The Australasian Journal of Environmental Management: observations of a retiring editor

This is my final editorial as managing editor of the Australasian Journal of Environmental Management. Beginning in 2005, I was co-editor, with Grant Wardell-Johnson for the first 18 months, then with Bill Carter for 14 years from 2007 into early 2021. During my sole editorship from 2021 Claudia Baldwin has assisted a great deal. I take this opportunity to share a short history of the journal and our initiatives, and to reflect on some of the changes in publishing during nearly 30 years of my association with the journal. In doing so I hope to add to the recorded history of the journal, and to enlighten more authors and readers about the work required ‘behind the scenes’ to bring good research and ideas to print in a journal.

Journal history

The journal was founded in mid-1994 as the Australian Journal of Environmental Management. Molesworth (2003), marking the first ten years of publication, explained that the journal was founded:

… because my colleagues in the Institute were of the view that in Australia at that time there did not exist a sound vehicle to publish peer-reviewed works focusing on the emerging or evolving “learning” about environmental management. As an Institute we saw it as our duty, being members of a profession, to foster interest in the cutting edge of environmental management so that readers could reflect upon their own practice in the context of the knowledge and experience of others (4).

Inaugural editor Eric Anderson (1994-2004) set strong foundations for the journal, in its publication arrangements and standing, with strong support from the EIANZ executive. Anderson et al. (2014) document the efforts of the then President of EIANZ, Mary Lou Morris, and a small group of others to establish the journal, a ‘mammoth task’ (134) of securing donations from organisations and individual members in order to underwrite the start. Morris (1997) mentions the first publisher, the Law Book Company, in her history of the Institute’s first ten years, but not the many discussions needed to find a publisher (Eric Anderson pers. comm). One of the organisations that agreed to underwrite the journal was the (then) Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, where Stephen Dovers (one of the two original associate editors, alongside Tor Hundloe) and I worked; Director Henry Nix was a strong supporter. Eric called on Stephen often, and on me occasionally, for advice through that first decade.

In 2003 the journal was renamed the Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, to recognise Aotearoa-New Zealand joining the Institute (Molesworth 2003).

When Eric announced his retirement in 2004 and EIANZ advertised for successors, Stephen Dovers suggested that I should submit an expression of interest given the strength of EIANZ and academic activity in South East Queensland. (I had left ANU and joined The University of Queensland’s Gatton campus as Professor in 2000). It took me very little time to find wholehearted support from Head of School Ockie Bosch and an enthusiastic co-editor in colleague Grant Wardell-Johnson, an ecologist. Grant recommended his then PhD student, Jasmyn Lynch as editorial assistant. Since time was far more important to us than funds, we used all of our honorarium to pay assistants, until 2022.

Late in 2004 Eric and his wife Helene drove his files from Canberra to Brisbane in a very full station wagon, and stayed with me for a couple of days of handover. He had kept every submission, every review (done on paper in those days), and every floppy disk the manuscripts were submitted on, all neatly filed in re-used envelopes. The journal also had its own letterhead paper and envelopes. Helene took me aside to suggest a spreadsheet: she had never managed to persuade Eric to use one. (We already had one, thanks to Jasmyn). Eric and Helene have continued to keep in contact and Eric has given positive feedback on the journal ever since.

From 1998 the Institute decided to save funds by parting with the Law Book Company and having the editor self-publish with the help of an excellent typesetter and printery, Hallmark Editions. This meant shifting the work of copy editing and managing production entirely onto the editor, for which Eric was paid an additional but, I consider, insufficient percentage on his honorarium given each manuscript took five to seven hours to copy edit, and the editor also had to liaise with the printer. We continued this arrangement until 2010, with Jasmyn, who had astounding skills in English honed by some years as a Commonwealth public servant, doing the copy editing with the editors’ help. I recall wonderful hours discussing the finer points of grammar and punctuation with Jasmyn and Bill, with much recourse to the Australian Government Style Manual (Style Manual) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002; APSC, 2023) and Fowler’s Modern English Usage (Fowler 1968). One of the many challenges until 2023 was needing to produce an exact number of pages for each issue, to meet hard copy requirements without blank pages. This meant much calculation of the page lengths for each article and the combined set. Fortunately we could use book reviews, and adjust the lengths of our editorials, to arrive at the multiple of four pages needed for each print run.

