{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021229544449358692, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010614772224679346, 'mean_word_length': 4.906005221932115, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ten years and onwards

It has been two years since we composed editorial, the last one having been for the ten-year anniversary issue of New Media & Society published in February-March 2009.We would like therefore to seize this moment and muse, albeit briefly, about the current year and recent past. We have compiled a few basic indicators in the table below, spanning the previous five-year period. It is clear that the number of submissions has risen progressively across that period: the submissions in 2010 is almost double the number for 2006. Regarding the rates of acceptance of submissions, these figures have remained in the 19–20 percent range. The acceptance rate for 2010 is abnormal due to the many manuscripts submitted in late 2010, not all of which have completed the full cycle of processing. And, the number of requests to revise and resubmit manuscripts has increased dramatically. Although not evident in the table, essentially all submissions involve at least one round of revision and many involve more rounds before a decision to publish is made. We are pleased that the amount of time between submission and completion of review (the row 'Days to review') has dramatically declined across the years, and the time period now is just above two months. The last row in the table, 'Registered users', reflects the number of persons registered on the journal's submission website, who are by and large the body of reviewers from which we solicit reviews of submissions. Such tabular overviews provide a picture of a few variables useful in monitoring a journal. The figures, of course, fall short of identifying longitudinal changes in topics covered in the published articles, in the theoretical fashions that come and go, in the methodological approaches undertaken, in geographical and institutional distribution of the authors of published articles. In short, the table provides little information regarding changes in the research agenda for new media or in the intellectual centers where that agenda is developing. Such concerns could be the focus of studies charting new media scholarship from a perspective such as the sociology of knowledge. We hope – and expect – to see such theoretically grounded reflections in the coming years.