THE JULY 1993 ISSUE OF COMMUNICATIONS WAS HONORED WITH THE BEST SINGLE ISSUE AWARD BY THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS.

volunteer work to select, referee, revise, and publish papers. The momentous increase in the volume of publications eventually led ACM headquarters to recruit the help of specialists in publishing, as is done in most professional societies.

It was in this environment that Peter Denning, a recognized and experienced colleague, was appointed EIC of Communications, and James Maurer, a seasoned scientific publisher, was hired as Executive Editor (EE). It was Jim who, in the mid-1980s, invited me to join Communications’ Editorial Board as one of its Associate Editors (AE).

The experience I gained during my five years as an AE was invaluable. I firmly believe this position is the best training ground for potential EICs. Since the choice of referees for a submitted paper is one of the important tasks delegated to an AE, he or she obviously plays a hand in the acceptance or rejection of the paper. For an AE, tricky choices abound; for example, in selecting the referees for a paper authored by a well-known researcher, the

AE’s role was more like a judge than a researcher!

Remember this was pre-Web, pre-Google. Indeed, there was not even a well-designed database in the late 1980s where an AE could check for related articles, record the names of authors and paper titles, list the referees, or note mailing dates. There was no automatic means of prompting reviewers to get their job done on time! Everything was done manually.

Often, after a paper is finally reviewed, an AE is confronted with conflicting advice from the referees, and a decision had to be made as rapidly as possible about acceptance, revision,

or rejection. Editors, like judges, are human beings and subject to controversial decisions. My approach as an AE has always been to reply to an author of a rejected paper with constructive criticism and, whenever appropriate, suggest submission to related journals that cater to the topic at hand.

In 1992, Jim Maurer and Peter Denning invited me to become the EIC for CACM. As with any candidate for a position of high responsibility and visibility, I wondered if I would be up to the task. After reflection, I decided to accept the challenge. The acceptance was followed by a steep learning curve. Diane Crawford, the present EE, had just been appointed as the editor replacing Jim Maurer. My main goal was to join her as a partner in carrying on the task of keeping CACM as the leading ACM publication. At that time, the Association had over 80,000 members who received the monthly issues of CACM; the editors were responsible for ensuring a constant and timely stream of high-quality articles catering to readers with diverse backgrounds.

As EIC, I was also asked to join the ACM Publication Board, chaired by Peter Denning. I have seldom participated in such focused and active board meetings. Under Peter’s leadership the board accomplished one of the ACM’s grandest plans: the establishment of its now unreservedly success-