JSR Journal Information
Co-Editors: Gary Hampson and Peter Burgess
Corresponding Editor: John B. Southard
Managing Editor: Melissa Lester
JSR Editorial Office
3300 Penrose Place, Boulder, CO 80301
phone: 303-357-1000, ext. 1034, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Online manuscript submission: sepm-jsr.allentrack.net
Research Articles: Papers dealing with research results in areas of interest to JSR readers.
Research Methods: Succinct descriptions of new field or laboratory devices, or field, laboratory, or data analysis techniques that will be of interest to a large number of sedimentary geologists.
Current Ripples: Short, high-impact, provocative papers on sedimentary geology. JSR’s goal for these types of papers is to provide a speedy outlet for new, data-supported research results.
Perspectives: Papers that offer the possibility for critical or explanatory review of broad topics of interest to JSR readers.
Discussion & Reply: Issues of broad interest concerning papers recently published in JSR.
Turbulence!: Short, contentious articles to encourage debate.
JSR offers 5 forums for presentation of research:
Research Articles: Research articles constitute the dominant form of publication in JSR. Research articles are commonly presented in the guise of case studies; however, JSR requires that such articles clearly demonstrate the broader application of the study that extends beyond the local area or study interval. Such research articles should be concise and have broad appeal. The broader applications of the study must be clearly stated in the abstract and introduction, and repeated in the discussion and conclusions. Data and interpretation must be clearly separated. Manuscripts are typically 15-25 JSR pages in length (including abstract, references, tables, figures, and captions).
Current Ripples: Current Ripples are short, high-impact, provocative papers on sedimentary geology. JSR’s goal for these types of papers is to provide a speedy outlet for new, data-supported research results. Published Current Ripples are not restricted to any maximum page length, but four to six JSR pages is typical (including abstract, references, tables, figures, and captions as well as main text, about 5600 words, plus spaces).
Perspectives Papers: Perspectives papers offer the possibility for critical or explanatory review of broad topics of interest to JSR readers. The Perspectives forum is an ideal place to present the outlines of an overarching theory that can be used to systematize and guide our understanding within some area of research. Such papers can include “scientific editorials,” in the sense that they offer readers views and opinions that, while particular to the author(s), are also carefully documented and supported by data and conclusions garnered from a body of peer-reviewed literature. Perspectives contributions serve the research community by describing the current status of an area of research, the key outstanding questions that may exist, the key obstacles that stand in way of progress, and possible strategies for confronting these obstacles. Although authors of Perspectives papers can freely advocate a particular approach or school of thought, readers will expect to be informed of the full context of this opinion, including the various divergent schools of thought and opinion that may exist, and the weaknesses and strengths thereof.
Perspectives papers are not restricted to any maximum page length, but are generally expected to fall within the same range as research papers.
Research Methods Papers: Research Methods papers are succinct descriptions of new field or laboratory devices, or field, laboratory or data analysis techniques likely to be of interest to a large number of sedimentary geologists. The research method’s utility should be showcased by data that demonstrates the method’s improvement over existing methods. The authors should clearly identify the broader application and significance of the new method.
Authors should carefully consider whether a separate methods paper is needed to convey their new ideas, or whether the research method could be described equally well as part of a Research Article that utilizes the results generated from the method. In most cases, this is the preferred approach as ‘pure’ methods papers are less likely to be read or cited.
The described methodology should be practical from the viewpoints of cost, complexity, and utility. There is a high likelihood that the manuscript will be declined if the described methodology is prohibitively expensive, requires considerable technical expertise to construct or operate, is designed for only narrow or highly specialized purposes, or represents only a marginal or specialized improvement over existing methods.
All necessary information for the construction or application of the new methodology should be provided in the paper. If a new device is being described, then a parts list and a schematic that shows how the parts are assembled should be provided, thus insuring that the interested reader can successfully construct their own version. If this information is too lengthy or complex, the author should include a file for the SEPM data archive, which will then be available via links on the JSR web site. References to specific commercial companies should be limited to avoid the appearance of product endorsement.
Discussion Papers: Discussion papers raise issues of broad interest that concern papers recently published in JSR, and must serve to provide readers with important context for evaluating the original paper’s data or conclusions. Discussion papers must be brief (1-2 printed pages is typical) and tightly focused on point(s) of substance within the paper being discussed. Discussions may draw attention to data and ideas that are available in the scientific literature, but may not introduce new data or concepts (i.e., they must not overlap into the sphere of research papers). Possible discussion papers must be submitted within 6 months of the publication date of the paper being discussed. In the interest of timely publication, Discussion submissions are typically evaluated by the Editors using advice from one or more Associate Editors. The author(s) of the original paper are provided with the approved Discussion manuscript and allowed to compose a “Reply” to the Discussion, if they so wish.