E D I T O R I A L

The Road a Malzuscript Travels

he publication process often is mysterious to au- thors, who might believe they are at the mercy of a

system they cannot understand. However, publication is not a mystery, nor must authors be victims. When a manu- script leaves your hands and arrives in ours, it begins a journey along a clearly marked road.

Your manuscript arrives at the JOGNN office and is reviewed promptly by the managing editor, who deter- mines if it adheres to our standards for manuscript sub- mission’ (Guidelines for Authors, 1995). Authors who have not followed JOGNN’s guidelines will have their manuscripts returned without further review. Common problems at this first step are excessive length and un- numbered manuscript lines. As a courtesy for the review- ers, we ask that the lines be numbered.

Properly submitted manuscripts are then sent by the managing editor to three reviewers. The reviewer’s job has three parts. First, they evaluate each manuscript thor- oughly and critically. Second, they provide authors with constructive criticism and recommendations. Third, they recommend to the editor whether or not the manuscript should be published. Reviewers are selected for their varying perspectives and may render different opinions.

Next, the editor reads the manuscript and reviews. After weighing all evidence, the editor makes one of four decisions: (a) accept the manuscript without qualifica- tion; (b) accept the manuscript with modifications to be made by the author; (c) rewrite and resubmit the manu- script for a second review by the same reviewers; and (d) reject the manuscript. A letter with the decision is sent to the author, along with copies of pertinent reviews.

Authors have four reactions to reviews of their manu- script, and they correspond to the four decisions above. Margaret Williams (1993), former editor of Research in Nursing a n d Health, has codified these reactions. The first is “relief and joy” because the manuscript was ac- cepted and you are going to be published. The second is “relief mixed with apprehension” because your work will be accepted if you respond satisfactorily to the re- views. The third is disappointment because although you were invited to resubmit, the manuscript requires com- plete revision and considerable work. The fourth reac- tion is severe disappointment because no invitation to re- submit was offered, and the door to this journal has closed. Although you may not agree with the reasons given for the rejection, the decision is final.

For JOGNN, the most common outcome of the first review is that the author is asked to revise and resubmit the manuscript. This begins an iterative process wherein revisions and comments flow back and forth between re- viewers and authors, occasionally frustrating both parties. The frustration often stems from the mistaken belief that the author must address every point made by a reviewer to secure that reviewer’s “vote.” Authors often do not re- alize that they can disagree with reviewers’ comments as long as they clearly document their points (Knapp, 1995). The editor is not obligated to follow the reviewers’ recommendations; so ultimately, it is the editor who must be satisfied with the manuscript.

After your manuscript is accepted, it is assigned a ten- tative publication date by the managing editor. Well in advance of that date, your article will be sent to the pub- lisher for editing and typesetting. At this stage, we polish the style and format of your article, correct the grammar and punctuation, and query you about unclear sections. You will see your typeset article once before publication and may make minor changes at that point.

Occasionally, you may wonder where your manu- script is on its journey. The managing editor tracks manu- scripts in our system like an air traffic controller tracks planes at O’Hare. If you have questions or concerns about the status of your manuscript, call the JOCNN office in Washington, DC (202-662-1632).

The editors, reviewers, and publisher consider them- selves members of a team working to make your manu- script the best it can be. The other member of the team is you. The publication process can be long and arduous, and it is easy to become discouraged. At each step along the way, the team-author, editors, reviewers, and pub- lisher-needs to share information and encouragement (Knapp, 1995).

Karen B. Haller, RN, PhD Editor

Refmaces Guidelines for Authors (1995). Journal of Obstetric, Gyneco-

Knapp, S . (1995). How to publish. CBE Views, 28(2), 30-31. Williams, M. A. (1993). Reviewing manuscripts: How to be crit-

ical without being offensive. Nurse Author 15 Editor, 3(3),

logic, and Neonatal Nursing, 24(1)92-94.

1-3.

July/August 1995 J O C N N 491