February 2007 // Volume 45 // Number 1
 |
 |
JOE by the Numbers 2006
Abstract
JOE by the Numbers reports on the 2006 submission rate, acceptance rate, and readership rate and calls attention to one of the most interesting features of the JOE site, the Top 50 Most Read Articles lists. February JOE mentions just six of 29 excellent articles.
JOE by the Numbers
As usual this time of year, I report on the previous year's submission rate, acceptance rate, and readership rate. I also call attention to one of the most interesting features of the JOE site--unless you count the issues themselves, of course.
Submission Rate
We have a new all-time high in submissions. JOE received 283 submissions in 2006, breaking our previous all-time high of 279 submissions, set in 2004.
Acceptance Rate
In 2006, the acceptance rate for JOE articles was 43%. JOE is a rigorous journal in which Extension professionals and other scholars should be proud to be published.
Readership Rate
JOE readership rates continue to rise. In 2006, there were 2,164,964 "visitors" to the JOE site who viewed 4,793,025 pages. This compares to 1,546,062 visitors who viewed 4,169,310 pages in 2005.
These numbers all say something about the growing popularity of the Web and even more about the success of JOE as the refereed journal for Extension professionals.
The Top 50 Most Read Articles
In 2002, we started offering reports on the most popular articles in JOE. You can find these reports at <http://www.joe.org/stats.html>. I swear there's a dissertation topic or two in there. While these lists are not a reflection on the quality of the JOE articles that "made the lists" as opposed to those that didn't, they do say a lot about the degree of interest readers from around the world have in some of the topics discussed in JOE articles.
February JOE
Yet another interesting issue. You people are good!
The Commentary in this issue "Can We Define and Measure Excellence in Extension?" and the first Tools of the Trade "Excellence in Extension: Two Products for Definition and Measurement" are a pair. The former describes the efforts of a national, ECOP-appointed group charged with the task of defining and devising a way to measure "Excellence in Extension." The latter describes two tools they developed to help us with this important issue.
Two more articles "Academic Health Centers and Cooperative Extension Service: A Model for a Working Partnership" and "Physical Activity Programming for Limited Resource Audiences: Get Moving Kentucky!" deal with an innovative partnership at the University of Kentucky and its success in delivering more effective health programming.
Finally, could you use some help with research methodology? Two other Tools of the Trade articles should prove particularly helpful to JOE readers and prospective writers. "Tips for Developing and Testing Questionnaires/Instruments" and "Conducting Program Evaluations Using the Internet" discuss just what their titles promise.
The other 23 articles are excellent, too. Read them and see.
Laura Hoelscher, Editor
joe-ed@joe.org