Early in our editorship we recognised the need to keep up with rapid changes in journal publishing. Bill Carter and I, encouraged by Stephen Dovers, decided that it was essential to offer an online version. I no longer recall which party found and approached the other, but Informit, then part of RMIT Publishing, signed a non-exclusive contract with EIANZ in November 2006 to publish the journal online, and promote it in electronic databases. This included back issues. It opened the journal to a much wider readership, and enabled a stream of royalties to EIANZ.

Meanwhile we decided to position ourselves for eventual acceptance into the prestigious Thomson Reuters system of impact factors, which rates and ranks journals according to the frequencies with which their articles are cited within a defined time window. Thus we began to invite prominent international scholars with interests in Australia or Aotearoa-New Zealand to join the editorial advisory board, from 2008. At that time it was unusual for independently published journals to be accepted into this system, and the process of application and eventual acceptance was reputed to take at least two years. Impact factors were also unusual outside the physical sciences. To our amazement, Thomson Reuters approached us, a year before we expected to be ready to apply. AJEM was accepted in 2010, and received its first one-year impact factor, 0.45, in 2011. (It reached 1 in 2016, and 2.6 in 2021, with a fall-back to 1.4 in 2022).

Periodically major publishers approached us offering to publish the journal. In 2009 Bill Carter and I had decided the workload of self-publishing was excessive, and the journal was missing out on online opportunities that were only possible through a major publisher. The cost of buying into the use of the software required was prohibitive. We could not hope to keep up with other developments in publishing, let alone achieve the distribution reach of a major publisher. We researched a case, which EIANZ Board accepted. EIANZ sought expressions of interest and chose Taylor & Francis (T&F), which has a strong record of working in partnership with societies. This enabled our efforts to be directed much more usefully, EIANZ to earn more royalty income, and most importantly, the journal could expand its online profile, be marketed much better, and grow in readership and influence.

Bill Carter introduced an important initiative, of writing substantive editorials that offered commentary on matters of importance in environmental management. We began these in 2010. Our first to have a topical heading was on ‘the misnomer of environmental management’ (Ross et al. 2010). I had to be persuaded about the extra workload in writing these editorials, but over the years they have been rewarding to write and have been among the journal’s most downloaded and cited works. Five of the 10 most downloaded works in this journal to date are editorials, the most downloaded of all – articles or editorials - being by Jackson and Moggridge (2019) for a special issue on Indigenous water management. Ross et al. (2016), clarifying the concepts of public participation and community engagement, ranks third of all works. Lynch et al. (2018) on Indigenous guidance in environmental management ranks fifth; Baldwin and Ross (2020) on the 2019-2020 fire season and opportunity to address climate change is sixth; and Ross and Nursey-Bray (2020), on another Indigenous theme, going beyond spoken acknowledgements of Country to real recognition and action, is seventh.

From the start of 2011 Bill and I added our Editor’s Tips at the end of three out of four editorials each year (the space in the fourth being used to acknowledge reviewers at the end of the year). The tips arose from our observations (make that frustrations) about basic errors made by authors. (See McAfee 2010 for a highly entertaining editorial about his ‘laugh or cry’ experiences, amidst much wisdom and experience). We seldom hear about reader responses to the tips, but they have been cathartic to write. Our many PhD students at least have appreciated copies of the advice, and we gained from thinking about what authors should do, and how to explain that.

