This year my dean, for the first time ever, required all the science faculty to report the impact factor of each journal in which we had published a paper.

1 Appropriate journal use in the modern age ,” Am. J. Phys. 84(1), 5– 6 (2016). 1. Just as AJP itself has been under the thumbs of bean-counting librarians, as described by D. P. Jackson, “,” Am. J. Phys.(1), 5–(2016). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4937116 When I saw this requirement it hit me: Our little regional university is undoubtedly the last to catch up with this trend. The vast majority of AJP's authors have surely been under the thumbs of bean-counting administratorsfor many years. And that means I owe those authors an apology.

2 AJP reviewers ,” Am. J. Phys. 83(12), 989– 990 (2015); and AJP reviewers ,” Am. J. Phys. 84(12), 901– 902 (2016). 2. Please take note, all reviewers listed in D. P. Jackson and D. V. Schroeder, “,” Am. J. Phys.(12), 989–(2015); and https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4935257 D. P. Jackson, “,” Am. J. Phys.(12), 901–(2016). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4966631 readers will use it, but whether other authors will cite it. 3 Resource letter TTSM-1: Teaching thermodynamics and statistical mechanics in introductory physics, chemistry, and biology ,” Am. J. Phys. 83(1), 5– 21 (2015); Resource letter SOP-1: Self-organizing physics ,” Am. J. Phys. 83(8), 680– 687 (2015); Resource letter SW-1: Space weather ,” Am. J. Phys. 84(3), 166– 180 (2016); Resource letter QI-1: Quantum information ,” Am. J. Phys. 84(7), 495– 507 (2016); Resource letter MP-3: The Manhattan project and related nuclear research ,” Am. J. Phys. 84(10), 734– 745 (2016); Resource letter ANP-1: Advances in neutrino physics ,” Am. J. Phys. 84(12), 907– 916 (2016). 3. For instance, AJP really should publish fewer regular papers and more of its highly citable Resource Letters, such as B. W. Dreyfus, B. D. Geller, D. E. Meltzer, and V. Sawtelle, “,” Am. J. Phys.(1), 5–(2015); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4891673 D. T. Jacobs, “,” Am. J. Phys.(8), 680–(2015); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4922338 D. N. Baker and L. J. Lanzerotti, “,” Am. J. Phys.(3), 166–(2016); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4938403 F. W. Strauch, “,” Am. J. Phys.(7), 495–(2016); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4948608 B. C. Reed, “,” Am. J. Phys.(10), 734–(2016); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4961499 and M. C. Goodman, “,” Am. J. Phys.(12), 907–(2016). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4962228 However, it would be best if all future Resource Letters cite only articles in AJP itself. It does not serve this journal's interest to pump up the impact factors of other journals. 4 Hurricane balls: A rigid-body-motion project for undergraduates ,” Am. J. Phys. 83(11), 959– 968 (2015). 4. And it can't possibly hurt to cite a paper by the editor himself, such as D. P. Jackson, D. Mertens, and B. J. Pearson, “,” Am. J. Phys.(11), 959–(2015). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4930087 5 Conical shape of frozen water droplets ,” Am. J. Phys. 83(1), 36– 38 (2015), Life under a black sun ,” Am. J. Phys. 85(1), 14– 22 (2017). 5. More precisely, within the two calendar years preceding the year of publication, so there's still time to cite A. Schetnikov, V. Matiunin, and V. Chernov, “,” Am. J. Phys.(1), 36–(2015), https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4897499 but it's too early to bother citing T. Opatrný, L. Richterek, and P. Bakala, “,” Am. J. Phys.(1), 14–(2017). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4966905 You see, throughout my recent five-year stint as AJP's associate editor, and my many years as a reviewerbefore that, I just never understood that the criterion for accepting a paper should be not whether otherwillit, but whether otherwillit.Similarly, I never realized that AJP should expect its authors to cite as many other AJP papers as possible—relevant or not—in order to help our other authors run up their citation counts and h-indexes. Preferably these citations should be to papers published within the previous two years,so they'll count toward AJP's all-important impact factor.

I sincerely apologize to all AJP authors whose careers have been held back by my thoughtlessness.