|
Journal
of Groundwater Research (JGWR) |
|||
|
Sl.
No. |
Authors
Name |
Manuscript
Title |
Vol.
No. with Year |
|
1 |
M. Thangrajan and
Mritunjay Kumar Singh |
International Groundwater Congress in India and Abroad |
|
|
2 |
C. Mayilswami,
Mausumi Raychaudhuri, Sarojini Devi, S. Chellamuthu and Ashwani
Kumar |
Managing the Irrigation Water Requirements of Command Area of 4(L)
Distributory of Pollachi Main Canal under Variable Rainfall Conditions |
|
|
3 |
G. Suresh Kumar |
A Review on Fluid Flow and Solute Transport Through Hard Rocks |
|
|
4 |
Mritunjay Kumar
Singh, Vijay P Singh, Priyanka Kumari and Pintu Das |
Analytical and Numerical Approaches to
Horizontal Non-reactive Solute Dispersion in a Semi-infinite Aquifer |
|
|
5 |
Vijay P Singh |
Editorial: Manuscript Review |
|
|
6 |
Vivek Bedekar, Matthew Tonkin and Marinko Karanovic |
Challenges and Solutions to Numerical Modeling of Deep Basalt Aquifers for Groundwater Management |
|
|
7 |
Sasmita
Sahoo and Madan Kumar Jha |
A Hybrid Neural Network Technique in Modeling
Water Table Fluctuations |
|
|
8 |
A. K. Rastogi
and V. P. Huggi |
Role of Inverse
Modeling in Ground Water System Simulation |
|
|
9 |
C.S.P. Ojha, A.
K. Thakur and V. P. Singh |
Modelling
of River bank filtration: Recent experience from some RBF sites in India |
|
|
10 |
J. Ferdous, K.
M. Ahmed, S. Sultana, M. Amini, M. Berg and R. Johnston |
Assessing
the Risk of Arsenic Transport in the Upper Dupi Tila Aquifer of Dhaka City
from the Surrounding Shallow Aquifers |
|
|
11 |
Mritunjay
Kumar. Singh, Nav Kumar Mahato and Vijay P. Singh |
Analytical
Approach to One-dimensional Solute Dispersion along and against Transient
Groundwater flow in Aquifers |
|
|
12 |
Madhavi Ganesan
and M. Martina Isabella |
Estimation
of Hydraulic Conductivity and Dispersivity through Numeric Modeling |
|
|
13 |
Moumtaz Razack,
Mohamed Aboubakar and Jalludin Mohamed |
Numerical
Modeling of the Dikhil Basaltic Aquifer, South-West Djibouti, Horn of Africa |
|
|
14 |
S. Sato and N. Shibasaki |
Groundwater Simulation
Study (3-D) for Groundwater Arsenic Contamination in Tay Island, Dong Thap
Province, Vietnam |
|
|
15 |
N. Shibasaki |
Evaluation
of Deep Groundwater Exploitation from Basaltic Aquifers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia |
|
|
16 |
S.
Mohanasundaram, Balaji Narasimhan, G. Suresh Kumar |
The
Significance of Autocorrelation and Partial Autocorrelation on Univariate
Water Level Rise (recharge) Time Series Modeling |
|
|
17 |
Vishal K. Mehta, Muddu
Sekhar and Deepak Malghan |
Groundwater
Impacts of Water Consumption Patterns in Bengaluru, India |
|
|
18 |
Indu S. Nair, S. Parimala
Renganayaki and L. Elango |
Identification of Seawater Intrusion by
Cl/Br Ratio and Mitigation through Managed Aquifer Recharge in Aquifers North
of Chennai, India |
|
|
19 |
Mategaonkar
Meenal and Eldho T.I |
Aquifer Decontamination Studies Using a Meshfree Point Collocation Method (PCM)
|
|
|
20 |
Udai P. Singh |
Challenges
in Investigating and Remediating Contaminated Groundwater Sites |
|
|
21 |
Water
Quality Considerations in Managed Aquifer Recharge: from Artificial Recharge
to Managed Aquifer Recharge in India |
||
|
22 |
Ken
W. F. Howard |
Peri-Urban
Conflicts over Groundwater due to Population Growth |
|
|
23 |
S.N.
