A Note from the New Editor

The transfer of the editorial office of Demography from University of Maryland/Johns Hopkins University to Duke University has been completed. As the new editor who has processed manuscripts for the past nine months, I have developed an appreciation for the careful and conscientious job that Suzanne Bianchi and Ken Hill did for the journal as well as for the many hours they devoted to the editorial role.

Laura Tesch has made the transition easy by continuing to serve as the managing editor. I have been fortunate in obtaining the assistance of nine esteemed colleagues at Duke University—Linda Burton, Linda K. George, V. Joseph Hotz, S. Philip Morgan, Angela M. O'Rand, Emilio Parrado, Eric Stallard, James W. Vaupel, and Zeng Yi—who are serving as deputy editors. Deputy editors help to identify appropriate reviewers, adjudicate conflicting reviews, and provide advice on editorial decisions. I also have formed a new editorial board of 30 accomplished demographers, most of whom are from institutions other than Duke. Editorial board members provide expertise in various areas of demography that greatly assists the review process. Patricia A. Thomas completes the editorial staff as an efficient, well-organized editorial assistant.

I am pleased to report that there has been no shortage of high-quality submissions. Submissions are running at approximately 200 new manuscripts per year, plus 100 or so resubmissions. I do not intend to make major changes in the operation or the organizational content of the journal. Demography seeks to publish the best research produced by our diverse community of scholars on population, regardless of academic discipline, mode of data collection, methodology, or theoretical or applied perspective. As Dan Lichter has remarked, demography is eclectic, inclusive, and multidisciplinary, and the journal reflects these attributes. We should be sensitive to emerging substantive and technical themes in the field while tending to the core topics of population events, processes, and composition and traditional analyses of rates pertaining thereto.

Since beginning to process manuscripts last May, we have made a concerted effort to shorten review times while maintaining high standards of peer and editorial review. I am pleased to report success to date—success due to the timely peer reviews provided by many of you. Twelve percent of our manuscripts have been reviewed within six weeks, and most (65%) have been reviewed within three months. Some papers have required longer than four months because, for one reason or another, it has been difficult to obtain reviews. We ask authors to bear with us in those cases, and we ask reviewers to help us solve this problem by returning reviews promptly.

Continuing this point, it is vitally important for demographers to realize that they are a key part of our enterprise—both on the research submission side and on the reviewing side. With computerized records from 2004 to the present, I can name names. John Iceland is a leader of the pack; he has reviewed 12 times for Demography since 2004, with review times ranging from 0 to 33 days and a mean of 13 days; John has published four times in Demography since 1997. At the other end of the distribution, some colleagues have declined many requests for reviews in recent years yet have published multiple times in that period. The point is that we all are busy with many demands on our time. It is incumbent on us to realize, however, that we are part of this scientific community and have responsibilities to the research of others as well as to our own. Please participate in the process by accepting review assignments when you are asked.

On behalf of the entire editorial staff, I want to express our appreciation for the opportunity to serve the PAA and its membership by providing a new home for Demography.