Abstract
Editorials in academic journals, like many things, are a bit of a time warp. I write this in July 2012 for publication in February 2013, drawing on completed statistics from 2011, or even earlier. Who knows how the world will have changed from this point of writing until the point that you are reading this text? All I can ask the reader to do is bear with me!
Indeed, is this not the irony of planning theory and planning in general? The reporting of historical statistics as a basis of fact, as we attempt to rationally, or otherwise, predict a course of action (or theorise about some dimension of this predictive process) that promises a desirous outcome in an unknowable future. At least in this editorial, unlike a spatial plan, I only have the responsibility of looking after and reporting to the polity of our readership. While this constitutes an important community, it at least has a lot more mobility, if things go wrong, or if you simply do not like the text presented, than when planning for a community comprising a human settlement with its fixed built-form in a spatial environment!
So, here goes! Over the last year, the journal achieved a 2011 Journal Citation Report impact factor of 2.091 from the Thomson Reuters’ (formerly ISI) Web of Knowledge. This is up from 1.219 in 2010, a 71% increase. This gives the journal the highest international impact factor in the planning field for 2011 and ranks it as the fifth highest impact factor journal out of the 54 journals comprising the Planning and Development category of the Journal Citation Reports. This impact factor actually represents the achievement of the authors of our articles published in 2009 and 2010, as it is their success in being cited in Web of Knowledge–monitored publications that constitutes this impact factor metric. Thanks are also due to Jean Hillier who was this journal’s Managing Editor during that period. Well done indeed!
Along with impact factors, in this age of the Internet, the electronic downloads of articles is a key indicator of the journal’s success with its readership. This has continued to increase with 50,061 downloads in 2011, compared to 42,816 in 2009, up from only 12,093 downloads back in 2006.
In June 2012, the Planning Theory SAGE Track site officially opened to accept electronic manuscript submissions. The site deploys ScholarOne Manuscripts software, and this is an important quality assurance tool that immensely facilitates the manuscript handling and peer-review process for the journal, its authors, referees and the editorial team.
Implementing full electronic manuscript submission for Planning Theory is an appropriate and necessary step in the maturing of the journal as annual manuscript submissions for consideration have more than doubled over the last few years from only 21 in 2008 to 55 in 2011. This period has also corresponded to an increase in the journal’s annually published page content by a third. While European submissions have been in the majority over recent years, an encouraging trend has been the increase in Asian submissions that in 2011 matched those in number from North America, for the first time. A corresponding increase in submissions from Africa and South America would also be welcome but is yet to significantly occur. Over the last 2 years, the journal has had an acceptance rate of submissions for eventual publication of slightly over one in three.
Bruce Stiftel who since 2006 has been the journal’s Reviews Editor with Seymour Mandelbaum is stepping down. We thank Bruce for doing such a good job over the last 7 years, and we will miss his active participation as an Editor, although he will remain as a member of the Editorial Board. Indeed, the journal would not be possible without the generous time devoted to it by all its Editors and Editorial Board members, and I thank them for it.
Another key task necessary to facilitate the journal’s continued upward trajectory is peer review. We are thus immensely grateful to those generous people who graciously review submitted articles and then write our many constructive referee reports. From July 2011 through June 2012, I wish to thank the following people for refereeing: Simone Abram, Louis Albrechts, Ernest Alexander, Katia Balassiano, Howell Baum, Luca Bertolini, Geoffrey Binder, Luuk Boelens, Sophie Bond, David Byrne, Heather Campbell, Kang Cao, Angelique Chettiparambil Rajan, Jon Coaffee, Alexander Cuthbert, Diane Davis, Terry van Dijk, Andrew Donaldson, Raphael Fischler, John Forester, Claire Freeman, Bruce Goldstein, Peter Gordon, Kai Gu, Tom Harper, Patsy Healey, Jean Hillier, Charles Hoch, Andrew Inch, Judith Innes, Yosef Jabareen, Nikolaos Karadimitriou, Andrew Karvonen, Kimberley Knowles-Jánez, Neema Kudva, Lawrence Lai, Mickey Lauria, Helen Liggett, Gunilla Lindholm, Alex Lord, Paul Maginn, Manfredo Manfredini, Jonathan Matusitz, Avinoam Meir, Paula Meth, Jonathon Metzger, Beth Moore Milroy, Diana Mitlin, Stefano Moroni, Clare Mouat, Michael Neuman, Amy Olsson, Manuel Pastor, John Pløger, Davide Ponzini, Libby Porter, John Punter, Mark Purcell, Dory Reeves, Sabine Roeser, Gert de Roo, James Rowe, Ananya Roy, Yvonne Rydin, Bish Sanyal, Glen Searle, Haeran Shin, Andrejs Skaburskis, Stan Stein, Frederick Steiner, Bruce Stiftel, Huw Thomas, Niraj Verma, Marco Verweij, Geoff Vigar, Vanessa Watson, Joris Van Wezemael, Cathy Wilkinson, Tania Winkler and Stephen Wood.
Finally, my thanks are as always to Emma Fergusson, the journal’s editorial administrator.