Rai, S. Thiagarajan and Dewashish Kumar |
Groundwater exploration
in basaltic terrains-problems and prospects |
|
|
24 |
D. C. Singhal |
Groundwater Resource Assessment in India-Some Emerging Issues |
|
|
25 |
Edward McBean |
Improved Human Health Risk
Characterization for Regions with Arsenic-Contaminated Groundwater |
|
|
26 |
Subhajyoti Das |
Water
Management Dynamics in Bangalore, A Fast Growing City of Asia |
|
|
27 |
Vijay P. Singh and Huijuan Cui |
Entropy Theory for Groundwater Modeling |
|
|
28 |
Vinod Kumar Bharati,
Abhishek Sanskrityayn and Naveen kumar3 |
Analytical Solution of ADE with Linear Spatial
Dependence of Dispersion Coefficient and Velocity using GITT |
|
|
29 |
D. C. Singhal, H. Joshi and
Supriya Mishra |
Assessment of Ground Water Sustainability
for a Subtropical Town in Ganga Plain: A Case Study from North-India |
|
|
30 |
Nav Kumar Mahato, Sultana Begam, Pintu Das and Mritunjay Kumar Singh |
Two-dimensional Solute Dispersion Along and
Against the Unsteady Groundwater Flow in Aquifer |
|
Editorial:
Manuscript Review
Vijay
P. Singh
Editor-in-Chief,
Journal of Groundwater Research
Caroline and William N. Lehrer Distinguished Chair in Water
Engineering, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, &
Professor of Biological & Agricultural Engineering
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Texas A and M University
Scoates Hall, 2117 TAMU
College Station, Texas 77843-2117, U.S.A.
E-mail: vsingh@tamu.edu
The Journal of Ground Water Research (JGWR) came into
existence in December of 2012 under the sponsorship of Association of Global
Groundwater Scientists (AGGS). Initially JGWR will be a six-monthly publication
but the expectation is that it will soon become quarterly. It is expected that
there will be a number of inquiries from authors whose manuscripts are under
review and who would like to know the status of their manuscripts. These
authors, readers, as well as other potential contributors would perhaps like to
know the procedures that are followed in conducting manuscript reviews for
JGWR, and what is being planned and done for improving efficiency. Before so
doing, it may be worthwhile to provide some background information.
1.
Editorial Board
JGWR has
an editorial board consisting of one editor-in-chief (EIC); one deputy
editor-in-chief (DEIC); section editors (SEs) one for each of the following
sections: (1) Groundwater Geology and Hydrogeology; (2) Groundwater Prospecting and Exploration,
and Aquifer Characterization and Mapping; (3) Groundwater Recharge, Managed
Aquifer Recharge, Wells, Well Design and Tube wells; (4) Groundwater Chemistry
and Pollution and Solute
Transport Modeling; (5) Groundwater Flow Modeling and Ground Water-Surface
Water Interaction, Statistics, Probability and Stochastic Processes; and (6) Groundwater
Systems Planning and Management, including Ground
Water Economics, Politics, and Sociology; and a number of associate editors
(AEs) representing different parts of the country. These AEs are distributed
amongst academia, government sectors, and the private sector; and they have
expertise encompassing virtually the entire spectrum of groundwater science and
engineering.
The
EIC bears the ultimate responsibility of accepting or rejecting a submitted
paper. Of course, this is based on the recommendations of the concerned SE and
AE or DEIC. He is responsible for appointing the editorial board members. He
responds to the AGGS Executive Committee on all matters related to JGWR. The
DEIC is responsible for developing and maintaining the journal website;
developing instructions for preparing articles for submissions to JGWR;
developing a system for assigning manuscript numbers submitted to AGGS;
developing a database of potential reviewers; liaising with the AGGS Executive,
EIC, SEs and AEs; recommending potential editorial board members; assisting the
EIC in appointment of board members; soliciting special issues of JGWR;
inviting state-of-the art papers from well-known groundwater specialists;
soliciting papers for JGWR; working with the SEs and AEs in selecting papers
for awards; and so on. He responds to the EIC. The SEs are the people who
assign papers to the AEs in their fields for handling reviews. It is the SEs
who synthesize the reviews and recommendations on papers received form the AEs
and make their recommendations for accepting, revising or rejecting papers. The
AEs are the people who have the primary responsibility for handling reviews and
making recommendations on accepting, declining or revising individual papers.
They also assist the SEs in selecting award winning papers. They help the DEIC
in developing the reviewer database. Theirs is perhaps the important job.
In addition, there is an
international board of advisors. These advisors are essentially conscience
keepers whose role is to guide the journal and its direction, and to keep it on
track. The front of the journal lists the editors and advisors.
2.
Instructions for
Manuscript Submission and Correspondence
Instructions for submission of
manuscripts are given in abbreviated form in the front of the journal but
complete information can be found at web site: http://www.aggs.in. AGGS
assigns a manuscript number to each manuscript and this is the number that
should be used in all correspondence about the manuscript. Also, it is
important to note that AGGS communicates with the corresponding author.
