In the more than 9 years that I have been editing Agriculture and Human Values, I have seen many papers on many topics. Some of these papers are interesting but even fewer are exceptional enough to warrant publication in this journal. Because the number of submissions to the journal is increasing each year, the percent of papers I can accept continues to decline. Our acceptance rate is about 10 % now—and might be even lower.

I desk reject more than half of the papers submitted to the journal. That means I evaluate the papers for fit and scholarly merit on my own before making a decision to send them to external reviewers. Papers I reject without review are either poorly written or conceived or do not fit within the aims and scope of this journal. Lack of fit is the most common reason I reject a paper without review. In the summer 2010 issue of Agriculture and Human Values, I wrote the following. It is worth repeating here.

Submitted papers need to fit squarely within the aims and scope of the journal. That means they need to engage topics dealing with “agricultural and food related institutions, policies, and practices” as they relate to, impact, or are affected by “human populations, the environment, democratic governance, and social equity” (quoting from the journal’s website at http://www.springer.com/journal/10460). A good way to know if a paper fits within the aims and scope is to see what other papers have been published on the topic in Agriculture and Human Values. However, just because a submitted paper is on a topic similar to others published in the journal does not ensure that it is a good fit. Sometimes I assess fit by looking at the submitted paper’s reference list. Although citing papers published in Agriculture and Human Values is not a prerequisite for publishing in the journal, if the submitted paper refers to no papers in either this or related publications then I almost never send it to reviewers (James 2010, p. 117)

I strongly encourage authors contemplating a submission to this journal to review carefully the aims and scope of the journal and to ensure the paper is a good fit for the journal. It is in the interest of authors to do so because receiving a rejection without review can be discouraging as well as a waste of time. A little due diligence can go a long way in helping to improve the chance that a submission to this journal will be accepted.

This issue of Agriculture and Human Values contains the following exceptional articles. Romero explores the historical origins and implications of industrial chemical use in agriculture through an historical case study of cyanide fumigation in California. Blay-Palmer, Sonnino and Custot examine ways that social capital, social networks and social movements contribute to socially just and ecologically viable alternative food systems. Smith et al. use the case of flooding that occurred in Queensland, Australia, to examine the resilience characteristics of short and long food supply chains. Mittenzwei et al., use data from an online survey conducted in Norway to determine the extent to which cultural and social factors affect policy preferences. Winders et al., assess implications on commodity markets of changes in the US food regime. González-Torre and Coque examine the structure and function of food bank supply chains in Spain. Sanyé-Mengual et al. explore how the objectives and activities of urban rooftop gardens are perceived by stakeholders in a case study from Spain. Scharber and Dancs show that economic arguments about the inefficiencies of local food production are incomplete and miss important benefits of local food. In addition, Piatti and Dwiartama organized a symposium of articles on the topic of food security and the enactment of change. This symposium contains an introduction by the guest editors, six articles, and a summary essay by Campbell. Book reviews and the list of books received round out this issue of the journal.