PASP Editor's Notes (OLD UCP STUFF)

TIP LastUpdate: JeffMangum - 2015-12-19

Import Emails and Contacts

University of Chicago Press

  • (this is the general help you should direct authors to that have trouble uploading their papers)
  • Dan Martin. Dan is in charge of PASP production. Effective 2013-03-13 he was also put in charge of the technical check duties (from Wayne Tack).
  • Gordon Rudy. Gordon is head honcho above the others - telecons in for board meetings sometimes and handles budget at UCP.
  • Ashley Towne. Ashley handles layout and some other things, not sure if she is still in that position as another person is sending you the swatch colors. Seems to also be the "Publications Operations Manager" (whatever that is).
  • Michael Boudreau. Mike handles EM issues.
  • Tim Harper. Tim handles EM issues (and I believe works for Mike Boudreau).
  • Rachel Wiseman. Handles marketing of PASP for UCP.
  • David Balsley. Handles problems with technical membership access of PASP for UCP.

Former UCP Staff:

  • Wayne Tack. Wayne processes papers and answers most of the help questions from authors. No longer in charge of this task as of 2013-03-13.

Wayne and Dan are the PASP Editor's daily contacts for problems, Gordon for income, expense numbers for the year and the UCP yearly report on stats (very useful).

Astronomical Society of the Pacific


  • Dan Fabricant: Dan has been Associate Editor for Instrumentation for N years (N > 10, I think) and is un-paid. Send Dan something each Christmas (something local?).
  • Bob Kraft: Address is 830 Pine Tree Lane, Aptos, CA 95003. Emeritus Professor at UCO Lick who donates $1000 each year to PASP. Send him a Christmas card from NRAO each year thanking him for his support. Typical gift letter from Bob looks like the following:

Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:41:44 -0800
From: Dr. Kraft <>
Subject: asp12

                                   830 Pine Tree Ln
                                   Aptos, CA 95003
                                   23 Nov 2012

Dr. James Manning
Astronomical Society of the Pacific
390 Ashton Ave
San Francisco, CA 94112

Dear Jim:
    Herewith my usual year-end contribution to the ASP
in the amount of $1500, to be divided as follows: $1000
to the editor of PASP, to be used in support of the
publications (as, e.g., page charges, etc), and $500
in support of the Society's public outreach programs.

    I would appreciate receiving a letter stating
that no goods, services or perks were received
in response to this contribution.

    Thanks very much and best wishes for 2013!

                                Sincerely yours,

                                Robert P. Kraft
                         (astronomer/professor emeritus
                               UCO/Lick Observatory)

c/ Paula Szkody, PASP

-- JeffMangum - 2012-11-26

Editing Process Steps

Technical Check Steps from UCP

From Wayne Tack 2013-01-10:

For each submission:
  1. We check that a source file for the paper is provided in .doc or .tex format.
  2. We check that separate files for each image have been provided in proper format.
(If these files are missing, we bounce the paper back to the author via Technical Check Failed, and request them to provide these files.)
  1. We check that the naming and classification of the files is correct, and correct them if necessary. If files in a submission need to be renamed our procedure is to return the paper back to the author only if the number of files is over an arbitrary 15 or 16. Otherwise, we do that task here.
  2. If the submission main source file is in .tex, we make sure the file calls \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}.
  3. If they aren't already present, we put \clearpage or \newpage commands around each figure callout in the ms.tex file, so that the figures appear on pages separate from the text in the EM-generated pdf.
  4. We do a count of estimated pages, number of figures, mode of figures (B&W or color or color-online), and number of tables for the submission and record this on the "Details" page in EM. Our estimates of page counts are fairly accurate for .tex submissions, and a little more inaccurate for .doc submissions.
  5. We record any instructions that the author has provided for treatment of color figures in the "Manuscript Notes" and "Production Notes" sections of the Details page.

It's not uncommon (about twice a month overall) to get a submission that would not compile on the EM system, along with an explanatory email from the author that their file would compile on their local system, but not EM. We find that often this is caused by the author not including style files they are utilizing on their local system, but which do not exist on EM, with their submission. We troubleshoot this when it happens.

Currently we have an alternate, not often used method of submission by FTP for PASP papers. We have in the past received, via FTP, some papers that would not compile on EM.

-- JeffMangum - 2013-01-13

Categories and Their Order

NOTE: Order manuscripts within a category by acceptance date.

