The Editing Process

Selecting and Working with Reviewers

Once FastTrack has notified the managing editor that a document has been submitted, the editor consults the submission page in order to contact the individuals the author has suggested as reviewers (“nominees”). The managing editor consults FastTrack’s “Potential Reviewers” list for the individuals nominated. If a reviewer is already in the database, the editor adds the nominee to the “Currently assigned reviewers” list. If the individual is not in the database, the editor must add the pertinent contact information provided by the submitting author(s) during the submission process. Each individual is then sent an email notifying them that they have been nominated to serve as a reviewer. The email contains the information they need to accept or decline the nomination, how to view the submission, and how to upload their review. We request that the nominee reviews and provides feedback on the draft within 21 days.

During this period, several things may happen.

• A nominee accepts the invitation and provides a review within the 21-day period. If all reviewers do so, the managing editor can continue to the next step in the editing process.
   
• A nominee declines the invitation to provide feedback. At that point, the editor contacts the submitting author for an alternative individual and repeats the nomination process.
   
• A nominee accepts the invitation but does not provide a review within the 21-day period. The editor will generally wait an additional seven to ten days and will then reach out to the nominee with a reminder. That email contains another 21-day timeframe. In many cases, the reviewer will reply within that second 21-day period, or may decline the nomination. After the period contained within two reminders has passed (approximately 6-8 weeks) without feedback from the nominee, the editor will reach out to the author. The editor will ask if the author wants to nominate a different reviewer or to continue waiting. The challenge for the author is to balance the nomination of a new reviewer versus the additional time it may take the first reviewer to reply; the timeliness of the draft document may help in the decision.

Once all three reviewers have provided their feedback, the managing editor reviews their input. If at least two of the three reviews are positive, the editor begins the editing process by adding a note to that effect in the “Edit submission details” field of the submission page.

Continue to Managing Editor Reviews Draft Manuscript.

Managing Editor Reviews Draft Manuscript

Once the reviewers have provided their feedback, the managing editor thoroughly reviews each FastTrack submission. In order to ensure that the publication reaches the widest audience possible, the managing editor uses several criteria:

• The managing editor checks for spelling and grammar. Modern spell checking software will catch many misspelled words, but does not check for context. For example, the draft may use the word “affect” when the word “effect” is grammatically correct. A spell checker may not flag “effect” in that context. The editor works to ensure that the correct word is being used in the draft’s context. Additionally, a spell checker may not recognize a particular scientific term, including Latin names of plants and/or insects, and chemical formulations, including tradenames. The managing editor may reach out to the submitting author to ensure that such terms are spelled correctly.
   
• The managing editor checks for parallel construction. Authors that list several characteristics of an animal or a plant may construct a sentence that is grammatically correct but that could benefit from improved parallel construction. In parallel construction, each phrase when read independently creates a complete sentence. For example, the sentence “The blue-winged snipe are swift flying, nest building, and little tolerance for intruders” may be spelled correctly, but does not have parallel construction. The editor might choose to rephrase the sentence as, “Blue-winged snipe are swift-flying nest builders with little tolerance for intruders” to ensure parallel construction.
   
• The managing editor checks for clarity. Extension authors have the benefit of knowing and understanding the themes presented in the draft. The managing editor may not be so fortunate. Therefore, the editor may include questions in the edited draft about terms or concepts that appear in the manuscript that appear to need clarification or an expanded definition.
   
• The managing editor checks for appropriate writing style. The challenge in any Extension publication is to be able to connect with as many readers as possible, whether they are lifelong farmers or novice educators. The trick is to craft a publication that presents the information in an accessible style that is generally free from technical jargon (or that explains such terms when necessary, such as mentioned above). The managing editor reviews and makes suggestions to create or enhance these connections.
   
• The managing editor checks for appropriate voice. The managing editor reviews the draft and makes and/or suggests changes to sentences that are written in passive voice. Some edits can be performed without input from the authors, but other cases will need their review and approval. For example, if a sentence written in passive voice refers to a particular study without specifically mentioning the study’s location or the researchers involved, the editor will suggest a change to active voice based on what can be gleaned from the draft’s context. For more on passive voice and active voice, see “Writing Style” in this resource.

The managing editor keeps the submitting authors updated as needed throughout the process. When the editor has finished the process, the publication is either “accepted” or “not accepted” for publication.

Continue to Managing Editor Replies to Submitting Author.

