Summary of activities 2018

Creativity is one of those tropes that seems to do the rounds regularly in, well, creative circles. Almost by definition it is levelled at the arts, in part because its base definition is along the lines of the ability to create (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creativity). Within this context, cartography is well-poised because any map requires the cartographer to create a new, unrealised, graphic product. This is no better summed up than the definition of cartography as the art and science of map making. Making maps resides at the intersection of a number of scientific and artistic disciplines – for example, geodesy and graphic design. We naturally think of it as creatively expressive and, at the Journal of Maps (JoM), we have published a number of maps that push the boundaries of cartography. For example, the 2016 Best Map winner (Jenny, Liem, Savric, & Putman, 2016) created a remarkable pannable and zoomable video map inside a web browser. Realised with a great sense of clarity, it pushed the technical boundaries of how we present spatial information. Equally, the 2012 winner (Zuniga, Pueyo, & Calvo, 2012) took an interesting dataset and produced a visually beautiful map. In this sense, it was a work of art that would not look out of place being framed and hung on a wall. However, these stereotypical understandings fail to take in to account a wider appreciation of creativity. A further definition, which I prefer, is something that is original, expressive and imaginative (http://www. thefreedictionary.com/creativity). For me, this takes on a whole new meaning as it expands the scope of what we think of as creative beyond the map, through to the data forming it. One of the reasons that the JoM is so successful is because one of its primary stakeholders are practitioners who undertake research and produce spatial data. They have a passion for realising the cartographic output of their work and it is this desire to seek the production of original data, imagine new realisations of understanding and present hitherto-unseen or -unknown relationships that drives the work we do. For example, some of the unusual datasets we have published include concrete sidewalks (Brendle-Moczuk, 2013), mythical creatures (Beconytė, Eismontaitė, & Žemaitienė, 2014) and coordinate track logs of delivery companies (Slingsby, Wood, & Dykes, 2009). Of course, the production of spatial data is but one facet of the journey to publication. Our strap line for those considering submitting to us is that we publish maps that are bespoke and of good quality. So, for example, bad science will not suffice in the peer-review process. Equally, poor-quality maps are not acceptable. However, because it is practitioners who submit to us, the maps may not be designed to the standards of a professional cartographer. It is a salutary reminder that we will reject or return maps that do not meet our minimum standard, so it is important for authors to be thoroughly conversant with our author guidelines (https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission ?journalCode = tjom20&page = instructions), including our guide to common map-making errors (https:// www.tandf.co.uk//journals/authors/style/TJOM-Comm on-Errors.pdf). All too often, we see submissions that could be classified as ‘GIS maps’. That is to say, a geographic information system (GIS) has been used to produce the cartographic output using default software settings with little thought to design. In these situations, we urge authors to employ a cartographer to produce the final map for them. Equally, we see examples of exemplary design. When these are combined with interesting research, then the material meets our criteria for the best possible work we can publish. These are the maps that make our shortlist for the Best Map award and is one of the most anticipated parts of our year for the publishing team and Editorial Board. One of the most exciting things about being a journal editor is that you get to see cutting-edge research as it is published and so judging the Best Map award is a real privilege.


Editor's comment
Creativity is one of those tropes that seems to do the rounds regularly in, well, creative circles. Almost by definition it is levelled at the arts, in part because its base definition is along the lines of the ability to create (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creativity). Within this context, cartography is well-poised because any map requires the cartographer to create a new, unrealised, graphic product. This is no better summed up than the definition of cartography as the art and science of map making. Making maps resides at the intersection of a number of scientific and artistic disciplines for example, geodesy and graphic design. We naturally think of it as creatively expressive and, at the Journal of Maps (JoM), we have published a number of maps that push the boundaries of cartography. For example, the 2016 Best Map winner (Jenny, Liem, Savric, & Putman, 2016) created a remarkable pannable and zoomable video map inside a web browser. Realised with a great sense of clarity, it pushed the technical boundaries of how we present spatial information. Equally, the 2012 winner (Zuniga, Pueyo, & Calvo, 2012) took an interesting dataset and produced a visually beautiful map. In this sense, it was a work of art that would not look out of place being framed and hung on a wall.
However, these stereotypical understandings fail to take in to account a wider appreciation of creativity. A further definition, which I prefer, is something that is original, expressive and imaginative (http://www. thefreedictionary.com/creativity). For me, this takes on a whole new meaning as it expands the scope of what we think of as creative beyond the map, through to the data forming it. One of the reasons that the JoM is so successful is because one of its primary stakeholders are practitioners who undertake research and produce spatial data. They have a passion for realising the cartographic output of their work and it is this desire to seek the production of original data, imagine new realisations of understanding and present hitherto-unseen or -unknown relationships that drives the work we do. For example, some of the unusual datasets we have published include concrete sidewalks (Brendle-Moczuk, 2013), mythical creatures (Beconytė, Eismontaitė, & Žemaitienė, 2014) and coordinate track logs of delivery companies (Slingsby, Wood, & Dykes, 2009).
Of course, the production of spatial data is but one facet of the journey to publication. Our strap line for those considering submitting to us is that we publish maps that are bespoke and of good quality. So, for example, bad science will not suffice in the peer-review process. Equally, poor-quality maps are not acceptable. However, because it is practitioners who submit to us, the maps may not be designed to the standards of a professional cartographer. It is a salutary reminder that we will reject or return maps that do not meet our minimum standard, so it is important for authors to be thoroughly conversant with our author guidelines (https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission ?journalCode = tjom20&page = instructions), including our guide to common map-making errors (https:// www.tandf.co.uk//journals/authors/style/TJOM-Comm on-Errors.pdf). All too often, we see submissions that could be classified as 'GIS maps'. That is to say, a geographic information system (GIS) has been used to produce the cartographic output using default software settings with little thought to design. In these situations, we urge authors to employ a cartographer to produce the final map for them.
Equally, we see examples of exemplary design. When these are combined with interesting research, then the material meets our criteria for the best possible work we can publish. These are the maps that make our shortlist for the Best Map award and is one of the most anticipated parts of our year for the publishing team and Editorial Board. One of the most exciting things about being a journal editor is that you get to see cutting-edge research as it is published and so judging the Best Map award is a real privilege.