  1. Editorials, Reviews or Obits go first
  2. Quasars and Active Galaxies
  3. Galaxies
  4. Gamma-ray bursts
  5. Supernovae
  6. Star Clusters and Associations
  7. Stars
  8. ISM
  9. Extrasolar Planets
  10. Solar System
  11. Astronomical Instrumentation
  12. Astronomical Techniques
  13. Astrophysical Data
  14. Data Analysis and Techniques
  15. Astronomical Phenomena and Seeing
  16. Tutorials
  17. Dissertation Summary, Conf Summary or Addendum

-- JeffMangum - 2013-01-06

Explanation of EM Produced Stats

From Tim Harper:
  • Days to Final Decision Date: Is calculated from the “Initial Date Submitted” (when the author started their submission upload) to the Final Decision Date (the date that the “decision” is made)
  • Days with Author(s): This refers to the number of days the author took to revise a submission. It is calculated from the time the editor makes a decision on the paper to the time the author submits the revised manuscript.
  • Days with Editor: Number of Days submission was 'in the hands' of the Editor. The difference in days between “Editor Assignment Stop” (RSTOP) and “Editor Assignment Start” (RSTART). Note the value is 0 if the Editor was assigned and made a decision in the same day.
  • Total Days with Reviewer: Number of Days submission was 'in the hands' of the Reviewer. Value is calculated based on Reviewer Due Date Preferences in PolicyManager. Since PASP is operating in what is known as “Agreed Mode”, Total Days with Reviewer is the difference between the date the Reviewer agreed to do the review (ACCEPTDATE) and Reviewer Stop Date (RSTOP). The Reviewer Stop Date could be the date the review was completed or the date the reviewer was un-invited or assignment was terminated.

From the above:

(Days with Editor) + (Days with Reviewer) <= (Days to Final Decision Date)

Note, though, that this equation is almost always equal as the time that UCP takes to process the MS is small.

Definition of a "Duplicate Submission"

If a submission lists a tiny green "D" symbol as a superscript to the author's name, it means that the author has submitted multiple new manuscripts within the last 30 days. It does not mean that the indicated submission is in fact a duplicate, though.

Minor EM Feature When an MS is Mistakenly Started Through the Decision Process

I have ran into the following "annoyance" a couple of times, and it only happens when I make the mistake of starting to make a decision on an MS prematurely. Here is the sequence:
  • A revised manuscript is received from an author and assigned to an editor (me).
  • I mistakenly start into the process of "submit editor's decision and comments" by:
    • Marking it with a decision of revise
    • Going to the point where I make the final assignment of revise and review the email to the author, at which point I realize my mistake and cancel my way back to the editor main menu.

At this point the manuscript has been moved from my "new assignments" queue to "submissions with required reviews complete". This is not the right queue, as for a revision I often need to send it back to the original reviewer. Furthermore, once I get a reviewer to take the assignment, the MS still stays in the "submissions with required reviews complete" queue.

After consulting with UCP (Mike Boudreau), who ran a test and consulted with Aries (the producer of EM). This is a "feature". Once you start the process of making a decision the number of required reviews is set to 0 (it is set to 1 by default). To fix this you can change the number of required reviews to 1 on the "Invite Reviewers" page.

-- JeffMangum - 2013-06-05

Assigning a Second Reviewer After an MS Has Been Sent Back to the Author For Revision

Since the state of such an MS would be "in revision", one needs to "rescind" the decision to revise in order to invite additional reviewers.


UCP Issues January 2013

From Jim Manning email to Gordon Rudy 2013-01-05:
  • Reduction in surplus to ASP
  • Ability of the JSTOR sales force to generate new subscriptions for ASP (which had been emphasized to us at the time of the switch to JSTOR as one of the benefits which we seem yet to have realized)
  • Status of reduced subscription rates for China (which has been a matter of concern to Board members in recent years)

Additional issues that I should discuss with Jim:
  • Embargo Period: We should reduce to 1 year to follow lead of ApJ/AJ.
  • Production Timescale: PASP is currently always behind schedule and produced late each month. Production timescale from UCP says that it takes 61 days from the point at which UCP has all of the accepted manuscripts to delivery of the issue. Need to find ways to both shorten this and "catch up".

-- JeffMangum - 2013-01-13

Items to be Considered by Publication Committee

  • Reduce PASP Embargo Period from Two to One Year: Already presented to Jim and Pub Comm chairs (Bill and Christine). No reason not to do this.
  • Potential PASP Subscription Price Increase for 2014: Solicit opinions on a potential subscription price increase for next year (UCP will be asking in a few months), in prep for issuing prices for next year. We have not raised subscription prices much at all since the economy tanked in 2008, but we can't continue that indefinitely. Last year we raised page charges instead. I don't expect that university economies have much changed, but we might as well take the opportunity to get input in advance of our usual schedule so we can sort things out with UCP at the appropriate time a few months from now.)
  • Absorb Astronomy Education Review: Anne Cowley sent the following on 2013-02-07: "Right now I am on a committee to look into Astronomy Educational Review (AER), a small e-journal that Sidney Wolff started a decade ago and was taken over by the AAS (with some ASP support) about 5 years ago. It publishes only about 15 papers per year and thus is hard to justify as a stand-alone journal. Would you, as PASP editor, be interested in having educational research articles submitted to the PASP?" I answered that I was not sure, seeing both up and down sides. I am inclined to say yes, though, but said that I needed to vet this with the Pub Com. Jim supported this absorption.

