The current editorial team is now solidly into our second year at the helm of the Journal of Research in Personality, and I thought I'd take this opportunity to provide an update on how things are going. Last year was another good year for the journal. Submissions continued to increase in 2009, as did our impact factor and rejection rate. Based on the rate of submissions for the first four months of this year, I expect these trends to continue in 2010. Currently, we have about twenty percent more submissions for the first four months of the year as compared to 2009. This means that we may get as many as 100 more manuscripts in 2010 than we did in 2009. The quality of these submissions has been extremely high, resulting in issues that are filled with diverse and interesting personality research.

One major change that took place this year is that we added two new associate editors. After years of steadily increasing numbers of submissions, this addition is certainly welcome. Mike Furr and Oliver Schultheiss both joined JRP at the beginning of this year, and I think their expertise will be invaluable. I am confident that they will help ensure that JRP continues to handle manuscripts thoughtfully and efficiently.

One issue that we have considered very carefully during our transition concerns improving the editorial process for authors and reviewers. Over the past year, there have been a number of discussions, both in print (in Perspectives on Psychological Science) and in discussion boards, regarding editorial policies and the review process at psychological journals. Although we have made no radical changes at JRP, we have paid close attention to these discussions and incorporated the best suggestions into our review process. One thing that I think we have done well is to ensure that we handle manuscripts as quickly as possible. In 2009, our average time to first decision was about 30 days. This number might be a bit misleading, as it includes papers that were not sent out for review (either because they were evaluated using the streamlined review policy or because they were rejected without review). But even if we exclude those papers, the average time to first decision was less than two months. Very few papers stayed in the review process for longer than three months.

Furthermore, I have encouraged the editorial team to think very carefully about whether a paper that has received a revise and resubmit decision needs to be sent out for review again upon resubmission. My philosophy is that although reviewers are invaluable in identifying issues that editors may not have seen, the editors themselves should usually be able to determine whether an author has successfully addressed issues that the original reviewers raised. Of course, some technical issues require a second look by a true expert on the topic, but usually resubmitted papers receive editorial decisions without being sent out for a second review, often within a week or so of the resubmission. Hopefully, these policies streamline the review process and reduce reviewer burden.

The result of these policies (combined with Elsevier's very efficient production staff) is that papers submitted to JRP are often published on our website and accessible to colleagues within just three or four months of their first submission. Papers submitted under the streamlined review policy can be seen by others even more quickly, with some papers being published on the website within weeks of their initial submission. We think that this compares quite favorably with alternative outlets for personality research and hopefully it will make JRP an even more desirable place for people to publish their best work.

Of course, it takes the editorial team quite a bit of effort to move papers through the review process this quickly. Therefore, I have two requests of the members of ARP. If you approve of the way that manuscripts have been handled at JRP, please think about the ways that you can help. Specifically, although we know that most of you are already overburdened with reviews, please consider our requests to review very carefully (though do turn them down quickly if you simply cannot accept the assignment). One of the biggest sources of delays in the review process is identifying and recruiting an initial set of reviewers to comment on a paper. If you approve of our editorial policies, choosing to review for us helps us continue to improve our efficiency.

Second, please consider sending your best work to JRP. We know there are now quite a few outlets for personality research, as new journals seem to pop up regularly. But again, if you endorse our editorial policies and our quick turnaround, then the best reward that we can receive is to see the quality of submissions continue to increase. Our goal is to make the process as pleasant as possible for those who submit (even if the decision is ultimately a negative one), which we hope will attract the best and most innovative personality research to the pages of JRP.

On a final note, I want to thank all of you who have reviewed for us over the past year and a half. We have been very fortunate that the reviewers we have recruited have been responsive, and the reviews we have obtained (many of which have been provided by ARP members) have been extremely thoughtful and constructive. I have heard stories from editors at other journals where it consistently takes a list of six or eight requests just to get two people to agree to review, but this happens very rarely at JRP. We very much appreciate the hard work that reviewers do, as it makes our jobs much easier. And of course, we thank all the authors for submitting such great work to the journal. We look forward to seeing much more of it in the years to come!