The Editor's Department

THE EDITOR'S DEPARTMENT The following Editor's Report was submitted to the LSA Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C, in December 1989: Volume 65 of Language, for the year 1989, consists of the usual four issues, comprising 944 pages. The volume contains 17 articles, 2 discussion notes, 1 review article, 46 reviews, and 143 book notices, plus the annual index. The time gap between receipt ofthe final version ofan accepted article and its publication date ranged from 5 to 9 months, with an average of about 6 months. In all, 161 articles and discussion notes were submitted between mid-November 1988 and midNovember 1989; this total includes 25 revisions, so 136 new manuscripts were submitted. Of the 161 submissions, 15, including one discussion note, were accepted; 19 were not accepted, but the authors were encouraged to revise and resubmit the papers; 98 were declined; one was withdrawn by the author; and 28 were still pending as of 1 December 1989. The acceptance rate (excluding the 28 pending submissions and the withdrawn paper) was 11%. A comparison between the 1989 figures and the 1988 figures shows that submissions were up in 1989 (from 134 to 161), but the acceptance rate was down (from 19% to 11%). The time between the receipt of a submission and the decision date ranged from one day to 5 months in 1989; the period was one month or less for 35 submissions and over 4 months for only 2. Decisions were sent to over half of the authors in less than 3 months after the ms. arrived in the editor's office. On the average, authors had to wait less time for a decision in 1989 than in 1988, and I hope to reduce authors' waiting time still further in 1990. My assistants routinely remind referees about overdue reports, and I try to make sure that a new ms. is sent out to referees (usually two) within a week after it arrives in my office. As in 1988, the largest category of submissions in 1989 was syntax (51 mss.). Phonology and historical linguistics were represented by 21 submissions each: 13 semantics mss. were submitted, followed by 12 mss. on sociolinguistic topics, 10 on discourse, 9 on morphology. 7 on psycholinguistic topics, 2 on phonetics, and the remainder on a variety of other topics. Requests for referee reports went out with submitted papers to 238 different scholars in 1989. Of these, 180 have sent at least one report; 18 declined to review papers, 16 did not decline but sent no report, and as of 1 December 1989 I was expecting reports from 24 other referees on pending mss. I am immensely grateful to everyone who refereed one or more manuscripts for the journal in 1989. Writing referee reports, though it is often educational, is very hard work; and since it yields no rewards in the form of fame or wealth, referees undertake the task as a service to their discipline. For this they deserve the gratitude of the entire Linguistic Society. I have also had the help in 1989 of twelve extremely able and dedicated Associate Editors: Niko Besnier, Melissa Bowerman, Nick Clements, Nancy Dorian, Alice Harris, Brian Joseph, Pat Keating , Jim McCawley, Dick Oehrle, Peter Sells, Tony Woodbury, and Annie Zaenen. Besides refereeing many manuscripts, the Associate Editors have given me invaluable advice about reviewers for books, referees for manuscripts, and difficult decisions of all kinds. For their help and support I offer my warmest thanks. Several other people have also earned my deepest gratitude for their contributions to the editorial enterprise in 1989: Sara Lickey, who copy-edits all the manuscripts and checks all the galley proofs; Paula Locante and Gao Qian, who keep track of manuscripts, letters, books, calls, proofs, and due dates, as well as handling many nonroutine journal-office chores; Louise Osterholtz and John Allen (in complementary distribution), who make the computer systems function smoothly; Kathleen Fenton, the Society's proofreader, who never misses even the slightest inconsistency in the proofs; and the staff of the LSA Secretariat, who always respond cheerfully and helpfully when I need them. Finally, a number of readers have written me during the year with comments...