What do crop and horticultural researchers think about the New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science?

Summary of an email opinion survey

Sandra Stanislawek, May 2002

Introduction

In May 2002, an email survey was conducted by the Editor with assistance from the Editorial Advisory Board. Questions were emailed to staff at HortResearch, Crop & Food Research, other Crown Research Institutes and Government Agencies, Auckland University, Lincoln University, Otago University, Massey University, UNITEC, members of NZSHS and NZIAS, various members of ISHS, overseas referees, plus various colleagues in Germany and Australia.

A copy of the email sent out was as follows:

Responses

Sixty-five responses were received  (New Zealand, 48; overseas, 17). All respondents were thanked and additional information was provided as required. This included information on the scope, electronic submission of papers, availability of Abstracts and full text on the Internet, and citation data.

Summary of responses

Question (1) NZJCHS  perceptions:

How do you (and your colleagues/institution) feel about NZJCHS?

Scope and focus areas (currently apples and kiwifruit)  (broaden/specialise)?

Procedures (refereeing/editorial)?

Format (print/electronic)? International standing (ranking/distribution/readership)?

General perceptions: New Zealand respondents

NZJCHS is considered to be a good, reputable journal that maintains high standards. It serves a useful function in that it allows for the publication of New Zealand research and is an excellent vehicle for communicating this research. As a national journal, NZJCHS is an important component of New Zealand science and it deserves to receive more support and needs to be nurtured. It is critical to sustaining agricultural and horticultural disciplines within New Zealand's scientific community. However, the journal still does not have a large enough commitment of New Zealand scientists publishing frontline new scientific discoveries in NZJCHS. 

NZJCHS is seen by most respondents as a "local" journal for New Zealand (regional) focused research. NZJCHS features excellent high-quality papers on crops grown in New Zealand in New Zealand conditions and therefore directly relevant to the New Zealand crop and horticultural research community and industries. It is used extensively by overseas postgraduate students studying in New Zealand as NZJCHS as they regard NZJCHS as an "international" journal and are keen to publish their research in NZJCHS where it will be seen by New Zealand researchers. NZJCHS is an important source of information for Field Officers when giving advice. Other respondents commented that they read NZJCHS often and enjoy the content. Although the format is considered to be traditional, NZJCHS still retains its relevance and appropriateness.

NZJCHS is considered to have a broad scope and to be the journal of choice for field-based and applied research. It is seen to publish papers with a New Zealand focus that are not published by more popular international journals. Respondents  submit papers to NZJCHS if the papers report research with a "specific New Zealand content" but submit more general, international interest papers elsewhere. Someone said that they only consider publishing in NZJCHS is their paper is unlikely to have a wider international significance or readership. Because of the perceived limited readership of NZJCHS, the journal has a lower priority, compared to many overseas journals, for publishing. Some respondents noted that they disagree with their colleagues that think that NZJCHS is not as prestigious as horticultural journals overseas. Management in New Zealand research and tertiary institutions is said to criticise researchers for publishing in NZJCHS because of the small audience compared to other journals. Publication in overseas journals is also more highly regarded for staff promotion and therefore publication in NZJCHS is not supported by management and colleagues. Some respondents admitted that they did not know much about NZJCHS and colleagues show no interest in the journal at all. It was pointed out that people have to be persuaded to choose NZJCHS as a preferred vehicle of communication.

Some respondents did not know that NZJCHS has a kiwifruit and apple focus and it was suggested that it these are genuinely focus areas then "crop" should be dropped from the journal title. The development of a crop focus was considered important so that NZJCHS has crop as well as horticultural focus areas.

Respondents considered NZJCHS not to be a top-tier journal but good for kiwifruit and apples (as perhaps these areas are not published by overseas journals).

General perceptions: overseas respondents

NZJCHS is a good, respected scientific journal publishing good papers. It is considered to be a valuable journal in the field of pomology and publishes very useful papers on kiwifruit. It is also seen to focus on field trials that are becoming less appealing for crop and horticultural specialists.

Although many overseas respondents had refereed papers for the journal, most have never seen the journal itself. They are not very aware about NZJCHS and it was said that most researchers in the United States don't know about it. It was also said that NZJCHS is not well known in Europe.

Some overseas researchers are not interested in NZJCHS as it publishes material on New Zealand agriculture that often does not relate to agriculture in the south-east United States. An Australian respondent also commented that the journal is not relevant to horticulture in semi-arid climates.

Scope: New Zealand respondents

The majority of respondents considered that the current scope is adequate or should be broadened to some degree. However, some respondents cautioned against broadening the scope and specialisation was also suggested.

Those happy with the current scope included researchers working on kiwifruit and apples (the current focus areas of NZJCHS). Respondents said that they know NZJCHS is read (searched) by those interested in kiwifruit because of its New Zealand connections and that papers on kiwifruit and apples do get cited. However, respondents suspected that papers beyond these areas do not have a great impact. The journal should be soliciting good review papers to emphasise these fruit focus areas. These focus areas are appropriate as New Zealand has an international reputation commercially and scientifically for these key export commodities but it was also noted that they are of limited interest to researchers in the South Island.

