A merican Antiquity is in excellent shape. We continue to publish a diversity of topics from various theoretical perspectives. Our submissions have increased to 93Footnote 1 in 2019, up from 80 in 2018. This is significant because we have a better pool of papers to work with at a time when there are many publication venues to choose from. The average time to assign the first reviewer was only 1.8 days in 2019. This is almost twice as fast as was done in 2018. The average time for a decision once the reviews are complete also improved. In 2019 it only took 3 days, compared to 7 days in 2018. Most reviewers completed their critiques within 21 days of acceptance. During the period of April 2018–April 2020 (since I became the editor), we had four articles and three reports that were accepted in under 60 days. As one author noted, they spoke to me at the annual meeting in April about an idea, then wrote and submitted an article that was in print by the following January issue. Not everyone will see their papers published that quickly, but if they adhere to the SAA Style Guidelines and the reviewers complete their critique in a timely fashion, the entire process can take under a year. In other words, we are turning around papers quickly.
In the October 2018 issue, after serving as editor of American Antiquity for about six months, I introduced myself and my vision for the journal in “Editor's Corner.” One primary goal was to publish high-quality papers from a range of geographical regions and theoretical perspectives. In order to determine if this was achieved, I reviewed the April 2018–April 2020 issues. We have had papers from every culture region in North America, as well as some with broader appeal on international issues (Table 1). The majority of papers were focused on research in the Southeast, followed by the Northeast and Southwest. Some papers are on issues that are not regional in nature and are therefore in the category “not applicable.”
Number and Percentage of Publications by Region from April 2018 to April 2020.
Note: Some submissions covered more than one area. In these cases, they were assigned to the most predominant area discussed in the publication.
Determining the geographic locations where research occurs is much easier than examining types of topics, methods, or theoretical perspectives. I decided to use rough groupings to categorize papers by topic, acknowledging that this classification has problems in terms of objectivity. Many papers could be placed in one or more topics. I made a decision based on the primary focus of the paper and on this basis, most papers during this period focused on lithics and archaeometry, making up 39.3% of the papers between April 2018 and April 2020 (Table 2). Approximately 20% of the topics were related to archaeometry, with men as lead authors about 89% of the time. A similar pattern is seen with the papers focused on lithics, which were about 19% of the topics, with 88% of them published by men as lead authors. The percentage of men as lead authors was greater than the percentage of women for most topics in Table 2, with the exception of bioarchaeology and production studies. Articles focused on ethical issues or publishing and research (grouped into a category of ethical issues) by gender were more evenly balanced. Out of the 89 papers that were published during these two years, nine of them, or 10.1%, were on ethics, with lead women authors publishing 44% of them, compared with lead author men at 56%. The category of “other” includes unique topics or methods and encompasses papers on production and experimental archaeology. I invite you all to take a look at the submissions during this two-year period and come up with your own categories. I am always open to new interpretations of existing data.
Number and Percentage of Primary Topic by Gender from April 2018 to April 2020 (in Descending Order by Number of Submissions).
Another goal as editor of American Antiquity is to highlight discrepancies in publication rates by documenting the percentage of submissions and accepted manuscripts by gender. Anyone can take a look at what we have published by gender, but as an editor, I am able to address submission rates, an aspect of publishing not easily accessible. All the gender data here are provided for first author only for the calendar years of 2018 and 2019 separately. Since gender is not officially reported, I estimated gender based on multiple lines of evidence. This is not ideal, but at least it gives us a glimpse of gender balance. In addition, I computed the acceptance rate by percentage of the number of submissions by each gender, instead of all submissions. The results are outlined below.
• Submissions by Gender
○ In 2019, 23 (24.7%) of the total submissions were made by women as lead authors, with 69 (74.2%) submitted by men. In 2018, the submission rate by women was slightly better, with 26 (32.5%) of the submissions made by women and 54 (67.5%) by men. These figures are disappointing because the number of submissions by women is so much less than those by men.
• Acceptance Rate by Gender
○ In 2019, 4 (17.4%) of the 23 papers by women as lead authors were accepted. In 2018, 14 (53.8%) of the 26 papers by women were accepted. One reason the rate is higher in 2018 is that it counts papers accepted in 2019 that were submitted by women in 2018; in other words, many 2019 submissions are still under consideration and excluded from the results presented here. We do not have similar data for the 2019 submissions. In 2019, men had 14 (20.3%) of the 69 papers submitted accepted, and in 2018, 25 (46.3%) of the 54 papers submitted.
• Rejection Rate by Gender
○ In 2019, women had 8 (34.8%) of the 23 papers they submitted rejected. It is interesting to note that in the same year men had the exact same percentage of papers rejected, 34.8%, in this case 24 of 69. In 2018, women had 9 (34.6%) of the 26 papers that were submitted rejected. This is similar to the rate of men, who had 38.9%, or 21 out of 54 papers submitted rejected.
• Papers Published in 2019 and 2018 by Gender
○ Women published 15 papers out of a total of 38 (39.5%) papers in 2019. This is a higher percentage than 2018, when women published 12 papers out of a total of 41 (29.3%) papers. In 2019, men published 23 papers out of a total of 38 (60.5%), and in 2018, 29 (70.7%) out of a total of 41.
As can be seen in the numbers presented, gender equity continues to be a significant issue in terms of publication in archaeology. Although I continue to encourage women to submit to American Antiquity, the number of submissions from women has not improved. In 2018, 32.5% of the submissions were from women. Unfortunately, in 2019, only 24.7% of the submissions were made by women as lead authors. This drop in submissions by women is discouraging, but there are some encouraging data on publication rates. In 2019, 39.5% of the papers published in American Antiquity were by women as lead authors. This is a clear improvement over the 29.3% by women in 2018. The rejection rate for both men and women is exactly the same in 2019 and similar in 2018. This is significant because it tells us that women and men are treated relatively equally once they have submitted papers to American Antiquity. We welcome submissions from all people, regardless of gender identity or ethnic background, and encourage women and other underrepresented groups to submit papers.
After serving as editor of American Antiquity for two years, I have learned a lot about the process, the journal, and our society. None of the accomplishments that have been made could have been done without the professional and experienced team of individuals working for American Antiquity. I would especially like to thank the associate editor for reviews, Christopher Rodning. There were 52 book reviews published in the four issues of American Antiquity during 2019 alone, and there are many lined up for 2020. Chris has done a remarkable job, and I am very grateful to him. I also want to acknowledge all the reviewers who have helped make American Antiquity such a professional journal. In 2019, 369 (69.8%) individuals accepted the request to review and completed their reviews, most of which were thorough, constructive, informed, and on time. I also want to acknowledge the 14 American Antiquity Board members who have been critical in making the journal so successful. They provide advice on reviewers as well as submissions that need special expertise. They are the backbone of the journal, along with Hugh Radde, the editorial assistant for American Antiquity; Julia Musha, the senior production editor at Cambridge University Press; and Maya Allen-Gallegos, the manager of publications for the Society for American Archaeology. Finally, I thank all the authors of papers and members of the Society for American Archaeology, as well as readers of American Antiquity. You keep us going and support the journal in many significant ways. I now urge you to encourage students, colleagues, and others to contribute to American Antiquity. We appreciate your support.