Kepler Planet Designations

Beichman from NExSci (Kepler science center) contacted all astronomy journal editors with the following request regarding Kepler planet discoveries and the IAU naming conventions for confirmed discoveries:

Dear Drs. Vishniac, Gallagher, Szkody, Flower,
Forveille, Sage and Cruz

We are writing to you as the editors of the main astrophysics journals with regard to 
an issue of object name coordination between the Kepler Mission, the official archives 
and the journal papers.

NExScI (NASA Exopanet Science Institute) operates the NASA Exoplanet Archive, 
which is part of the NASA's Exoplanet Exploration Program and serves as the official 
archive for Kepler pipeline data.

Over the last few years, the Kepler project has used the "Kepler" designation for confirmed 
and validated exoplanets found by the Science Team and this catalog name has been 
registered with the IAU. During the Kepler extended mission, the Kepler project would like 
this designation to be applied to exoplanets found by any group with Kepler data and they 
have asked us at NExScI to administer this process.

The intent is to give Kepler numbers only to confirmed or validated planets, and we would 
like to rely on the refereeing process set up by your journals to determine which planets are 
considered confirmed or validated.    We will monitor the published peer-reviewed literature, 
assign Kepler numbers to published works and make this information available to everyone 
in the Exoplanet Archive. Many authors, however, will wish to use the Kepler designation in 
their published paper, and we propose the following procedure to achieve this:

- In the submitted manuscript, authors would use another catalog designation 
(e.g. KIC 757067 b, KOI 145.01, Kepler XX b).

- Once the paper is accepted, the author will notify NExScI and we will provide the Kepler 
numbers within 2 working days.

- The author then replaces the previous catalog designation with the new Kepler numbers 
as part of the copy editing process.

Our question to you is if this procedure will work within your existing refereeing and copy editing 
process and if not, do you have alternate suggestions.  We prefer not to give Kepler numbers to 
submitted papers as we do not know if they will be accepted or modified, but would consider 
this if our suggested procedure is not workable.

An announcement that NExScI will be taking over the Kepler number distribution will be made at 
the January AAS meeting, and although the full details of this policy may not be worked out by 
then, we would greatly appreciate any feedback you might have before that.


Chas Beichman
Rachel Akeson

We will adhere to this policy. As a matter of policy I will ask for an additional revision to the accepted manuscript to allow the author to make these changes. Dan Martin at UCP agrees with this process.

-- JeffMangum - 2012-12-21

Use of ftp Upload for Submissions

While reviewing the UCP web pages for PASP I noticed that they still allowed for and supported ftp upload of manuscripts. I asked Dan Martin if this was still used. He responded as follows:
I checked with Wayne Tack, who handles the peer-review shuffling-around of manuscripts for PASP, 
and he said that it is used sporadically but from the sound of things, roughly an issue-worth of material 
comes in via FTP each year. I know he has been talking with Michael Boudreau about the topic. It 
sounds like the most common use of FTP submission is when someone can’t get their manuscript to 
compile correctly in Editorial Manager.
So, I guess it is still used.

-- JeffMangum - 2013-01-05

Publications Policy

Just in case anyone asks, this is PASP's publication policy:



The Astronomical Society of the Pacific routinely allows text or figures
that were originally published in the PUBLICATIONS to be reproduced in
scholarly articles or books.

This permission is, however, subject to two requirements:

1. The person or publication wishing to reproduce material from the PASP
for scholarly purposes must contact the original author of the PASP
article and obtain his or her explicit approval for such reproduction. The
original author retains the right to accept or deny all such requests.

2. The reproduced material must carry the following credit: "This article
originally appeared in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the
Pacific (Smith and Jones, 2005, PASP, 117, 1234).  Copyright 2004,
Astronomical Society of the Pacific; reproduced with permission of the
Editors." (Of course you fill in the appropriate reference to replace the one above!)


-- JeffMangum - 2012-12-02
Topic revision: r1 - 2015-12-19, JeffMangum
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding NRAO Public Wiki? Send feedback