I became editor of the American Journal of Health Education on August 1, 2005. The issue you now hold (November-December 2011) is my 37th and last. Being editor has been both the most educational and most fulfilling professional experience that I have ever had. And, it is most appropriate that I thank Dr. Becky J. Smith, the former executive director of the American Association for Health Education for entrusting the position to me a little more than six years ago. Whereas Becky and I had known one another in casual professional circles for probably two decades, I think it is safe to say that we both must have wondered how my running the Journal's editorial content would work out, inasmuch as we came from somewhat different philosophies and work styles. Any apprehension notwithstanding, I was given free reign and never felt as if someone was looking over my shoulder. I am most grateful for that trust placed in me.
In addition to our discussing a number of professional concerns during my tenure as editor, Becky and I also shared the experience of each losing a beloved mother during this time. It gave us another dimension in which to see the crossover of private and professional lives. When one of Becky's longtime friends, and a professional stalwart herself, Ann Nolte, passed away in 2009, coincidentally, I was named the Ann Nolte Scholar by colleagues at Illinois State University just a few months later. This occasion provided another opportunity for us to delve into our profession's rich history during many discussions. Our mutual respect grew over the past few years and I have come to see Becky as a uniquely dedicated steward of our profession--as much a steward as anyone I have ever known. That we collaborated on two articles that appear in this, my final issue as editor, provides a fitting outcome of the many lunches and inspiring dialogues about health education that we have shared since 2005.
Prior to becoming editor I had, of course, seen the publishing enterprise from the viewpoints of author and reviewer. Although I had served on my share of editorial boards and as a column editor for this Journal, as well as two others over 30+ years in academia, no prior experience in particular completely prepared me for the task at hand.
Being editor has been educational in several ways. It necessitated that I read some 1,350 manuscripts; an education in itself. Through that process, one learns more completely what one's peers are up to in their research and philosophical endeavors. Ordinarily, as a scholar-researcher-teacher, one sees only those papers that are accepted, whether those are ones in the American Journal of Health Education or ones occupying space in some other publication. What gets published may, in no way, represent what our colleagues are actually doing and thinking about on a day-to-day basis. Consequently, as editor, one encounters a greater breadth of the profession and can judge the relevance of what is being contributed by members of the profession--academicians and practitioners alike. Also as editor, one is able to examine the richness of content and diversity of issues that our colleagues undertake. Although some authorities are rightfully critical of this enormous breadth that often never gets us beyond a 'generalist' label, this diversity is also what brings us some of our uniqueness and professional identity. That said, as I reflect on what I have seen from contributors over these past six years, I would conclude that: (1) while getting better, much of our research is still lacking sophistication of design; (2) too many of our research questions lack a strategic vision with respect to adding to an evidence base on important issues; and (3) whereas no insignificant quantity of contributed research is about the profession itself, not enough of it applies a critic's eye.
Something that improves a journal's quality is the skill set brought by the reviewers. The Journal has always had some good reviewers, and still does--it just does not have enough of them--particularly in some content areas and in some research-evaluation-statistical domains. It would not surprise me if every editor at every journal office would make a similar claim, though, so I do not want to whine about that. The Journal is stronger today in this regard than in 2005, but is still far from being on a high plain. The editor's nightmare is to receive three reviews--one recommending 'accept,' one recommending 'reject,' and one recommending 'resubmit with revisions.' My successor will, no doubt, share this trauma. Another aspect of my education as editor has been to see the variation of sophistication among reviewers--from those who offer as their only feedback 'Good article, I recommend it be accepted,' to those who write multi-page single-spaced critiques where even the completeness and accuracy of each reference has been checked. Still others focus little on the science, content, or research design but write 'shocking' evaluations in which the placement of commas, the non-uniformity of verb tense and the unevenness of paragraph indents are cited as reasons for rejection.
Being editor has been professionally fulfilling. I think I used the metaphor once that becoming editor is a little like being a member of the orchestra who steps out in front of it to become the conductor and portraying the music to others the 'way he hears it.' Not everyone has liked some of the changes I initiated; others may not have even noticed them, because professionals view and use the Journal for a variety of purposes. What do I think we accomplished here since 2005 about which I take some pride? My list includes: (1) fast-tracking the review process to an average turnaround time on a first review of 17-18 days, the best I think among peer journals; (2) increasing the number of iterations (revisions) of a manuscript prior to acceptance--always at least one revision to sometimes as many as four or five--it greatly improved the overall end-product that appeared in print, and gave some manuscripts visibility that otherwise might never have seen the light of day; (3) decreasing the backlog by decreasing the acceptance rate--hovering consistently now around 15%--and by default, decreasing the time from acceptance-to-print to a mere 2-3 issues; (4) improving the consistency and accuracy of style--from headings to references; (5) making original research the Journal's primary focus, and introducing for each research article the feature entitled 'Implications for Health Education Practice' thereby attempting to bring the science closer to the practitioner; (6) transitioning the Journal to both a print and electronic format; (7) spinning off the 'teaching ideas' column to what has now become its own online entity; (8) expanding the index listing for the Journal, although to my disappointment, never completing the submission process for consideration by PubMed, which if achieved, would greatly enhance prospective authors' view of the Journal as worthy publication outlet; and (9) as noted above, ratcheting up the review process and the reviewers' skill set. These accomplishments aside, my successor will have opportunities to grow the Journal and shape it as he or she sees fit.
I am especially pleased to recognize in this final issue of 2011, the 50th anniversary of the launch of the School Health Education Study (SHES), one of the health education profession's great milestones. Three articles are included. The first article is a reflective interview with Dr. Gus T. Dalis, a member of the original SHES writing team, and now, its only surviving contributor. The second paper is a compilation of responses from 16 school health scholar-historians who offer their impressions about the importance and legacy of the SHES. The third and final article examines some of the studies and reports of the past 50 years that have generated support for school health education, but that leave us with ongoing challenges to address many of the very recommendations first offered by the SHES in the 1960s.
To all of the Journal reviewers, to my outstanding editorial assistants helping me during my time as editor, Teri L. Malo and Jamie L. Myers, to my institution that allocated me the time and space to conduct these duties, and to my many supportive colleagues, I say again, thank you all. It truly has been my most memorable professional experience.
Robert J. McDermott is a professor of Health Education and Co-Director Florida Prevention Research Center in the Department of Community and Family Health University of South Florida, 13201 Bruce B. Downs Blvd. MDC 056, Tampa, FL 33612; E-mail: rmcdermo@health.usf.edu.
