Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 1
Review of
AGRONOMY JOURNAL
September 2007
Page I. Members of Review Committee ………………………………………...... 2 2 3 4 10 11 14
II. Charge to the Committee ………………………………………………..... III. Report Summary …………………………………………………………. ……………………………..
IV. General Overview of the Agronomy Journal
V. Target Readership and Clientele of the Journal ………………………….. VI. Recommendations ………………………………………………………...
VII. References
………………………………………………………………..
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 2 I. Members of Review Committee Warren A. Dick (Chair) School of Environment and Natural Resources The Ohio State University Wooster, OH, USA 44691 E-mail: dick.5@osu.edu Denis Angers Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Soils and Crops Research Centre 2560 Hochelaga Blvd., Sainte-Foy (Quebec) Canada G1V 2J3 E-mail: angersd@agr.gc.ca Doug Karlen USDA-ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory 2150 Pammel Drive Ames, IA, USA 50011-3120 E-mail: Doug.Karlen@ars.usda.gov II. Charge to the Committee At the beginning of 2007, Dr. Jerry Hatfield, President of the American Society of Agronomy, asked Warren Dick to conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of the Agronomy Journal. To carry out this charge, Dr. Dick requested help from a small number of active scientists (see list above). Selection of committee members was based on (1) experience in journal editing, (2) activity in conducting and publishing agronomy-related information and (3) international representation. For example, Dr. Porter currently serves as Associate Chief-Editor of the European Journal of Agronomy. Dr. Angers, Vyn and Karlen are all experienced journal editors and reviewers and actively conduct and publish agronomy-related information. We identified four specific objectives for the Review. They are to: 1. Determine the strengths and weaknesses of the journal 2. Recognize trends in scientific publishing, content delivery, and how these trends will impact the journal in the future 3. Establish what the target readership and clientele of the journal should be, and 4. Make recommendations for how the journal should position itself for the future. In the pages that follow, we focus on each of the first three objectives individually before concluding our report with specific recommendations. John R. Porter The University of Copenhagen Faculty of Life Sciences Taastrup, Denmark E-mail: jrp@life.ku.dk Tony J. Vyn Department of Agronomy Lilly Hall of Life Sciences 915 W. State Street Purdue University West Lafayette, IN, USA 47907-2054 E-mail: tvyn@purdue.edu
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 3 III. Report Summary Dr. Jerry Hatfield, President of the American Society of Agronomy, requested that Dr. Warren Dick (The Ohio State University and previous Editor-in-Chief of the Soil Science Society of America) lead a comprehensive review of the Agronomy Journal. Dr. Dick identified four other respected scientists to work with him on this task. These committee members are Denis Angers (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), Doug Karlen (USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory), John R. Porter (The University of Copenhagen) and Tony J. Vyn (Purdue University). The Review was conducted by evaluating data in the 2002-2006 annual reports of the Agronomy Journal written by the current Editor, Calvin Pearson (Colorado State University), and Managing Editor of the journal, Susan Ernst (American Society of Agronomy Headquarters), and published each year in the Agronomy Journal. Additional information reviewed included Journal Citation Report data published annually by ISI Web of Knowledge (The Thompson Corporation, Stamford, Connecticut, USA) and a preview of a paper by Dr. Pearson and others reviewing 100 years of Agronomy Journal. The latter source also provided valuable historical information about the journal. The Review Committee recognized the strong reputation of the journal. Each year it is consistently one of the top five agronomic journals cited by authors (out of a current total of 49 agronomy journals ranked by ISI). The Impact Factor of the journal generally ranks between 10 and 15 among the 49 agronomy-related journals. The number of submissions during the past seven years remained strong and reached a high of 362 submissions in 2005. In spite of these positive signs, the journal is struggling in terms of sustaining subscriptions and overall usage. Subscriptions have declined from 2002 through 2006 as follows: 2671 subscriptions (2002), 2319 subscriptions (2003), 2062 subscriptions (2004), 1779 subscriptions (2005) and 1562 subscriptions (2006). The number of HTML or PDF downloads from the HighWire site is also the lowest among the four traditionally published Society journals (i.e. Crop Science, Soil Science Society of America Journal, Journal of Environmental Quality and Agronomy Journal). Several reasons for this decline may be put forward. They include a competition with other journals that allow scientists to publish without paying a fee, a growing perception that agronomic research is not leading-edge science as compared to other specializations, easy computer access of the journal via institutional subscriptions, no need for a Society member to subscribe to the journal, and the perception by many that the focus of the journal is no longer relevant. The Review Committee has identified 19 potential changes that could be rigorously evaluated and/or considered in order to move the journal forward into its second century of existence. Of these 19 recommendations, those that would result in the most dramatic changes are (1) adopt a new name for the journal, (2) expand the subject matter areas that are welcomed and subsequently published in the journal, (3) make a concerted effort to internationalize the editorial board, (4) reduce or eliminate page charges, and (5) offer a fast release option whereby authors could pay an optional one-time fee at time of publication to make their paper immediately accessible for free on-line. Note, adoption of the latter would begin to address the issue of openaccess, an emerging requirement for many cutting-edge scientific disciplines.