Respondents noted that as the journal is on crop AND horticulture, and as there are a lot of crop papers published in the journal, NZJCHS should have a crop focus. Focus areas should be increased to all crops and horticultural species including flowers, processed vegetables etc. It was suggested that the "fashionable" foci (e.g., sustainability) should be included to draw more interest. A grape/viticulture emphasis was suggested, as this seems to be a rapidly expanding New Zealand industry. The major vegetable crops should have more emphasis as well as the area of ornamentals. It was noted that there are very few papers on molecular biology/genetics published in NZJCHS.

The majority of respondents supported a broadening of the scope, for all crop sectors or all horticultural sectors, and to reflect the growing importance of other crops as well as trade and research linkages with other countries (Pacific Islands and Australia).  An increased scope would increase the contribution of overseas papers and international standing of the journal. There is also a perception that crop has precedence over the horticultural component of the journal and a wider range of topics is expected from the title as it is. One respondent warned against specialising any further into the horticultural/fruit areas or even agricultural-crop based focus areas as by doing so could remove the only outlet for a lot of agricultural-based research occurring in New Zealand. Another respondent cautioned against broadening the horticultural focus as it would give a general "horticultural" focus and would not be a positive step. It was noted that there are several discipline-based journals available for specialist areas. The comment was made that the scope is too narrow as it is and there were calls for the publication of more papers on nursery and greenhouse crops as well as all major crops (e.g., cereals, brassicas, onions, carrots, potatoes). A respondent was concerned that expanding the scope would dilute the current standing of the journal.

Most of the papers published are from New Zealand authors and the journal scope reflects the patterns of research funding in New Zealand. It was suggested that specialisation of the scope may be required to attract overseas work to the journal. The journal currently does not have prestige or specialisation and researchers want to publish their research where it will get maximum exposure. The combination of crop and horticulture is not regarded by some as a good idea as it tells readers that the journal is not specialised. It is necessary to persuade researchers to choose NZJCHS as a vehicle of communication. Its main impact is for New Zealand scientists to get their work out but international scientists would only publish in NZJCHS if they thought it was a good journal for kiwifruit and apples, otherwise it would be a lower rated choice. Journals considered successful publish in only one discipline. It is suspected that horticultural contributions from overseas are lost because of the general scope and that by specialising to a horticultural journal would increase the international appeal of the journal. It was suggested that the agronomy component be split off to another journal and that NZJCHS retain all papers on fruit, vegetables, ornamental, soils, nutrition etc. A review of the balance between crop and horticultural was also recommended. The comment was made that the decision to broaden or specialise could be made on the basis of citation rates for particular papers.

Scope: overseas respondents

The comments from the overseas respondents were similar to those made by the New Zealand respondents. Some felt that the scope is appropriate, others suggested that it be broadened or specialised.

It was acknowledged that kiwifruit and apples are the most important species for New Zealand. Space could be made for emerging species and other horticultural crops researched in New Zealand or Pacific Rim. The crop component was considered to be too narrow and that it needs to be broadened (e.g., to include grain quality). Broadening of the scope would increase readership.

One respondent said that the journal was a specialist journal on a world scale. It could be broadened greatly to attract papers from around the world on many crops (but runs the risk of being very minor on the world scale) or remain a good specialist journal surviving because it commands respect in that field. The latter option, to stay specialist, was recommended.

Procedures

All respondents made favourable comments on the editorial and refereeing procedures: good, efficient, fast and friendly, responsive, straightforward, well chosen referees, high standard of refereeing and editorial comment, methodical, complete, high standard of papers, truly encouraging and fair to authors, professional, understanding and helpful, more courteous to referees and keeps authors informed more than any other journal, well edited, editorial control and refereeing are good and has the feel of publishing information one can trust, robust and leads to trustworthy papers at reasonable but not a great speed.

Most respondents regard electronic submission and handling of manuscripts to speed up the processing and refereeing of papers. However, they also noted that electronic handling should not be mandatory for all referees and that pen, ink, and post should all be accommodated to suit individuals as required. Some respondents prefer to referee hard copy of manuscripts but most are happy to print out an electronic copy. It was stressed that minimum time lapses must be ensured as it is often the length of time plus poor communication with editors of some other journals that leads frustrated authors to submit to NZJCHS. The current system is regarded to be a little slow but effective and it was noted that the service has got progressively better. However, one respondent commented that NZJCHS was very particular and has a long turnaround time.

It was noted that referees can sometimes be tougher than those of other journals (e.g., J Agr Sci Cambridge) and sometimes can be pedantic. Referees can sometimes be slow but a respondent noted that referees have full-time jobs as well! The New Zealand pool of potential referees can be very limited in some areas (e.g., ornamentals) and the use of more overseas referees was recommended. One respondent suggested that NZJCHS publish technical papers that are not externally refereed.