While the Law Book Company published the journal with mundane covers, Eric and the printer Hallmark Editions began the practice of full size cover pictures, a new one each year. Choosing the annual cover image is both challenging and enjoyable. The image needs to be interesting, topical, yet not compete with any of the spaces where words are needed for title, logo and organisation name, the short titles on the front cover or the contents on the back. The image must also be high resolution, which rules out many of those we have considered. Grant, an excellent photographer, supplied some of the early images such as an aerial view of a coast in used in 2006. Bill and I would decide on a theme, such as marine, urban, climate change, wildlife, then canvas our networks for someone to provide an image, with acknowledgement. We made sure to feature Aotearoa-New Zealand photos every few years. If a special issue was due in the coming year we would seek an image to suit that theme. Thus guest editor Ben Allen (now an AJEM associate editor) provided a confronting image of a dead turtle on K’Gari for the special issue on wildlife conservation management on inhabited islands in 2018, and an author, Dan Hutton, supplied an image of an ancient mound site of the Barapa Barapa people in Murray River wetlands for the special issue on Heritage and Environmental Management in 2021. Henrik Moller, Aotearoa-New Zealand ecologist and photographer provided the image for this year’s special issue on ecology and conservation. My sister-in-law Shelley Ross of Flying The Outback¹, and a former editor of Australian Flying, supplied several cover images. Another image came through a keynote speaker at the EIANZ annual conference, who introduced us to her PhD student and part-time photographer John Turnbull, leading to the seahorse image used in 2019. Qian He, a Brisbane dentist who shows slide shows on her clinic ceilings to distract patients, supplied the image of cattle with power lines to represent climate change for the 2022 cover. Choosing an image was only the starting point. We then needed to zoom, crop, and send drafts back and forth with the publishers and photographers. For the years of our self-publishing, a helpful colleague also checked the wording for red-green colour-blind accessibility.

Special issues are an opportunity to create bodies of work on topics of interest, and to work with diverse guest editors. This journal has produced 16 special issues in its nearly 30 years, four in Eric Anderson’s time and 12 since². The number and timing depends on the proposals we receive, and what we can manage in terms of overall flow of manuscripts and workload.

Diversity initiatives

This journal has always sought to recognise Indigenous peoples, and to foster understanding of Indigenous knowledge and perspectives. We made sure an Indigenous-focused and co-authored article appeared early in the first issue: Ross et al. (1994), co-authored by Arrernte scholar and (then) Commonwealth public servant Lynette Liddle. We appointed Prof. Hirini Matunga of Lincoln University, Aotearoa – New Zealand, to AJEM’s editorial advisory board in 2006. In 2019 we were delighted to publish a special Issue on Indigenous water management, guest edited by Sue Jackson and Bradley Moggridge. The 2021 special issue on heritage and environmental management, guest edited by members of EIANZ’s Heritage Special Interest Section, sought to raise the profile of heritage management, and particularly Indigenous heritage, within the environmental management profession. With some help from the Institute’s Indigenous Engagement Working Group, our editorial team and Hirini Matunga, we introduced words that would suit both countries on our inside cover late in 2020 stating:

The Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand acknowledges the rights, interests and stewardship of the Indigenous Peoples of both countries in the protection and management of environmental and biocultural values.

A number of Indigenous reviewers have contributed to our peer review processes, some on many occasions.

We have also always sought, and achieved, gender balance among the co-editors and associate editors. Similarly we have ensured strong gender representation on the editorial advisory board, across the criteria of disciplinary and geographic distribution. Cultural diversity is also present among associate editors and board members. We would have liked to include a gender and Indigenous analysis in Carter and Ross (2014), but this would have required much more information and time, particularly where publication was under initials rather than full names.

Reflections on editing an interdisciplinary journal

Editing an interdisciplinary journal brings some unusual requirements. Attracting a wide range of publishable manuscripts has never been a problem (Carter and Ross 2014). Thanks to Eric Anderson’s efforts the journal’s scope and reputation were already well established when our team began editing, and manuscripts keep coming. I attend the EIANZ annual conference each year, sometimes with an associate editor, to meet potential authors and hear current themes. Working as co-editors with social science and ecology backgrounds, and with further fields represented among the associate editors, has been effective in attracting and assessing manuscripts, and given us breadth for tapping our combined networks to find reviewers. While this and most other national journals suffered under Australia’s experiment with ranking of journals in 2010, with (so far as we could tell) no national journal scoring higher than a ‘B’ rating, our editorial advisory board members ensured we were listed very favourably in some disciplines, leading to a surge in articles on business – which continues.