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 4 IV. General Overview of the Agronomy Journal The greatest strength of the journal is its long and valued history recognized by the agronomic community in the United States and the world. In 2008, Agronomy Journal will celebrate 100 years and issue its 100th volume. From Volume 1 up through Volume 98 (2006) there were more than 30,290 authors who published 15,232 articles totaling 89,056 pages (Pearson, 2008). The Agronomy Journal is one of the most widely read agronomic journals in the world. In 2006 it ranked 4th (Table 1) in the number of Total Citations among all 49 agronomy journals included in the Journal Citation Records (JCR) database of the ISI Web of Knowledge (Journal Citation Records, 2006). That ranking has remained relatively consistent for the past 7 years, the period for which the current JCR category title of “Agronomy” has existed. If we more carefully analyze the citations to the journal (Figure 1), we see the number reaches a maximum for a volume-year after three years and then declines at a fairly linear rate for the next seven years. The two-year Impact Factor is calculated by first summing the total number of citations in the current year to articles published in that journal for the previous two years. This value is then divided by the total number of articles published in the previous two years. For example the Agronomy Journal Impact Factor for 2006 is calculated as follows: Citations in 2006 to articles published in 2005 = 194 and in 2004 = 325 for a total of 519. The number of articles published in 2005 = 200 and in 2004 = 208. The Impact Factor is thus computed as 519/408 = 1.272. For the Agronomy Journal, the 2006 Impact Factor ranked 12th out of a total of 49 agronomy journals (Table 1). The Impact Factor value was actually below 1.0 in 2002 but has stabilized for the past three years at about 1.3 (Figure 2). The rankings for 2002 through 2006 ranged from a low of 16th in 2002 to a high of 10th in 2003. Total Citations and Impact Factor are generally regarded as the two most important metrics for evaluating the quality of a journal. If no one is reading a journal and citing its papers, it has little influence within a discipline. If citations of published articles are delayed, then the Impact Factor will be weak and the content can be assumed to have little immediate value to a discipline even though its long-term value may be recognized over time. The ideal situation for a journal would be to have both a high number of Total Citations and a high Impact Factor. The total number of pages published in the Agronomy Journal has remained stable for 2003 through 2006, having increased by an average of nearly 375 pages or 28% compared to the fouryear average for 1999 through 2002 (Table 2). It appears, however, that the majority of this increase was due to an increased article length and not an increased number of papers. International submissions have been strong and continue to range from 22 to 31% of all papers published since 2000, when this statistic was first recorded. If the Agronomy Journal’s experience is similar to what the Committee Chair experienced as Editor of the Journal of Environmental Quality, the percentage of papers submitted from international authors is actually much higher than the percentage of papers published by international authors.
