7.03.01.01 - Cooperative Extension Publication Procedure

All Cooperative Extension publications are peer-reviewed. Peer-review allows other experts within the field to review your publication and verify information. Publications that have undergone peer-review are often of higher quality, are better respected, and add to a reliable body of knowledge. Peer-reviewed publications are also necessary to obtain continuing status and promotion. This is a blind peer-review process, so authors may make suggestions for reviewers, however, it is the department head’s choice of whom to ask to review the document. Reviewer identity is not revealed to the author.

To expedite the production of Cooperative Extension publications, faculty should adhere to the following procedures:

  • AUTHORSHIP

   - First authorship is restricted to UA employees. Classified staff must have an extension faculty  
     member as a co-author. Students may be able to publish as a co-author if an Extension faculty
     member is a co-author – this is at the discretion of the Associate Director. A non-faculty author may
     be first author, however the faculty member will be listed as the contact person and all
     correspondence, both prior to and post publication, will be to the faculty member. The faculty
     member is responsible for informing co-authors. Non-UA people may be authors, but not first
     authors and all correspondence and contact is via the UA faculty member.

  - An individual must make a substantial, original contribution to the scholarly work to be considered
    an author.

  - For older publications being updated, the primary credit will be given to the most recent revision
    author with an acknowledgment to the original author.

  - Publications which contain substantial material from another publication(s) are considered to be
    “adapted” and therefore will not be assigned an AZ number or authorship. The submitting faculty will
    be listed as the contact and given credit as “adapted by …”. The publication may still be listed on
    the publications website.

  - If a first time publication is published after an author has retired or left the university, s/he may
    remain an author, but a current Extension faculty member must also be an author and will be listed
    as the contact person.

  - If material is intended for use in eXtension, it must go through the CALS Extension publication
    process. This material will not include copyrighted material from other sources.

  • PLANNING

  - Author(s) develops project according to Guidelines for Printed Material , then submits the
    Publication Planning Form.

- Author will then be directed to the FastTrack database where s/he will enter the data, including
    proposed reviewers (with email addresses).

  - Associate Director contacts the appropriate Associate Editor to start the review process.

  • REVIEWS AND DISTRIBUTION

  - Associate Editor, with recommendation from author, decides on appropriate reviewers for
    publication and sends out for review via FastTrack. A minimum of 3 reviewers is required with one
    out-of-state reviewer recommended. (If the author has any questions about the status of the
    reviews, the author should first check the status on FastTrack before contacting the Associate
    Editor directly.)

  - After looking at reviewer comments, Associate Editor accepts or rejects publication via FastTrack
    and forwards, via email, anonymous reviewer comments to author.

  - Author makes revisions and addresses, in writing, each comment made by reviewers, attaches
    reviewer comments (and response to them) to final version and emails it all to the Associate Editor.

  - The Associate Editor reviews final draft and forwards all material to the Associate Director via
    email. The Associate Director will follow up with the Associate Editor via email. Authors may
    appeal an Associate Editor's decision directly to the Associate Director.

  - The Associate Director sends the publication to the Pesticide Information and Training Office
    (PITO) for approval if necessary. PITO reviews the publication and returns to Associate Director for
    final approval via email.

  - If a publication is peer reviewed through Cooperative Extension, the publication must be available
    electronically to the Publications Director for distribution and archival purposes.

  - CALS has the right to distribute the publication even if another source is also distributing the
    publication.

  - If the publication is a training manual that needs to be distributed only to people attending a
    training, the material can be distributed by the agent/specialist, however, the Publications Director
    must be given an electronic copy of the material for archival purposes.

  - An author always has the option to not use the Extension peer review process (in which case it
    would not be a CALS publication) and have the publication reviewed from an outside source.

  - The Associate Director gives final approval for publication and distribution to the Publications
    Director.

  • PUBLICATION

  - The Publications Director contacts lead author for publication files, then assigns publication
    number and supervises design, layout, and quality assurance. (Publication templates are not
    available for authors to use on their own.)

  - Proof copy sent to author, with artwork approval form.

  • POST-PUBLICATION

  - Publication is posted to the Web and the URL is sent to the author and Extension.

  - Extension announces Web version.

  • FOLLOW-UP

  - Associate Director initiates a review every two to five years (depending upon publication content)
    for content currency.

  - Corresponding/first authors who are current employees are encouraged to update their original
    publications.

  - Authors wishing to update other authors work should contact the original author if possible to
    collaborate on an update.

  - If an original author cannot update the original publication, new authors are encouraged to write a
    new publication, with new title and give reference to the original publication where appropriate.

  - Updates that do not require significant content changes will not require re-review; updates that
    require significant content changes will require official review; review status will be determined by
    the submitting author and the Associate Director.