Our metric analysis for the 20^th anniversary of the journal (Carter and Ross 2014) showed that the journal was highly interdisciplinary in fulfilling its stated scope of ‘address[ing] general issues of policy and practice in resource and environmental management, with a focus on Australian and New Zealand practice’ (201). We found the main fields represented to be Environmental Science, Economics, Policy and Political Science, Biological Science, and Law and Commerce, in that order. Two-thirds (67%) of authors were affiliated with universities, the others being government staff (23%), and the remainder (10%) working with industry as consultants or in other capacities.

Writing for an interdisciplinary journal is not solely a matter of subject matter. It requires an accessible writing style, understanding that the target audience includes people from any discipline, not necessarily that of the authors, and for practitioners as much as for academics. Thus it is important to avoid, or explain, jargon and abbreviations that our readers (and often the editors) could not be expected to understand. Some authors need reminding that our readers want to see the management or policy implications of their work; it is not sufficient to report the science without this guidance. We also need to maintain a consistent style, with headings, figure and table captions, despite different disciplines preferring different styles. We insist on proper ‘conclusions’, not tailing off with ‘concluding remarks’, a fashion in some fields. Bill and I put a lot of effort into coaching authors with good ideas but weaker manuscripts. This is time-consuming, but we believe leads to important contributions to knowledge. The quality of presentation and positive feedback from readers makes it worthwhile.

Insisting on academic writing style (essentially plain English with a more formal tone), is another issue of quality control. I have noticed distinct – and recent - trends in use of particular words that are excessive in academic writing. The prevalence of ‘reveal’, supplanting the far more accurate ‘show’ and ‘demonstrate’, appears to come from journalism. To test my perception that attempted use of this word is a recent trend, I have run a Google Trends search on ‘reveal’ for Australia, Aotearoa-New Zealand, and the world, for the period 2004 to present. The use of that word in search terms (not necessarily in academic writing) has risen markedly from about 2009, with unexplained peaks in a few years. Similarly many authors now lean to the arguably excessive ‘impacted’ instead of ‘influenced’ and its synonyms. There is more use (and editorial removal) of the Americanism ‘will likely be … .’. The lazy use of ‘around’ where authors mean ‘concerning’ is not even acknowledged in the 2016 edition of Fowlers (Butterfield 2016). Many early career authors write to thank us for the degree of care we take with their work, and the ancillary tuition in writing.

Another issue with writing standards is that many universities are recommending that higher degree students publish while undertaking their research. While this is highly beneficial in terms of academic training, it means that more novice academic writers are submitting manuscripts. In theory their academic advisers, who are usually listed as co-authors, should be improving the structure, lines of argument, and standards of English, but a number of the manuscripts we receive from early career first authors are deficient in these respects. This frustrates reviewers and places new levels of demand on editors.

Implications of trends in publishing

The slow process of retiring and moving out of my main academic office has reminded me of the extraordinary changes in technology during my co-editorship. As I mentioned above, until the mid-2000s, authors sent manuscripts on floppy disks with two hard copies. We had to manage with emailed manuscripts and recording manuscript handling on a spreadsheet until after joining T&F in 2011. Soon after that we were able to move onto the manuscript handling platform ScholarOne, and the Central Article Tracking System site where editors liaise with production staff over proofs and the assembly of issues.

Many editors and publishers report that it is increasingly difficult to find reviewers. In principle advances in the internet have made it easier to locate potential reviewers, in that one can search online for people working in relevant fields, especially from Australia or Aotearoa-New Zealand. ScholarOne now automatically suggests potential reviewers for each manuscript submitted, a mixed blessing as the same people may be approached over and over, and refuse (quite reasonably) or do not reply at all, causing delays. Another difficulty in finding reviewers relates to an increasing trend for journals to request tight turnarounds, on the logic that authors seek rapid decisions. They do, but reviewers are busy people, volunteering their time. We prefer to research carefully who would be most apt on a topic, then to offer them generous time to report. I was reassured to find that McAfee (2010) referred to waiting a long time for reports that ‘are generally serious, thoughtful and insightful’ (4). He also said he needed to approach four reviewers in order to secure two. We, and most fellow editors I have compared notes with are having to approach many more than that nowadays.