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 5 Table 1. Top ten agronomy journals in total citations and Impact Factor in 2006 (Journal Citation Reports, 2006). A total of 49 journals are listed in the Agronomy category of J of Journal Citation Records database. Total Citations Journal Title Theor Appl Genet Plant Soil Crop Sci Agron J Agr Forest Meteorol Weed Sci Euphytica Field Crop Res Postharvest Biol Tech Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Value 13,587 11,482 10,520 6,907 5,077 4,044 3,970 2,795 2,707 2,494 2 9 17 12 1 10 24 8 6 43 Impact Factor Rank Value 2.715 1.495 1.153 1.272 2.903 1.476 0.907 1.634 1.892 0.302
Figure 1. The top (light or gold) portion of each column indicates journal self citations in 2006 to articles in the journal from articles in the same journal. The bottom (dark or blue) portion of each column indicates non-self citations in 2006 to the journal from articles in other journals. The dark (blue) portions of the 2nd and 3rd columns, i.e. the 2004 and 2005 columns, indicate citations used to calculate the Impact Factor (Journal Citation Records, 2006).
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 6
Figure 2. Agronomy Journal Impact Factors for the years of 2002- 2006 (Journal Citation Records, 2006).
Table 2. Summary of statistics for the Agronomy Journal for the years of 1999-2006 (Pearson and Ernst, 2007). Volume year 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
†
Total pages published 1696 1692 1828 1676 1492 1456 1352 1096
Number of articles published 194 188 208 184 165 184 175 142
Average length of article 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.1 7.8 7.0 6.9 6.6
International papers (% of total papers) 26 23 22 24 23 34 31 ND†
ND, not determined prior to 2000 and so no data available for 1999.
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 7 Table 3. Average number of days for manuscripts submitted to Agronomy Journal to complete various phases of the review process (Pearson and Ernst, 2005; 2007). Days to associate editor to assign review 25.0 20.1 16.1 17.1 16.3 Days manuscript is with reviewer 45.9 33.9 31.6 30.5 27.2 Days manuscript is in revision with author 64.0 48.2 43.2 41.7 34.9 Average total time from submission to final decision 183.0 160.9 132.6 152.9 102.1
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Table 4. Fate of manuscripts submitted to Agronomy Journal from 1998 – 2005† (Nilson, Ernst and Pearson, 2003, Pearson and Ernst, 2003; 2005, 2007). Manuscripts Number of Submitted Number Accepted Percent (%) Accepted
†
1998 234 136 58
1999 316 166 53
2000 333 185 56
2001 313 171 55
2002 328 180 55
2003 326 180 55
2004 324 177 55
2005 362 214 59
Not all manuscripts submitted in 2006 were completed processed at the time the 2006 report was written and so data for 2006 are not included in this table.
The Agronomy Journal initiated electronic submissions in 1998 on a limited basis. In 2002, the use of Manuscript Tracker for submitting, registering, reviewing, and tracking manuscripts was initiated. Beginning in January of 2004, the journal no longer accepted paper submissions but only electronic submissions via manuscript tracker. This has allowed a positive trend to develop. The average time from time of submission to final decision has decreased from 183 days in 2002 to 102 days in 2006 (Table 3). If this trend continues, the time a paper is in review will have been cut in half in only 5 years time. The acceptance rate has remained stable at about 55% from 1998 to 2005, the most recent year when full information is available (Table 4). This suggests that no drastic change has occurred in the review rigor or the standards of what is considered acceptable for publication in the journal, although the most recent year of 2005 did see the highest percentage of papers accepted of all years reviewed.
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 8
Figure 3. Number of subscriptions to the Agronomy Journal by members of the American Society of Agronomy from 1908 through 2006.
All of the above indicators suggest the journal has been and continues to be an important outlet for publishing science-based agronomic research. However, in spite of these positive signs, the journal has experienced a rapid and dramatic decline in subscriptions to the journal by members of the American Society of Agronomy (Figure 3). There are multiple reasons for this decline including the overall decrease in subscriptions that has occurred for many journals as on-line access has become easier through institutional libraries. For the Agronomy Journal, there was also a decoupling of membership dues from a requirement to also subscribe to a journal. This was probably even more responsible for the sharp decline in member subscriptions shown in Figure 3. Finally, throughout many Land Grant institutions and much of the United States, a perception has developed that agronomy, as a science, is no longer very important. Financial support for traditional agronomic research has declined and the agronomic community has been slow to embrace a more interdisciplinary mindset that includes ecology, plant physiology, environmental quality, plant pathology, etc.
