For the fifth and final time we offer the readers of the HAHR a statistical analysis on a chronological, geographical, and topical basis of manuscripts received and articles published for the past year and cumulatively since 1971 when our editorial term began. It is hard to believe that this is the last time I’ll be addressing our readership from the managing editor’s desk.
While the basic trends of emphasis as to time period, geographical focus, and topical concern remain as we have noted over the past several years— for example, Mexico and Brazil continue to lead when geographical emphasis is considered—there are a few observations that seem to be in order about this final year’s statistical summary.
Close readers of this section will note the smaller number of manuscripts submitted during this last year. In part this is attributable to the fact that this summary covers only an 11-month period rather than the customary 12-month period, since manuscripts received after July 1 were forwarded to Arizona. Nonetheless, the basic rate of submission remains notably low. The submission statistics for the preceding years were as follows: 1970-1971: 111; 1971-1972: 90; 1972-1973: 113; and 1973-1974: 86. This year there were only 57 in the first 11 months. This low may reflect both a reaction to higher HAHR acceptance standards, as well as the increasing difficulty of obtaining research support. While the outgoing editors have endeavored to improve the quality standards for publication in the pages of the HAHR, and the view in the profession seems to be that standards have been raised, the acceptance rate remained about the same—about 1 out of 10—as in the past.
If that is so, why does the number of accepted articles appear unusually small. In part this is due to the fact that manuscripts previously reported as received were resubmitted in revised form and were accepted. Furthermore, a number of pending articles were sent to Arizona to allow the new editorial staff to make the final decision regarding articles that they will be publishing. As a result, a number of articles that we previously would have accepted or rejected are carried as “pending.” A number of these are good articles likely to be accepted and published. However, affording Professor Meyer et al. the opportunity to make the decision resulted in an especially small acceptance level for this report.
A few other observations regarding the entire five-year period seem appropriate. The large number of articles on Peru (Chart III) reflects the growing awareness of the importance of that country’s colonial history to the broader picture of Latin American history, as well as more current interest focusing on the Andean nation. The low number of articles on Portugal reflects the fact that many articles on colonial Brazil have been so categorized, despite the fact that they have content related to Portuguese history.
The cold statistics point to Venezuela as the nation where current importance is not reflected by the number of submitted manuscripts (Charts II and III). The continuing need for good intellectual history is underscored when one compares Charts II and III. Turning to the topical, economic and social histories have had a 1 out of 4 and 1 out of 3 acceptance rate respectively, while diplomatic history—once codominant with articles of political focus—has had only a 1 out of 12 acceptance rate. Apart from considerations of relative quality, submissions in the diplomatic field have tended to be United States diplomatic history based almost exclusively on United States sources, and too many of them have been simply narrative. During the period the editorial offices have been housed at The University of Texas in Austin, the editorial staff has placed increased emphasis on analysis. We have tried to maintain the concept that no article should be published simply on the basis that it presents the facts. We have tried to insist on an adequate explanation of the facts underlying the narrative framework. Several of the articles that have been published reflect attempts at new methodological techniques of fundamental analysis, reflecting some of the newer paths being explored by scholars.
These five years have been an experience and an education. I am convinced that editing a major journal comes closer to perpetual motion than any other arrangement devised by human beings. I’m not sure what we will do to fill the time that now will be freed up for each of us, but I am confident we’ll think of something. My colleagues and I have tried hard to maintain a balance by publishing the work of experienced scholars and the work of promising newcomers to the profession. We have commissioned articles—most particularly the renewed contributions to the historiographical series—and we have encouraged the submission of interesting papers presented at professional meetings. We are indebted to the many scholars who have made possible whatever success we have achieved by submitting their scholarly work for evaluation by their peers, to those who have served as readers and referees of manuscripts within the areas of their special competence, and to those who have taken the time and effort to contribute thoughtful and meaningful book reviews and notices. A very special note of thanks is due to those who have served so well as members of the Board of Editors and of the Advisory Board.
These are difficult times for professional journals. They are caught in the general malaise affecting all publishing and are affected by the inflationary spiral pushing subscription rates ever upward in a series of repetitive cycles, which will force some journals to reduce their size, others to combine with related publications, and still others to give up the ghost. The at times sharply defined ideological differences represent another contemporary hazard. However, if scholars will stick to the canons of their discipline and will not allow ideological concerns to dominate—rather than illuminate—their analysis of historical events and their evaluation of historical writings, then your editors will feel a little less harassed as they seek to cany out the responsibility entrusted to them.
Both personally and on behalf of my associates during these five years— Richard Graham, James Lockhart, Frank Safford, Richard Sinkin, and Karl Schmitt—I thank our colleagues for affording us this unique opportunity to serve our field. We hope that we have done justice to the challenge and to your trust. Professor Michael Meyer and his associates at the University of Arizona have our best wishes for a successful tenure directing the HAHR. I know that they will have the support, encouragement, and assistance of the members of our profession, which helps to make the editorship such a rewarding experience.
