FROM THE E D I T O R

About half way through my tenure as editor, a pattern of submis- sion outcomes has begun to emerge. In response to that perennial question of what does it take to get published, I thought that I would take this opportunity to share with you some of the reasons why the American Journal of Criminal Justice accepts and rejects manuscripts. The motif that has emerged reveals items that can, in many instances, be remedied prior to submitting a manuscript for review.

As is shown below in Figure 1, the manuscript rejection rate thus far is approximately 63%. This pattern is shaped by at least two domi- nant factors. The first factor is my editorial philosophy. As I stated in my first issue, as a general rule I intend to publish articles that utilize a broad range of social science methodologies or that are theoretical in nature. On the other hand, I specifically stated that I did not intend to publish law review or criminal justice pedagogical manuscripts. Thus, the modal category of manuscript rejections is that of incongruence be- tween the AJCJ and the focus of the manuscript.

Figure 1 Submission Outcomes

~ ~ In Press

Under Review

The second major factor that affects the review process is structural and can be divided into three components: the selection of the topic; the research design with particular emphasis on the sample; and the writing style and organization of the manuscript. While each of these components contributes to the success or failure of the writing enter-

prise, selection of an inappropriate topic or use of a flawed research design are nearly always fatal to publication interests of authors and should be avoided at all costs. At the risk of understating the extent of the third component, poor writing simply should not be a factor.

Thus based on my experiences I offer the following advice to future authors:

Pick a topic that is important, relevant, and congruent with the journal. As noted previously, the failure to consider this issue accounts for the greatest number of rejections. After you have become interested in a topic, the extant literature will be a good indicator of the importance and relevance of your sub- ject. However, if after reading the literature you are still un- sure of the importance or congruence of your topic, invest in a telephone call to the editor of the journal to which you are considering submitting your manuscript. I've made it easy to contact me as I have provided both e-mail and voice-mail con- nections in every issue of the journal. Use an appropriate research design and sample. As the old saying goes, you cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear, meaning that you cannot use a poor research design or an in- adequate sample and expect to get your manuscript published in competent journals. If, for example, you claim that your independent variable causes the dependent variable to change, then you need to show how you controlled for the effect of rival causal factors. If you retain a null hypothesis, you must be equally sure that you have not made a Type II error. By far, the most typical problem in this area is sampling. I urge you to think (and to read) about the process of drawing a sam- ple. If the nonresponse rate is 95%, then you have a real problem on your hands. However, if you use an available sample (such as a student sample), then all is not lost. This is the area that I believe distinguishes the top-tier journals from the middle tier. I see the AJCJ as providing a niche for pub- lished research that has limited generalizability, but that is ex- ploratory in nature. But the critical factor to consider here is in the size of the sample. Practice good writing and organization. Simply stated, this is the easiest problem to avoid. By always having someone read your work prior to submission, a myriad of problems can be avoided. Seek out colleagues who have been successful in get- ting articles published. Don't be bashful about imposing on someone to read your manuscript because someone has read their work and offered critical comments. I also suggest par-

ticipating in the mentor program currently being sponsored by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

I do not make any claims as to the generalizability of my observa- tions to other journals; however, I have heard other editors and many successful authors discuss some of these same problems and how to avoid them. Therefore, it would seem that there are some common de- nominators in the formula for success as an author. And keep in mind that the writing process is a learning process. Rejections are positive if one learns from them and does not commit the same mistakes in future efforts.

Michael Biankenship East Tennessee State University