Therefore, it is advisable if the manuscript has multiple authors that the
corresponding author is not switched, without prior notification during the
review cycle, because it creates unnecessary confusion. Also a manuscript
should be submitted only once, not multiple times.
3.
Before Manuscript
Review
When a manuscript is submitted on
line, AGGS assigns it a number and acknowledges its receipt and informs EIC and
DEIC about its submission. EIC or DEIC reads the manuscript abstract and takes
a quick glance at the text, and evaluates if the manuscript is deserving of review.
The manuscript may fall in one of the four categories: (1) outside of the scope
of the journal, (2) borders on being marginally related to the journal, (3)
within the scope of the journal but not prepared following AGGS standards and
guidelines, and (4) prepared well enough to warrant review. In the first case,
EIC or DEIC decides whether to send the manuscript to AGGS, stating that the
manuscript was not suitable for review.
In the second case EIC either by himself or in consultation with DEIC
and an SE determines if the manuscript should go forward for review. Unless the
manuscript is on the fringes, its review is conducted as a regular manuscript.
EIC, DEIC as well as SEs opine that groundwater hydrology, science and
engineering should be as inclusive as possible.
4.
Manuscript Review:
The flow of a manuscript is from
author to AGGS to EIC to DEIC to SE to AE to reviewers, and reverses when the
review is completed. First, consider a case when a manuscript is authored or
co-authored by an editorial board member. If a manuscript is authored or
co-authored by EIC, then DEIC directly selects an SE or AE to handle the review
of the manuscript. Sometimes AGGS selects an SE to conduct the manuscript
review. In the entire review process, EIC is treated like any other author and
has absolutely no direct or indirect influence on the review or its outcome.
Similarly, if an SE authors/co-authors a manuscript, then EIC or DEIC bypasses
him and directly selects an AE to handle its review. SE exercises no influence
on the manuscript review or outcome thereof. The same process applies to AEs.
Every effort is made in all sincerity to avoid even the appearance of a
conflict of interest.
In other cases, depending on the
subject matter of the manuscript, EIC or DEIC chooses an SE who then selects an
AE by matching the AE expertise with the manuscript theme and the work load of
the AE. The selected AE seeks at least three reviewers who can provide timely
reviews of the manuscript. When reviews are completed, the concerned AE reads
and synthesizes them and formulates his or her recommendation for the SE. The
recommendation can be “accept as is,” “re-review,” “conversion to a technical
note and re-review,” or “decline.” The
SE then goes through the reviews and AE’s recommendation, and then develops his
own recommendation and transmits all these to EIC. EIC then reads the reviews
and recommendation and makes a decision which he sends these to AGGS which then
informs the corresponding author and sends reviews and recommendations.
It may be noted that AGGS requires
a majority opinion when making a decision. That is, two negative reviews for
rejection and two positive reviews for acceptance, and mixed reviews for a
decision in between. However, this is not as simple as it appears for several
reasons. First, reviewers’ recommendations are not always clear cut and the
same may apply to AE’s recommendation and to SE’s recommendation. When making a
decision the EIC takes a composite view and digests reviews and recommendations
and then makes the final decision. Second, disagreement amongst reviewers, AE,
SE and EIC is not uncommon, but ultimately the buck stops at the EIC. Indeed,
it frequently happens that an AE disagrees with one or more of the reviewers,
the SE disagrees with the AE, and the EIC disagrees with either the AE or the
SE or both. In all of this two principal points are never lost sight of. First,
the quality of the journal is uppermost in priority. Second, the authors expect
a constructive, critical and informative review of high quality. The editors
want, in all sincerity, to help the authors improve their papers and present
them in publishable form. After all, it is the authors on whose shoulders the
journal rests and survives, and knowledge grows. Without them the journal would
not survive and the growth of information would cease. Therefore, the authors’
work is held in high esteem, but it must be peer-reviewed and be acceptable to
the outside world.
If the decision is re-review, then
authors are expected to revise the manuscript and resubmit within an allotted
time which is usually a month. Many a time, authors request AGGS to grant an
extra time which is almost always approved. In this case, every effort is made
to have the same team of reviewers provide the review. Barring a few
exceptions, this is the case. Sometimes it may so happen that one or more of
the original reviewers may not be willing to provide the review in a timely
manner. Then a decision may be made to seek another review. In the case of
another re-review, it is almost always the case that a point-by-point reply to
each review comment is required, explaining where and how review comments have
been included in the revised manuscript. An important point to be noted here is
that sometimes the authors do not pay as close an attention to the review
comments as they should. Consequently, when the same reviewers review the
revised manuscript, they tend to be even more critical in their review and may
recommend “reject.” Thus, it is of utmost importance that the authors do an
exceptional job at revising the manuscript following the reviews. In such cases
the likelihood of a manuscript being accepted goes significantly high indeed.
