Editorial

EDITORIAL Looking Back, Looking Forward This issue marks the beginning of my second year as editor of the American Annals of the Deaf My feeling of responsibility mixed with awe continues, and the respect I have always held for Mac Vernon, the previous editor, has grown over the past year. In some ways, the work entailed in editing a journal such as the Annals encompassed pretty much what I expected, and in some ways, there have been major surprises. Chief among them has been the diversity and number of manuscripts submitted. The expertise called for by reviewers includes education, child development, linguistics, psychology , mental health, history, sociology, statistics, genetics , medicine, and administration, as well as the application of each of these disciplines to deafness. To meet the demand for expert review of the submitted manuscripts and to make the review process as rapid as possible, we are tripling the pool of regular field readers to around 35, and will continue to use additional reviewers as needed. With revisions in the review process, a greater number of reviewers, and improved technology, we have been able to attain our goal of timely publication and dissemination of this and future issues of the Annals. We are in the process of revising our format for book and other media reviews and will reinstitute that feature in the July 1991 issue of volume 136. Some time in the near future, the Joint Annals Committee of the Conference of Educational Administrators Serving the Deaf and the Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf will address the frequency with which the literary issues should be published. Several years ago, for a number of reasons, a decision was made to reduce the number of literary issues from five to four annually. Those four issues combined with the annual reference issue total five issues a year. Basically, assuming the financial costs of a fifth literary issue can be met, the questions are whether there would be a sufficient number of manuscripts of high quality to justify the additional issue, and whether reader interest is sufficient to justify a 25% increase in the number of articles published annually. Any response and input from the Annals readership would be greatly appreciated. It has been gratifying to observe the thought and attention to detail that reviewers have devoted to the manuscripts they review. The balance and fairness that they bring to the process is impressive. It is difficult in an emotion-laden field such as ours to evaluate a manuscript completely on its technical merit if the author presents a position or advocates measures that conflict with the reviewer. However, it has been my experience that the Annals' reviewers have been consistent in their objectivity and lack of emotion in their professional response to manuscripts. One minor source of disappointment has been the sparseness of publishable letters to the editor and position papers. Within the field, there have been constant discussions , and even some working papers, on least restrictive environment, cochlear implants, deaf culture, Pidgin ASL, mainstreaming, the "success" or "failure" of simultaneous communication and a host of other topics, but very few people seem ready to address these issues through the formal channels of a professional and scientific journal such as the American Annals of the Deaf. Yet, the Annals is an appropriate vehicle through which to raise and discuss difficult questions. As a scientific journal, the Annals has no formal position on any of the topics mentioned above and would publish material that meets its academic criteria, regardless of the position taken by the author. Any manuscript that is submitted will receive an impartial review. Donald F. Moores Editor Vol. 136, No. 1 AAD ...