Format

Almost all respondents require print and electronic publication of the journal and some said that they would not be adverse to have access to electronic copy only in the future. Many said journals must have a presence on the Internet and that an alert service is easy and very handy to download papers at work, home, or wherever.  Online access via an institution library subscription is favoured. Some respondents said that although they liked to have electronic access to papers they do not like to read online and prefer to print out the papers to read. They also commented that the ease of electronic access will lead to wider readership and distribution. Most respondents were not aware that full text of papers published in the 2002 volume of NZJCHS were currently accessible (free) on the Internet. 

The print version was said to be fine and well presented. One respondent commented that they like the small print format of journals so that they do not look too thin. One respondent finds the formatting of tables to suit NZJCHS style to be irritating as it is different from other formats for other journals (particularly regarding statistical information) and another commented that figures are sometimes printed at odd sizes.

International standing: New Zealand respondents

Responses were mixed over the international standing of NZJCHS. New Zealand respondents regard the journal as primarily regional in nature for New Zealand readership but with an international distribution. NZJCHS is a well thought of, quality international journal with an excellent/good local profile as our own "local" journal but a low international profile. NZJCHS has a reputation for quality which is warranted and recognised for kiwifruit and apples. Although it is perceived to have a high international standing in the areas of kiwifruit and apples it is likely to have a lower standing in other fields (e.g., ornamentals, broader agricultural science).

NZJCHS is not regarded as being a "first tier" journal but rather as a "second tier" journal, which is considered as very good for a "specialist" journal. One respondent said that NZJCHS is not well known overseas and this is partly due to New Zealand researchers publishing their top papers in non-New Zealand journals. As it is not ranked near the top, researchers submit their research to overseas journals, with perceived bigger audiences, for the best international exposure. Management within some Crown Research Institutes criticise researchers for publishing in NZJCHS on the basis of its international standing. However, papers on kiwifruit, or outputs for FRST work to be kept in the New Zealand domain, are submitted to NZJCHS whereas papers of a broader nature are submitted elsewhere. Some submit papers to NZJCHS as they think it is easy to publish in.

Although one respondent perceives that readership is not high and that NZJCHS is read mainly by applied industry-type researchers, other respondents regard readership to be dependent on search processes more than anything else. Respondents know that NZJCHS papers are found on CAB searches, and NZJCHS papers are widely cited, but question how many overseas readers can get access to the papers. One respondent said that overseas referees noted that they could not easily obtain papers previously published in NZJCHS. Other respondents have seen the journal displayed on library shelves overseas so they know that it is circulated to some international institutions/libraries.

One respondent suspects that having "New Zealand" in the title goes against NZJCHS and reduces readership. Good science is not country specific and as New Zealand is little known and the potential restriction of readership is large. Perhaps a title such as "Temperate Horticulture" or "Temperate Crop and Horticultural Science" should be considered as it would more accurately represent the contents of the journal, not deter readers who do not know where New Zealand is, and would give the journal more international flavour.

A comment was made that the journal needs to maintain its international standing and another respondent recommends international marketing of the journal for contributors and sales.

International standing: overseas respondents

Over 100 emails were sent to overseas authors, referees, and colleagues and only 17 responses were received. This seems to indicate that although the majority have been involved with the journal (mainly as referees) they have not seen the journal and felt that they were not able to comment. One respondent admitted that he/she did not know NZJCHS existed until asked to referee a paper for the journal.

Overseas respondents were mixed on the international standing of the journal: with not high, average, and don't know all given as responses. One respondent said that the journal was "solid" but primarily of interest to a small subset of people. Another said that NZJCHS has limited readership because of its New Zealand focus and the reporting of primarily secondary trials of importance to New Zealand rather than break-through research. Another said that the journal has a good standing/recognition in pomology.

One respondent commented that indexing to electronic databases is critical. Another said that the international standing could be increased by broadening the focus but maintaining quality and also enhanced by promoting the journal at international meetings.

Question (2) Future submissions

Do you intend to submit any papers to NZJCHS within the next year? Why? Why not?

New Zealand respondents

Over half (56%) of the respondents said "yes" - they plan to submit papers to NZJCHS within the next year and another 22% said that they were likely to (or hoped to). Another 22% said that they would not submit any papers.

Reasons for submitting included the following:

Overseas respondents

Over 70% said that "No" they would not be submitting papers to NZJCHS \within the next year. Reasons given include:

Those saying "yes" did not give any reasons but one respondent noted that New Zealand researchers would appreciate the research.

Question (3) Suggestions for improvement

How can NZJCHS  be improved to better meet your needs?

Scope and focus areas? Procedures (how about electronic submission/handling of manuscripts)?

Format (print and electronic copy of published papers/journal)?

Scope and content

New Zealand respondents

Overseas respondents

Procedures and format

New Zealand respondents

Overseas respondents

International status

New Zealand respondents

Overseas respondents

Other improvements

New Zealand respondents

Question (4) Other comments

New Zealand respondents

 Overseas respondents