. Authors provide .wav files in zipped attachments, or a URL for downloading, at the same time as submission of the manuscript. Only submissions of Illustrations with accompanying audio material are considered further. All audio material is processed in the editorial office and posted on a site for the reviewers of the Illustration. Audio material submitted as a single long .wav file is broken up into individual word and text files by an editorial assistant. However, if the audio material is more extensive, authors are encouraged to carry out this editing themselves and are provided with guidelines as to how the individual audio files should be created and named. Ultimately, the supplementary audio materials will receive filenames that are grouped together by section heading and numbered in linear text order as well as being glossed with the English translation given in the text so that readers can easily locate each recorded item in its appropriate folder.

Reviewers who are the most appropriate people in the field are selected by the editor. Often, one reviewer will be a specialist in the language area and at least one other reviewer will be a specialist in the experimental approach. Where appropriate, reviewers are drawn from the Editorial Board. Usually there are three reviewers; in some cases there may be two (especially for Illustrations); and in some cases there are four. Occasionally, a manuscript will be referred to a member of the Editorial Board for supplementary adjudication, especially when two reviewers may have widely differing opinions about the suitability of a submission. We do not conceal authors’ names from reviewers, as we believe that a submission should be judged with reference to its background. Reviewers can make more helpful comments if they know the identity of the author they are trying to advise. We assume that reviewers will remain anonymous, but if they wish to sign their reviews we will communicate this to the authors. Papers are usually considerably improved by the collaborative interaction between reviewers and authors. The normal object of a review is to help improve a paper within its own framework with the best advice available. When a manuscript is received after extensive revisions, it is forwarded, if possible, to the original reviewers for their further evaluation, comments and suggestions.

Once a paper is deemed acceptable by the reviewers, the editor reviews the final revision of the paper and makes extensive added comment primarily on format, structure and symbolization but also on content. After that, final revised manuscripts in the various required formats are forwarded through the editor to the copy-editor as electronic files. A hard copy is no longer required by the copy-editor. From that point, the copy-editor deals directly with authors on the technical details of copy preparation, verifying fonts and figures and noting particular items for the typesetters, and then working with authors on first proofs and mediating corrections to the typesetters through second (revised) proofs.

The time it takes for papers to be reviewed and to be returned by authors varies greatly, and the number of revisions required also varies considerably. Generally, the larger volume of copy flow since 2007, including the fact that most papers are read by three reviewers, means that manuscripts are taking slightly longer than before to appear in print. Some manuscripts may take two years to appear; some more; but others only one. Statements of acceptance/rejection rates cannot be given exactly because of the variation in each paper's individual history. Some papers that are accepted subject to revision may not be resubmitted, and the number of revisions a paper goes through is an incalculable variable. Since August 2011 JIPA has received 90 submissions of regular papers and 64 Illustrations. Of these, 14 regular papers and 24 Illustrations have been accepted for publication and 45 submissions (43 regular papers, 2 Illustrations) have been rejected. The remaining submissions are either under review or under revision. Illustrations have a better acceptance rate but usually entail a longer turn-around time for their revision and to appear in print, because of the time required to process and update audio archive. Although the majority of submissions are submitted from academic locations in the USA and western Europe, JIPA publishes content from every continent, as is evidenced by the detailed summary of the country of origin of submissions shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Number of submissions by country of academic residence of first author (2011–2015).

The process of soliciting reviews and making sure that reviews are submitted on time remains a time-consuming task in the reviewing process and can slow up the turn-around on some manuscripts considerably. Sometimes up to ten reviewers will have been asked before two respond positively. Soliciting reviews for Illustrations is generally harder than for regular papers. Up until now, we have not been using an online system to help in the administration of submissions and reviews, and many authors and reviewers look on this positively. However, particularly in an attempt to speed up the reviewing process for each submission, the editors have recently been discussing with CUP the possibility of moving JIPA to an online submission/review system. This will undoubtedly reduce some of the personal contact between editors and reviewers and will also involve an increase in the cost of producing JIPA so it is a move that will need to be discussed and sanctioned by Council members.

Quite a few books are regularly sent out for review. JIPA now has two Review Editors to follow up on reviews and ensure that reviewers respond in a timely manner.

Production issues

The copy-editor prepares the electronic files for typesetting, ensuring font compatibility and specifying how the detailed phonetic representations peculiar to a phonetics journal are to be typeset. The copy-editor deals with authors at first proofs and with the authors and editors at second proofs to clear up errors of formatting. Many of these errors continue to involve phonetic symbol shapes/sizes, although these have been minimal in recent issues.

We are working to ensure that the phonetic fonts specified in the Instructions for Contributors are familiar to and useable by the typesetters (the typesetters’ preference for free SIL fonts notwithstanding). There have been problems processing copy produced in LaTeX, but Word has not been a problem. The (non-)embedding of fonts in a file has sometimes been an issue.

The production editor at the Press deals with front/back matter and covers. Proofs of these pages are sent to the editor for proofreading. Changes are queried well in advance: for example, JIPA 45.3 contains the new list of IPA Council members; the new Editors and new Editorial Board will appear in JIPA 46.1. The production editor is also in close contact with the copy-editor to match the Table of Contents with prepared copy and to coordinate CJO/JIPA layout.

Illustrations are submitted in various formats with varying styles of charts and font usage. All of these are now easily handled by the copy-editor who either reformats and/or reworks the artwork or requests different formats, if necessary.

We are extremely indebted to Ewa Jaworska, our copy-editor, for her continuing diligent efforts on behalf of JIPA.

Cambridge University Press continues to produce JIPA at a reasonable cost to members (who pay nothing other than their annual dues) and institutions (for whom the subscription in 2015 is £195 or US$308 per year for print only, £213 or US$339 for print and online, and £163 or US$257 for online only). We have been using a revenue-sharing formula that subtracts expenditure from revenue and then splits CUP's surplus for JIPA. As of 2012 the agreement is based on a royalty on revenue of 40%. The Journal has earned an average yearly net income over the last four years of £18,364, peaking in 2012 at £24,041, but dropping to £15,222 in 2014. Due to factors such as economies being made by libraries, income for the Association from JIPA has declined, even if our subscription rates have remained competitive. In the case of the IPA, it is important to remember that the cheapest way to receive the Journal is to join the Association for an annual fee of €45 (€22.50 for student members).

Finally, we are continually reminded of our debt to our reviewers and Editorial Board members for their conscientious and prompt responses, especially when they are under editorial pressure and their reviews are needed urgently. Reviewers produced some 369 evaluations for JIPA over the past four years (some colleagues contributing more than one review), which is almost identical to the 368 assessments reported for the previous four-year period. Careful and thoughtful reviews have been provided consistently, whether a submission has needed only minor revision, whether substantial changes have been necessary, and even where a paper could not be accepted. In the latter cases, the task is even more arduous, and the reviewers deserve our praise and thanks for their exceptional service.

From volume 46 (2016), JIPA will be edited by Amalia Arvaniti, with Linda Shockey and Anne Wichmann continuing as Reviews Editors.