I've been an Associate Editor for an important journal in my field for roughly two full months now. Whereas I'm not sure it was my best idea ever to agree to this, it has certainly been instructive. I will undoubtedly be faced with dozens of novel issues as I receive more manuscripts to review, but below are a few things I have learned so far.

- The topic and quality matter less than the authors. I have handled a bunch of papers now that are seemingly similar in content and quality. The major difference between them has been the author list: Some have prominent* names on them and some do not. But finding reviewers for the latter category is like pulling teeth, while locating them for the former is not. I assume that people are more willing to spend their time reviewing for those they see as producing good work. If the author list is unremarkable, people figure their time is better spent elsewhere.

- Don't believe the project number of papers you will handle. I've been doing this for two months and have already handled what the editor told me would be my likely annual allotment. Just come a little closer, this won't hurt a bit....

- Ignoring a review request is a shitty thing to do. Everyone is busy. We get that. And sometimes you just happen to have more on your plate than normal and can't take a review. This is why you have a "no thanks" option. Use it. Don't leave the AE sitting around waiting for a response. Inevitably, the second I give up on someone and invite a couple more, everyone suddenly agrees to review. If I wait, the original person never gets back to me. Just make a choice.

- If you work in a specialized subfield and won't review papers in that subfield, who will? Twice I have gotten papers on a topic that severely limited my potential reviewer list. I contacted the extent of the qualified people that I was aware of and all of them declined. Oooookaaaaay, now what? Who's going to review your papers when you send them in?

- Getting rejected without review is better than dragging the process out. I know it sucks to get the letter rejecting the paper you sent into a journal you like. And without review! How dare that AE! Well, the thing is that your time just got saved. Rather than going through the whole review process, only to have the manuscript spit out the other end, you can now reformat and send somewhere else. Not ideal, but the better of two bad options.

- If you sit on reviews, you lose the right to complain about time in review. Self explanatory, really.

I'm sure there are other things I'm not thinking of right this second, but the main point is that reviewing is about the community. Like it or not, we are the vehicle that drives the speed of publication.

*In the field of interest for the journal, that is.

In other grant thoughts for the morning, what are other NSFers putting in their travel budgets for conference travel. When I first started writing grants, someone told me it was normal to add $1K for a domestic conference and $2K for a foreign one. More recently I've realized that I can't walk out the door for less than about $1.5K and if I'm going overseas, we're talking at least $3k, but that's pushing it. Airfare is up and housing is often pricey. Add registration costs, etc., and the costs mount.

So I decided to adjust my budget accordingly in some recent grants. I colleague of mine actually noticed the increase when I asked the to take a quick look over the proposal and remarked that reviewers might think that was too much.

In various ways I have seen this type of thing manifest itself - "the cost of X must be $Y or else reviewers will baulk". But what if the cost of X is much greater than $Y? My opinion is that a couple of grand here or there in a grant budget is small change that no one should care about (hell, you could rebudget later if needed anyway), but this I've seen this type of reaction enough to be concerned about it in the review process.

So ask the NSFers among you, what are budgeting for travel? Has a reviewer ever remarked on that portion of your budget?

A couple of months ago I signed up for a NSF Bio preproposal panel. I did so without really knowing what I was in for; I mean, this is the first time it is happening, so it's up in the air. This week, however, I got the conflict of interest (COI) spreadsheet. This document is sent out to panelist to identify any proposals they should not be assigned or will have to step out of the room for during the discussion.

Based on a comparison to the last time I received a COI document from this same panel, I am estimating that the number of preproposals is in the neighborhood of 3X the number of full proposals this panel has recently received. The exact number isn't possible for me to guess because I'm not able to tell what the average number of PIs is on a co-PI proposal from the data I have, but given the new constraints my guess it it won't be far from 2.

So, if you're keeping track at home, the preproposals are 1/3 the length of the full proposals but 3X are submitted, making that a wash. I'm not clear whether there will be ad hocs for the preproposals, but my assumption is not. In August there will be a substantial reduction to what I expect will be ~20% of the preproposals coming back as full proposals. These will almost certainly go through ad hoc review, but their number will be a little less than half (I'm guessing based on convos with POs) the normal load. SO the ad hoc load will be drastically reduced on an annual basis (again, assuming no ad hocs for the preproposals) but the panelist load will be only slightly reduced along the same time period, with a big advantage going to the fall panel.

More to come as I get more info.

Since I'm in my Prof CrankyPants mode this week, I'll bust this out from almost exactly a year ago. Oddly, nothing has changed.

Dear Undergrad I am,
why must you send me much spam?
You fill my inbox with emails
more persistent than a swarm of snails.

Yes, you missed class I see
but concerned about this I can hardly be.
A vast array of details does not help your case.
In fact, you thinking that I even care is off base.

It is a shame that you were out in a boat
which after hitting a rock did not float,
but it is more than suffice to say
that you missed class and we'll be on our way.

I am sorry that your hamster died
and that you missed class because you cried
but a paragraph on how he was so fluffy
makes me want to stab myself like Buffy

I really don't want to hear about your friend Rob
whose member did start to throb.
He had to be taken to the doctor,
a trip you felt the need to proctor.

Don't eat the green eggs in the dining hall
a lesson that should be obvious to all
but you did not take the cue
and spent all class time in the lou.

Spare me the details of how much you were sick
and that you threw up all over your friend Rick.
I do not need to hear from your Mom
nor your roommate who witnessed it all, Tom.

You might notice in our classroom that smells like feet
that there are many, many a seat.
Is it that big of a surprise
that I did not miss your staring eyes?

It's time you grew up and get bright,
the slides are on the class website.
The readings are on the handout
your absence did not stand out.

Know the material for the test
and I hope you will do your best.
But please stop sending me excuses that are incomplete
because all I do is hit delete.