Best map award
For 2018 the 'Best Map' was judged by the formal awards panel comprised of myself, Dr Dick Berg, Professor Keith Clarke, Dr Bernhard Jenny, and Mr Mike Shand (and this section reflects our combined comments). Contributions are assessed upon both their academic content and cartographic quality. It is neither the best academic paper nor the best-designed map, but a combination of qualities from both areas that is judged the winner. The following 10 maps were reviewed for the award: It is with great pleasure that I am able to announce the award of the 2018 'Best Map' to Rachel Riemann, Barry T. Wilson, Andrew J. Lister, Oren Cook and Sierra Crane-Murdoch (USDA Forest Service) for their map detailing the distribution and local abundance of tree species (https://doi.org/10. 1080/ 17445647.2018.1513383). What stands out with this work is the combination of the underlying data, scope and graphic design. This first of two parts presents tree species data for 24 US states based upon an extensive sample-based inventory. However, fronting the extensive underlying scientific data is a clear and elegant design. As the panel noted, this is beautifully envisaged and designed, detailed and educational. Above all, the maps are educational, designed to invite and engage readers of all ages and abilities. For these reasons it is a deserving winner of this year's award.

A year in numbers: 2018
With the 2018 issue of the JoM now closed, our eyes are firmly set on 2019. With this in mind, I am pleased to announce that Professor Nigel Walford (Kingston University) will be replacing Professor Jeremy Porter (Brooklyn College) as Editor of the Social Science section. I would like to thank Jeremy for the hard work he has done over the years and welcome Nigel. He brings a breadth of experience in the application of GIS across a number of domains in the social sciences.
In 2017 we published 109 articles across 1007 pages, whilst this year we published 81 articles across 790 pages. The last two years have seen us publish out our backlog and clear our way through the remaining manuscripts that have had long review times. In last year's editorial (Smith, 2018), I outlined what I consider to be good editorial practice in requesting reviews for manuscripts and not abusing the tripartite relationship between editors, authors and reviewers. Indeed, in addition to being readers, we often fulfil each of these roles during our careers as academics; we therefore need to be mindful of the pressures each of them involve. In general, then, we are seeing good review times that are sustainable both for the journal and our reviewers.
Our Impact Factor (2017) reduced slightly from 2.174 to 1.600; this was not unexpected given the backlog that we were able to publish. Our focus remains on the best research, following the highest editorial standards and published in a timely manner. Overall total incoming citations were 440. One metric that demonstrates the immense success of open access journals are the number of downloads of articles. For our last year as a subscription journal (2015) we had 30,972 article downloads; this increased in 2016 to 50,125, 2017 to 135,192 and2018 (to October) to 158,814. Quite simply, more people access journal articles (and maps) when they are free to view.
In terms of metrics for individual articles, the top five cited (2015-2017) and downloaded (2018)

With gratitude and thanks
For fear of repeating myself year on year, this section is dedicated to everyone involved in the publication of the journal. Authors and readers are the lifeblood of any journal and the discipline they represent. With people wanting to download and read manuscripts and maps, along with those wanting to make their research widely available, is what makes this such an exciting area. The metrics that go hand-in-hand are citations and downloads, and these show a subject that is flourishing. However, it is reviewers who keep the wheels of academic publishing turning and their dedication to leading their respective subjects is paramount. I am also grateful to the team at the JoM which includes the Associate Editors (Table 1) and those at Taylor and Francis (and in particular Alex Talbot and Andrew Kelly). I would also like to formally acknowledge the referees (Table 2) who gave up their time and expertise for review.