Another change in the publishing environment is the increasing promotion and popularity of open access journals and articles. In principle, open access makes publications available to everyone, so is excellent for dissemination, and removes financial barriers especially for people who are not affiliated with universities, and those in developing countries. It appears fairer. The disadvantage of open access is that authors pay instead, and this can be prohibitive for most unless their institution or a research grant covers the cost. We assume it disadvantages early career authors relative to more senior authors with better access to funding. Our team had to make a considered decision on open access some years ago, and opted to remain with the conventional publishing model. Fortunately, T&F later introduced ‘hybrid’ journals which enable open access for a fee, alongside conventional publishing.

Meanwhile publication ethics are increasingly problematic, with editors now asked to help detect unethical authorships. Variants are ‘ghost’ authorship (actual authors not credited, or their roles not made transparent if contentious), ‘gift’ and ‘guest’ authorships (where people who have not contributed enough to the research to merit authorship are nevertheless listed), and ‘papermills’ i.e. fabrication of articles, even special issues, to create an easy publication for an author (COPE 2023). While we have not detected ghost or gift authorships in AJEM, I have been puzzled by a surge in offers of special issues from implausible teams, which may well be ‘papermills’.

Rewards and relationships

To be an editor, one needs to have a passion for most aspects of the role. I came to it through my role on the editorial advisory board, membership of a peer network supporting the journal, and a belief in the journal’s mission. I also had, and continue to have, passions for clear academic writing, and for promoting interdisciplinary research. Being an editor, associate editor or board member, conveys esteem, and may contribute to assessment of contributions to one’s profession at promotion time. I often recommend to female academics that they seek positions on editorial boards, since this is a role that can help build an international reputation without travel, and increases one’s networks and experience. Nevertheless while university departments value publication highly and press authors to publish, few provide time, or recognition in promotion, for the editors, associate editors and reviewers who make that publication possible, gratis. Thus I suspect being an editor-in-chief is not a career move for the conventionally ambitious. My rewards have come from pleasure in the role, collaboration with our small team, continual learning, and latterly recognition from the EIANZ with the Simon Molesworth Award in 2013, Fellowship of the Institute also in 2013, then Honorary Life Membership in 2022.

Editing and publishing as teamwork

Publishing a journal involves a complex system of relationships between authors, editorial team and advisory board, journal owner - in our case EIANZ - and publisher. The publishing relationship with EIANZ has been ideal. EIANZ has always valued and respected editorial independence. In my time, EIANZ past and current presidents Bill Haylock, Jon Womersley, Michael Chilcott, and Vicki Brady have been highly supportive, as have Institute board members, and the Executive Officers Anne Young, Nicole Brown and now Jonathon Miller; and Narelle Mewburn and other EIANZ office staff. EIANZ Board members recognise that the Institute’s investment in a journal is both a benefit to members and a significant contribution to the profession and general public. Two of EIANZ’s Special Interest Sections have organised special issues, on heritage and ecology. A survey of members a few years ago showed very high levels of appreciation for the journal. Meanwhile T&F portfolio managers and production and other support staff complete the support system, and are a pleasure to work with.

Over time, production of this journal has involved many people. As we remarked in our first editorial (Ross and Wardell-Johnson 2005), where Eric had worked alone, and told us he spent half of his time on it, we needed co-editors to cope with journal editing and production while meeting the many demands of our academic careers. Editing with Grant, Bill, and Claudia has been a delight. We have had only four editorial assistants since 2005: Jasmyn Lynch alone from 2005 to 2007, then sharing with Natalie Jones from 2009 to 2012; Fairlie McIlwraith for 2008; Natalie Jones on her own (but fortunately not having to copy edit) from 2013 to early 2021; then Pratima Gupta from then onwards when T&F offered to supply an assistant. Recently Menchie Robel has taken this role.