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 9 Table 5. Subscriptions for Agronomy Journal as of October 2002–2006 (Pearson and Enrst, 2007). Number of subscribers Version Print Print and electronic Print and CD Print, CD and electronic CD Electronic Electronic and CD Multi-site licenses Total subscribers 2002 2671 194 363 113 127 102 123 3693 2003 2319 215 315 112 133 139 167 3400 2004 2062 238 284 119 148 180 227 3258 2005 1779 249 271 118 152 246 270 3085 2006 1562 246 245 113 152 294 263 5+ 2880
+(1) Kyushu Nogyo Shikenjo, Japan; (2) Monsanto, USA: (3) Syngenta, Germany; (4) Canadian Ag Library, Canada; and (5) USDA-ARD-AFM-APD-AB, USA.
Table 6. Number of active, online subscriptions on the HighWire site to ASA–CSSA–SSSA journals (Pearson and Ernst, 2007). Total number of active subscriptions Journal Agronomy J. Crop Science Journal of Environmental Quality Soil Science Society of America Journal Vadoze Zone Journal
†
2004 600 671 507 833 665†
2005 719 766 594 972 385
2006 693 748 603 982 432
Includes 389 free subscriptions.
Has the decline in subscriptions hit bottom? Do we see stabilization or even a reversal in the number of total subscriptions to Agronomy Journal? A more detailed look at the results from the years of 2002 through 2006 (Tables 5 and 6) does not lead to an encouraging conclusion. A comparison of on-line access to the journal through HighWire also shows that Agronomy Journal ranks last of the four major trisociety journals in usage (Table 7). A careful look at data in Tables 5 and 6, however, reveals one other curious thing. The total number of paid electronic subscriptions for 2006 (Table 5) is 916, but the actual number of activated subscriptions (Table 6) is only 693. That means 223 people (24%) of those who pay for an electronic subscription never activate it.
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 10
Table 7. Online (HighWire) journal usage statistics, January–August 2006† (Pearson and Ernst, 2007). Journal Agronomy Journal Crop Science Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. J. Environ. Quality Vadoze Zone Journal
†
Full HTML Downloads 300,340 493,472 429,150 395,894 77,262
PDF Downloads 113,541 180,817 149.517 127,813 33,381
Total 413,881 664,289 578.667 523,707 110,643
Includes crawlers.
V. Target Readership and Clientele of the Journal A key question to ask at this point is “what is the purpose of a Society journal?” Is it to be an outlet for publication of scientific research by Society members? Is it to be a way to generate income for the Society? Is it to serve as a source of scientific information to readers? Should Society members receive special privileges because of the association between a journal and a professional Society? These questions, in the past, seemed to have obvious answers but it is more complicated today. Authors want to publish in journals that do not assess page or publication charges. This removes a traditional stream of revenue for the Society from the equation. To make up this loss, the journal subscription costs must be increased. But many Society members work at institutions that pay subscription costs. The journals are then made accessible to those who work at the institution at no cost to the Society member. This reduces the incentive for Society members to subscribe to a personal copy of the journal. This reduces another traditional stream of revenue to the Society as individual membership subscriptions decline as was evident when the results in Figure 2 were reviewed. To make up this loss the subscription costs to nonmembers must be raised again. But if nonmember subscription costs rise too rapidly or are too high, nonmember subscriptions are decreased. If libraries no long subscribe to a journal, it probably is less likely to be read by scientists and cited by authors and the reputation of the journal declines. This has lead to a rapid downward spiral for many journals published by professional societies. If we assume scientists will continue to do research, write papers and publish them, journals will remain. However, the economic model for our Society journals, specifically for the Agronomy Journal, must change. We must recognize that the main purpose of a journal is to distribute knowledge in as clear a fashion and to as many people as possible. At the same time, we must
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 11 strive for an economic model whereby the journal at least pays all expenses associated with the journal. The pros and cons of anything that goes beyond must be carefully scrutinized so as not to compromise these two objectives of the journal. For Agronomy Journal, there is another complicating factor. The “Random House Dictionary of the English Language” and several others as well, simply define agronomy as “the science of soil management and production of field crops.” This definition is rather restrictive and has led the discipline of agronomy to an identity crises that is reflected by major decreases in the number of Agronomy departments and declining enrollments in Land Grant and other academic institutions. At the same time enrollment in areas such as Molecular Biology and Genetic Engineering, Environmental Sciences, Ecology, Biotechnology, Sustainable Agriculture, Bio-Systems (not Agricultural) Engineering, etc. have increased. The