System Dynamics Review Editor's Report
by
Graham Winch
8 March 1997

1. Firstly, my apology that I cannot attend the meeting in person. It was not possible to arrange travel at short notice.

    

2. Article flow. The backlog situation has eased a little, primarily due to issue 13,2 being a special that has attracted specific articles. At present, the backlog comprises 3 articles (2 full and 1 research problems) accepted for publication. Approximately 6 articles are in the first refereeing stage, around 10 are with authors for re-writes, though typically only half to a third end up actually resubmitted. 14,2 is also slated to be a special, and I would welcome ideas for specials in the future. I also hope that this year's J. W. Forrester award winner will continue the pattern of the last two years in submitting a full article based on his/her recipient's presentation at the 1997 conference.

   I would echo David Lane's recent comment that the move to extended abstract format for the conference proceedings has not produced an increased flow as predicted by some, quite the contrary. I suspect that the typical earlier conference papers were a better jumping-off point for authors than the much briefer abstracts.

   It would help enormously if the panels reviewing submissions to conference would simultaneously identify those with obvious potential for development into full articles. These could be flagged and the conference acceptance letters could include an additional appropriate encouragement. Alternatively, the list could be passed to me, and we could follow these up. I am convinced that this would be more effective than any attempt to review the proceedings after the conference. Frankly, this is only the operationalising of a PC decision made during the Tokyo conference, where the minutes record that it was agreed that such an expectation would be placed on future conference organisers as part of the "agreement" with the Society to host a conference. This, however, does not seem to have figured in the arrangements for the two conferences since (1996 and 1997). Perhaps the VP (meetings) could address this.

    

3. Associate Editors. Recent trawls for names for possible new associate editors produced 2 names, one volunteer and one nomination (though, perhaps unfortunately, one name duplicated institutional representation). Would PC members who know of up-and-coming people in the field who would make enthusiastic new AE's please let me have nominations.

    

4. Layout of the Review. The Review's layout has been modified for Volume 13 onwards. The changes retain the general style and features of the Review, but were necessary to facilitate the electronic storage, scanning and retrieval of the Review contents. At a practical level this has also meant both printers and typesetters had to be changed, which has lead to delays in the production of issue 13,1.

    

5. Executive Editor Support Expenses. Expenses for 1996 and 1997 related to the production of the Review, at the level agreed by PC, were disbursed via the Editor to cover the services of Mrs M. Winch as editorial assistant, and associated expenses. Support averages about three/four days per month and includes progress chasing and liaison with the publishers, pre-copy-editing checks of manuscripts, collation of supporting materials, and final proof reading of typeset articles.

    

6. The continued sterling work by all section editors is highly appreciated, and I would ask PC to record this.