We have two types of associate editors. The majority manage manuscripts with the editors. During the first 10 years the associate editors were Stephen Dovers and Tor Hundloe. Grant, Bill and I had the support of Marc Hockings, Ian Spellerburg, Brett Odgers, Shireen Fahey, Jasmyn Lynch, Claire Gronow, Johanna Rosier and Chris Jacobson. The most recent team is Claudia Baldwin, Thilak Mallawaarachchi, and Benjamin Allen, with Melissa Nursey-Bray stepping down a few months ago. (I apologise if I have overlooked anyone). Two associate editors have specialised roles. Stephen Dovers, who has been an associate editor for 30 years, handles manuscripts where any of the editors has a conflict of interest, and provides specific advice. A senior member of EIANZ is recognised as an associate editor, for liaison roles with the Institute especially in the five-yearly renewal of contracts with the publisher, and the rare event of recruiting new editors. David Hogg, Rebecca McIntyre, and now Ian Boothroyd have held that role. Meanwhile our book review editors have been ourselves (Helen Ross and Bill Carter), then Claudia Baldwin from 2009, and Alan Chenoweth from 2022.

We are also supported by an editorial advisory board. Geoff Syme and I were members of the inaugural board so – with Stephen Dovers - have been associated with the journal for its entire 30 years. Four people each year help to select the annual winner of the Eric Anderson award for best article. Some 80 to 100 people review for AJEM each year, many of them over and over. They are listed in each December issue.

Our team wishes the new managing editors, Animesh Gain and Oliver Fritsch, and the new team of associate editors they are in the process of appointing, as much pleasure in the editing role as we have had. I am excited by their ideas for the continuing development of the journal, including plans to celebrate the journal’s 30^th anniversary in mid-2024.

Articles in this issue

This issue begins with two articles written from a sustainable business perspective. Nicole Lashmar, Belinda Wade, Lynette Molyneaux and Peta Ashworth studied the decision-making procedures of commercial and industrial consumers of electricity in participating in demand response programs. Such organisations can assist electricity providers at times of peak energy demand, and save money or earn extra revenue by reducing their demands for electricity for short periods. This is an immense benefit to the system as it becomes increasingly reliant on renewables, by helping to balance out supply and demand without reliance on fossil fuel generation to cover peak periods. These authors examined the activation steps taken by 24 organisations. From that information they identified steps and supporting processes that can be added to existing energy management guidelines, to help businesses to take advantage of demand response opportunities in their daily operations. Amongst other benefits, this is likely to reduce the perceptions of risk involved in adopting demand management.

Amy Tung and Kevin Baird used a survey of chief financial officers of Australian manufacturing organisations to study the influences of stakeholder pressures and company concerns about public image in innovation in environmentally-friendly technology and manufacturing processes, and the subsequent effects on environmental and financial performance. Pressures from stakeholders to consider environmental issues, and companies' related concerns about their public image, promote technological innovation. Improving environmental processes through innovation then enhances both environmental and financial performance. Regulators have particular influence: organisations feel more pressure to initiate better environmental processes when they face stronger environmental regulation.

Governments and regional bodies for natural resource management promote changes in agricultural practices to reduce the amounts of sediments and nutrients damaging the Great Barrier Reef and its waters. Sugar cane is one of the industries strongly encouraged to change practices. Sara Shawky, Sharyn Rundle-Thiele and Patricia David take up a call for increased evaluation, by studying ten projects that encouraged sugar cane growers to change their practices. Through study of peer reviewed reports on these projects they found key factors to be government and industry partnerships, effective communication, training and education, grower or community leadership, financial support, return on investment and social factors. Absence of these factors can inhibit practice change, as can lack of availability of alternatives, lack of clear and transparent monitoring, and lack of trust between stakeholders and competing stakeholder interests.

This journal has a considerable record in publishing the methodology of choice modelling and closely related methodologies on environmental issues. Mark Tocock, Antonio Borriello, Dugald Tinch, John Rose and Darla Hatton MacDonald introduce an alternative to the common study of public willingness to pay directly for an environmental good, to consider the realistic proposition of willingness to accept reallocation of government budgets from other priorities to improving coastal water quality, and how environmental beliefs correlate with this willingness to have budgets reallocated. Their survey was conducted with a representative sample of South Australians. They developed a decision support tool for policy analysts to show how the probability of public support for budget reallocation relates to beliefs and socio-demographic characteristics. The work suggests that differences in individual beliefs can explain some of the ambiguity in previous results.