globalization of agriculture has also decreased the number of jobs for the general “agronomist” while increasing the demand for specialists. Therefore, as we move into the second century of the American Society of Agronomy’s existence, we will all need to address this identity crisis or face the path of the Wooly Mammoth. To remain relevant, The American Society of Agronomy must redefine “agronomy” in favor of a definition that is more holistic and properly integrates the soil, plant, and environmental sciences. VI. Recommendations In formulating our recommendations, we attempted to be both broad ranging and specific. The recommendations are listed in somewhat of a priority order, although not exclusively so. There is no single recommendation that, by itself, will be sufficient to move the journal forward. Some recommendations are rather minor or required incremental changes in how things are viewed or action is conducted. Others are more sweeping in the changes that would occur. Several recommendations would need further study before being implemented. It must also be recognized that there may be a lag time between when a change is made and when the effect of that change actually impacts the journal in a significant way. 1. Develop a clear purpose statement for Agronomy Journal. Such a purpose was hinted at above. Others could be written. Calvin Pearson, in his paper to be published in 2008 as a lead-in to the Centennial celebration of the journal, has written, “We … need to enhance Agronomy Journal as the preeminent source of agronomic information.” If that is the main purpose of the journal, other purposes must take second place. Whatever the purpose statement adopted, it must include the most recent evolution in the science of agronomy. 2. Change the name of the journal to something like Agronomic Journal of Food, Feed, Fiber and Energy to attract authors and readers that have a more integrative view of agronomy while also linking with many scientists in new and exciting scientific areas where agronomy still plays an important role. Alternatively, the name of the journal could remain unchanged, but the scope of the journal would be redefined and broadened. This would retain the “branding” of the journal that has occurred over many years.
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 12 3. Allow an expanded subject matter area from which authors can submit papers. This would include papers with emphasis on interactions, whole system processes, risk analysis, environmental analysis, and yes – economic impacts. Such a change will require being open to new statistical approaches or even a return to non-replicated studies where the system (including the human decision making) can only be compared using trend lines and/or simple probability assessments. Not being “significant” at P = 0.05 or less cannot be the only criterion by which we evaluate potential impact of manuscripts and the quality of research. 4. Make a concerted effort to broaden the editorial board to at least 1/3 of the board members being from outside of the United States and Canada. Special emphasis should be made to add board members from each of the continents of Asia, South America, Europe and Australia. 5. Reduce or eliminate page/publication charges. For society journals to survive, they will need to eliminate page charges. This means income has to be generated in other ways for the society. Publishers that operate on a large scale can make a profit on publishing scientific content because the profit margin, while small, is summed across many journals. If the Agronomy Journal continues to persist in charging a fee to publish, authors will go elsewhere and, indeed, there are an increasing number of choices for authors. Page charges would probably be more acceptable to authors if the journal had an Impact Factor and Total Citations that were clearly superior to its competition, but this is not the case. 6. The length of papers in the journal seems to ever increase. To reverse this trend and thus help keep costs down, the Agronomy Journal should consider imposing word limits on manuscripts. For example, the top-rated environmental journal, Environmental Science & Technology, has a 7,000 words per research article limit. Reviews are limited to 10,000 words and Letters to the Editor are limited to 500 words. 7. Guest editorials should be recruited and at least one should be published each issue. Readers should be encouraged to respond to these editorials via “Letters to the Editor.” These editorials should deal with current topics that often are rather controversial. An example would be an editorial on the impact of growing crops for fuel versus food. 8. New areas of research emphasis emerge on a regular basis. Each year, the Agronomy Journal editorial board needs to identify these emerging areas and immediately adopt a subject matter category where authors can publish their research that relate to these emerging areas. These newly created subject matter areas must be aggressively and widely advertised to attract papers in these emerging areas. This should increase the journal’s Impact Factor and overall quality of the journal. 9. Offer a fast release option for all authors whereby authors pay an optional one-time fee at time of publication to make their paper immediately accessible on-line from the earliest possible moment. For some funding organizations, immediate public release is already being considered as a requirement for publication. The exact amount of this fee would need to be determined by a financial committee. This recommendation addresses the issue of Open Access. All journals have to cover their expenses in some way. For Open Access journals, this is generally done by assessing a fee, up front, that covers expenses and also allows the