If there is a disagreement between the author and the reviewers, the author
needs to explain and provide a rationale for disagreement. In all this process
it is hoped that a sense of professionalism is maintained. Everybody is working
for the same larger cause-furtherance of the groundwater science and
engineering and hydrology profession-hence there is no room for rancor or back
biting.
5.
Selection of
Reviewers
The
selection of reviewers is one of the most important and key elements in the
entire review process for several reasons. First, they are the single most
important factor determining the timeliness of the manuscript review. Second,
they provide quality, constructive, critical, and insightful review. Therefore,
reviews constitute the basis for the recommendations an AE makes and then an SE
makes to EIC. Third, the quality of the
journal is significantly influenced by the quality of reviews. In the vast
majority of cases, reviewers do an exceptional job, with little appreciation
for their hard work. Theirs is truly a labor of love for the profession of
groundwater science and hydrology and engineering.
6.
Timeliness of
Reviews
Timeliness of reviews entails three elements: (1)
authors, (2) editors and reviewers, and (3) AGGS. The foregoing discussion
outlines the steps involved in the review process. When a manuscript is
accepted for publication, the author is asked to prepare the manuscript
following AGGS guidelines and supply other associated material. Once AGGS receives
everything and accepts the revised manuscript, it makes a determination when to
publish it. It is believed that AGGS places it in the queue and publishes it in
the order it is received, unless other manuscripts are on a higher priority
determined beforehand. This is often decided by the journal’s page budget and
its frequency of publication. In the case of JGWR, much improvement would be
observed because of the journal is just taking off.
The time it takes for a manuscript
from submission to review to revision, if any, to publication can be
significant and this can be a cause of great concern to AGGS and all involved.
The JGWR editorial board would continually strive to review manuscripts in
time. In many cases one review may delay the entire review time by several
months. In such cases, the AE, SE or EIC may end up conducting the third
review. Unfortunately, for practical reasons these editors cannot review all
papers and must therefore heavily rely on outside reviewers. Thus, reviewers
play a key role in maintaining the timeliness of the review process. The
principal aim is to provide a timely review and treat the paper with respect
and professionalism. The reviewers are requested to provide reviews in a timely
and ethical manner.
On the other hand, the authors also
need to do their part by preparing the manuscript following AGGS guidelines and
submitting quality manuscripts and revisions without delay. In addition, there
is an international board of advisors. These advisors are essentially
conscience keepers whose role is to guide the journal and its direction, and to
keep it on track. The front of the journal lists the editors and advisors.
AGGS also needs to do whatever it
can within its budgetary limitations. It hoped that JGWR would witness a
phenomenal growth in the years to come and would be respected throughout the
world. It is up to everyone-authors, editors, reviewers, and AGGS staff
members-to do their part in nurturing the journal and cultivate a culture of
professional excellence. Except for AGGS staff, everyone-authors, editors, and
reviewers-are volunteers and contribute to JGWR’s success without expecting
anything in return. This volunteerism is a clear manifestation of the love of
the profession and a sense of belonging to the AGGS family. Everyone makes his
or her mark felt in a small way and can rest assured that his or her
contribution is highly valued.
7.
Summation
The Journal of Ground Water Research
is the journal of the entire groundwater community and its members must take
ownership of the journal and take pride in it. Information highways have
dismantled geographical boundaries, and hence groundwater science knows no
borders. People from as far away as Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, Europe,
or the U.S. can make as much of a difference as those within India. Editors
come and go, but the journal would stay as long as the groundwater community
would like it to. Therefore, if any change is deemed then be that change, as
Mahatma Gandhi used to say.
One final note, when soliciting
reviews we encourage the reviewers to get registered in the AGGS data base. The
editorial board constantly seeks additional reviewers. If anyone is interested
in reviewing a manuscript for JGWR, he or she may get himself or herself
registered in the data base. To get registered is a painless exercise and does
not take more than a few minutes. Alternately, they can contact the EIC or DEIC
with information on area of expertise, phone and fax number, e-mail address and
affiliation. The EIC’s address and contact information is: Professor Vijay P. Singh, Department of Biological and
Agricultural Engineering, Texas A and M University, Scoates Hall, 2117 TAMU,
College Station, Texas 77843-2117, U.S.A.; Office: (979)-845-7028, Fax:
(979)-862-3442; E-mail: vsingh@tamu.edu.
Acknowledgments
The section editors reviewed the editorial and
made many helpful comments. Their assistance is most gratefully
acknowledged.