The first two years of publication of Bridge Engineering have been both challenging and rewarding. The Panel for Bridge Engineering was set up just over two years ago with only four potential papers on the books and only six months before the first issue was due to be published. Despite this challenging start, the Panel decided to embark with a policy of striving to establish a leading international Journal for bridge engineers. That policy is already showing signs of success and the number of pages produced during 2004 has exceeded the planned number, although with some issues being slimmer than others. For example, this issue has only four (but substantial) papers covering a good range of topics. The Panel takes the view that slim volumes of good quality papers are more important in the long run than a large volume of ephemeral papers. We are pleased to report, however, that the number of papers in the pipeline is improving gradually.
One of the strengths of Bridge Engineering is the relatively high number of papers reporting on major bridges from around the world. We have already published papers on bridges in most continents. The Panel takes the view that this approach is a good method of establishing the international position and impact of Bridge Engineering.
Another area of strength is the occasional publication of full or abridged papers from earlier Proceedings. These reprints are linked, if possible, to significant anniversaries and the ones published to date reported on the Clifton Suspension Bridge and the Victoria Falls Bridge. The next historical paper will appear in 2005 and will summarise various papers published on the three/four attempts by William Edwards to bridge the River Taff at Pontypridd some 250 years ago.
Bridge Engineering had a Special Issue in September of this year dealing with the general topic of Bridge Maintenance. Eight good papers were published in this issue covering a wide range of topics. The success of this Special Issue has resulted in the Panel deciding to devote the September 2005 to the general topic of Footbridges. Further information on this proposed Special Issue is contained in this issue and a number of Abstracts have already been received for this issue.
One of the current areas of weakness perceived by the Panel is the lack of discussion following the publication of papers. Historically some of the discussions in earlier Proceedings were as interesting and informative as the papers themselves. Despite some of the potentially contentious aspects of current bridge engineering practice reported during the last two years, we have not received the level of discussion that we would wish. However we would also like to state that the limited discussion received to date has been of excellent quality and we simply wish to receive more.
Another area of some concern for the Panel is the lack of short “pithy” papers dealing with innovation or describing how bridge engineers have resolved specific problems. We believe that this is partly due to the guidelines for potential authors which state that “the preferred length is about 5000 words, excluding notation, tables and figures". Whereas the above extract is applicable for full papers on major structures, it is not applicable for short, concise papers dealing with specific topics, issues or areas of innovation. I wish to take this opportunity of inviting bridge engineers to share their experiences with the rest of our community by producing suitable concise papers of the order of 1500 words or more. We hope very much there will be a positive response to this clarification and invitation for some short contributions in future issues of Bridge Engineering.
