Reflections on two terms as editor of Agrekon

Agrekon was finally able to operate independently from 1 April 1990, in other words from Volume 28, when the Department of Agriculture decided to pass it on to AEASA together with a generous dowry that was sufficient to carry the not inconsiderable costs of printing and distribution, etc. for the first few years. The times they were a’ changing: 2 February 1990 was a real watershed moment in South Africa, which created the circumstances for many changes that would otherwise not have been countenanced. Furthermore, with the increasing pressure to “publish or perish” came increased emphasis on independent peer review and proof of the absence of conflicts of interest. We were fortunate, because we were able to tackle these new pressures from a solid base, as the Journal was in good “academic” shape (Wissing and Groenewald 1987), all the processes and procedures for getting it out to the members of the Association were in place, and new technologies (think Microsoft Office®) were being produced and were rapidly improving. We would soon be able to produce a whole edition without the intervention of a typewriter, even if we did not have Google Translate® to assist with bilingual publication! In our editorial note in the first Agrekon of the new era (Van Zyl and Vink 1990) we noted the origins of the Journal, with the government Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing playing a similar important role in the early years to that of the Economic Research Service USDA in the United States (Stanton 2007). We also noted the strengthening bonds between our Association and Agrekon, which manifested especially in the publication of the annual AEASA Conference papers in the year-end edition of each volume. We noted that, at that time, Agrekon was a good barometer of the state of research and the practice of agricultural economics in South(ern) Africa, but we also announced some important changes to the publication. First, the Journal was expanded to four editions a year, while the final edition would still be dedicated to the Conference proceedings. Second, there would be an expanded list of referees and a new Editorial board to reflect the new emphasis on arms-length, expert review of contributions. Third, the purpose, target audience and content were reoriented to make themmore transparent, and more reflective of the rapidly expanding membership that AEASA experienced at that time. More specifically, learning from Glenn Johnson (1987) we wanted Agrekon to cover disciplinary topics in the application of economics to problems in the farm and food sector; multidisciplinary or subject matter topics that synthesise relevant evidence and information about the sector; and problem solving in all aspects of the sector, including farm management, extension, marketing and market development and decision-making in farming, government, private enterprise and research institutions, etc. We noted the difficulty of this last type of publication, usually the purview of professionals rather than academics, but I suppose it is fair to say that neither we or our successors really succeeded in meeting this objective, largely because Agrekon became so successful in soliciting contributions of the first two types. In a similarly expansive mood, we noted the important link between knowledge and economic growth, and ended the editorial thus (Van Zyl and Vink 1990, 2): “By stimulating communication