Each farm dam may represent a relatively small body of water, but collectively they have major environmental impacts within agricultural catchments and river systems, and pose public safety risks from dam failure. Joanne Tingey-Holyoak and John Pisaniello review current knowledge and the levels of regulation of farm dams in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, within the context of national water policy. They also review current tools for accounting for farm dams. In a survey of South Australian farmers’ dam management behaviours and farmer perceptions, they found that many farmers are storing more water than they are entitled to, and that this is fostered by poor scrutiny. They argue the need for integrated, interdisciplinary approaches to accounting for farm dams. They propose a preliminary framework for assisting dam decision-making, across scales, and to identify individual water hoarding and dam failures, assess cumulative effects including those of droughts and floods.

While there is gratifying interest in improving institutional arrangements in order to incorporate Indigenous perspectives and interests more strongly in environmental management, adaptation of western arrangements often fails to represent Indigenous understandings and custodial responsibilities sufficiently. One example is the attempt to extend the logic of ‘environmental flows’ in water allocation to ‘cultural flows’. Siobhan Davies, Graham Marshall, and Malcolm Ridges take up Aboriginal calls for cultural flows to be defined in terms of water entitlements, i.e. a property right to water. They discuss how well a property rights construct might be compatible with Aboriginal ontologies, which involve complex webs of collective rights and responsibilities. They argue that a property rights perspective holds promise, but needs to extend beyond rights to flows of water, to encompass a broader bundle of rights that includes and respects management and governance rights.

New impact factor and related metrics

AJEM achieved an ‘impact factor’ of 1.4 for 2022 in the Thomson Reuters (ISI Web of Knowledge), a slip-back from the 1.8 achieved in 2021 and 2.6 in 2022 (though in that year all journals were helped by a change in the computational time window). The one-year impact factor is only one of several metrics for journals. On the more realistic five-year impact factor we score 2, and we score 4 on Scopus CiteScore, which is based on a four-year citation time window. Scopus rates the journal as quartile 2 (best quarter), i.e. in the top 26-50% or journals in our field, based on citation rates.

Annual award for the best publication in AJEM

The Eric Anderson Award for the best article published in this journal in 2022-2023 has been awarded to Jan McDonald and Manon Simon (2023) on ‘Ethics requirements for environmental research’. The judges commented that the article is:

… very well written with great potential to influence both policy and practice. The authors are realistic and do not push for another burdensome committee overlaying research, but they rather provide meaningful and pertinent recommendations for how environmental ethics can and should be integrated into existing research institutions.

We also congratulate the runners up, Jen Smart, Isabelle Wolf and Pascal Scherrer (2022) for their ‘Loo with a view: managing snow-based backcountry visitors’ remote toileting experiences’.

We thank the selection panel:

• Prof. Angus Morrison-Saunders (academic, Edith Cowan University WA),

• Dr Bec McIntyre (practitioner, Queensland),

• Dr Susan Campbell (practitioner and public servant, WA, representing Australian Wildlife Management Society),

• Prof. Hirini Matunga (academic, Lincoln University, NZ, AJEM Editorial Advisory Board member).

Editor’s tip: make a clear contribution to knowledge

Since I expect this to be my last editor’s tip (who knows) the choice is difficult. On reviewing the – probably – 32 editors tips we have written since 2011, I think the most important point, among many, is to consider carefully what contribution you seek to make to knowledge, then be clear in communicating that. This is the ‘so what’ question. Journal publications focus more strongly than professional reports on new contributions to knowledge, and on building the body of evidence - hence support for others’ findings, where more evidence is needed, and contradiction of previous findings. All authors need to highlight the new knowledge they contribute, amidst the points they could potentially report.

AJEM reviewers in 2022-2023

The editors thank all those who reviewed articles in late 2022 and 2023. The names of those willing to be acknowledged publicly will be placed on the T&F website, at www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14486563.2023.2298574. Most of these people reviewed more than one version of a manuscript, and several reviewed more than one manuscript. We recognise the enormous amount of voluntary work involved in reviewing, a workload which is essential to the quality of publishing.

Acknowledgements

I thank Eric Anderson and Claudia Baldwin for commenting on the draft of this editorial.

Notes

1 A site promoting inland Australia to pilots, see https://www.flyingtheoutback.com.au/

2 A list is available on the journal’s web page, at https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/tjem20/special-issues