Managing Editor Replies to Submitting Author

When the editor has finished the initial editing process, the publication is either “accepted” or “not accepted” for publication.

Accepted for Publication

If the managing editor believes that the draft publication has met all the criteria for publication by UME, the editor will upload two documents to the submitting author’s FastTrack page:

1. The draft document, with the editor’s comments in Track Changes (for Word documents) and/or “Comments” (for PDF documents), and
2. An Editorial Review, which summarizes the main points that the managing editor feels must be addressed by the authors in the next phase of the process.

The managing editor contacts the submitting author through FastTrack and via email with a notification that the draft has been accepted for publication. The email notification provides the names of the above files and directions how to access them and the reviewers' feedback. Both notifications remind the author that the draft will not be published until the revised document is submitted. This revision must address the editor’s comments, concerns, and suggestions.

At this point, the author(s) have sixty (60) days to return the revisions to the managing editor through FastTrack. The FastTrack notice also encourages the author(s) to create a document that outlines the changes made to the draft related to the main points of the editorial review.

The revisions should be made by addressing the managing editor’s concerns directly whenever possible. For example, the author(s) should reply to each comment added to the document, especially if the comment includes suggested text revisions. In this case, if the suggestion is acceptable, the author(s) can update the text as needed and add a reply to the managing editor’s comment. The reply can be as simple as “Accepted” or “Done.” Other comments, such as those that request clarification, require additional input from the author(s). This often includes adding text to the draft document. Please see “Secondary Review of Manuscript” for additional author responsibilities.

If the revisions have not been uploaded within the 60-day time period, the managing editor will contact the author(s) shortly after the time has elapsed with a status inquiry and a reminder.

Authors are encouraged to contact the managing editor throughout the revising process to clarify comments and/or suggestions made by the editor, or for any other reasons.

Not Accepted for Publication

Designating a draft as “not accepted” for publication is not done so lightly. The managing editor will consult with the Publications Team lead before contacting the author(s) with this decision. The managing editor will contact the submitting author with an explanation for the finding, and, in some circumstances, invite the author(s) to rework the draft and re-submit the content for future review.

Continue to Secondary Review of Manuscript.

Secondary Review of Manuscript

After the author(s) have completed their revisions, the submitting author will upload two (2) new documents to the FastTrack submission page for the managing editor’s review. The first is the revised draft; the second should address the main concerns and suggestions raised in the editorial review. Adding text as needed to the original editorial review is recommended. Please be sure to add these as new files; select the link "[Attach another file]" in the Manuscript Attachments, Revisions, Finals section to upload the new files. See image below (highlights added). Please do not upload them as a new document submission, which would create a new FastTrack number for the same title.

Note that this process is also suitable for uploading additional draft-related content, such as author-selected images or graphics.

 This secondary review generally takes far less time than the initial review; the editor compares the new draft to the draft returned to the authors in order to see that all suggestions, concerns, and remarks were addressed. On occasion, the editor will have additional questions for the author. These are usually addressed through email rather than through FastTrack, unless the editor believes the new matters require substantial rewriting.

When the managing editor has completed the secondary review, the draft is returned to the submitting author for additional revisions. The timeline for this additional revision is generally open-ended, but the authors are expected to address these concerns as quickly as possible. The managing editor may contact the author(s) with a gentle reminder if several weeks have passed without receiving a new draft.

Please note that it is the author’s responsibility to remove all comments and notations from the draft once they have been fully addressed. Consequently, a draft returned to the managing editor after the secondary revision should have only new comments and/or edits for the editor to review.

On most occasions, a secondary revision is followed by a third round of edits to fine tune final details. On rare occasions, a fourth round (or more) may be necessary. When following the practice in the above paragraph, each succeeding draft should have fewer comments and text changes so that both author and managing editor can see the new concerns at a glance.

Once all questions, comments, and concerns are met, the edits are complete. Please continue to the final tab.

The Edits are Complete!

After all concerns are met, the managing editor contacts the author via email that the editing process is complete, and informs the author that the document has been passed to the Formatting & Publication Specialist for publication.

The managing editor also updates the submission record in FastTrack by uploading the completed publication draft to the submission page, and makes a note in the “Edit submission details” field that records the date and the publication number. Starting in October 2022, UME publications are issued a publication number that is a combination of publication type and its FastTrack submission number (as outlined in Step 6 of Signing up for FastTrack).

This concludes the Editing Process. The Publication Process now begins.