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 13 information to become freely available from the moment it is published. This is not fair for authors who can’t afford the fee. However, the Agronomy Journal could adopt a sort of compromise that still allows anyone to publish their research findings in the journal while also allowing Open Access requirements to be met by immediately releasing papers written by authors who pay the Open Access fee. The content of all papers of the journal currently becomes freely available after 18 months. 10. Bundle the journal with as many other journals from other professional societies as possible. This bundle would be created for institutional subscriptions and would provide greater value to the institution and protection for society journals, including our own journals, from being squeezed out by large commercial publishers. 11. Offer an electronic only bundle of all of our Society journals, to our Society members, at a greatly reduced rate. For example the Society for Microbiology offers members the option to subscribe to ALL eleven online journals for 2008 for only $225 and to discount journal packages for $190. 12. Annually raise nonmember subscription costs at a small percentage rate so as to not allow inflation to eat up earnings from the journal and to avoid large periodic correction increases. 13. Aggressively recruit authors to write review articles and articles that are based on science but offer various perspectives on an issue without necessarily including new or original data. The journal should also consider publishing symposiums or special topic editions. These need not be tied to the traditional six issues per year publication schedule. They could even be added as additional volumes of the journal and then marketed as a separate publication through the book department. 14. Continue to expand the aggressive marketing of journal’s research to news service. This is an excellent tool for promoting the journal. 15. Remove as many barriers as possible in the process of getting authors to submit their manuscripts to the Agronomy Journal. This means having an attractive web presence, a quick review response, knowledgeable reviewers, helpful technical editors, etc. If more articles are submitted, the journal can become more stringent in its acceptance rate and the Impact Factor should rise. Possibly a target acceptance rate of 50% should be considered, compared to the most recent 59%, to allow the Editorial Board to focus on the more important cutting edge papers rather than accepting for publication papers that are credible, scientifically, but limited because of regional or other limitations. To avoid overloading reviewers and technical editors with papers that will never be published, a pre-screening process of papers by the Chief Editor or some group of Editors should be done. For example, the European Journal of Agronomy prescreens manuscripts and only 25-30% of papers submitted to the journal are sent to reviewers. 16. Make a concerted effort to recruit and maintain a highly competent and motivated board and to keep review times of submitted manuscripts to a minimum. It is less critical today where material is published because computer technology is making information, in even the most
Agronomy Journal Review Report – Page 14 obscure journal, available to the masses. What the Agronomy Journal can offer is quality control of information and the journal’s Editorial Board is at the forefront in this endeavor. 17. Supply PDF files of all Abstracts of the journal for download from the ASA site. 18. Establish international branches of the American Society of Agronomy with special privileges and responsibilities. One responsibility would be to promote the journal in their geographic region of the world. 19. After the science of a paper has been deemed acceptable, papers from non-English speaking authors will be published after the authors have first recruited someone, skilled in written English, to edit their manuscript. This is already an established practice for some Chinese journals that publish in English. VII. References Nilson, M, S. Ernst and C. Pearson. 2003. A302 Agronomy Journal Editorial Board Report. Agronomy Journal 95:741-744. Pearson, C.H. and S. Ernst. 2005. A302 Agronomy Journal Editorial Board Report. Agronomy Journal 97:998-1001. Pearson, C.H. and S. Ernst. 2007. A302 Agronomy Journal Editorial Board Report. Agronomy Journal 99:868-870. Pearson, C.H. Pearson, S.M. Ernst, K.A. Barbarick, J.L. Hatfield, G.A. Peterson and D.R. Buxton. 2008. In celebration of 100 years of Agronomy Journal - Agronomy Journal turns one hundred. Agronomy Journal (in Press). Journal Citation Reports. 2006. ISI Web of Knowledge. Accessed through The Ohio State University Portal, http://portal.isiknowledge.com/?DestApp=JCR&Func=Frame. Site verified on 8/15/2007.