Advice for Prospective Authors

Abstract

I have read numerous manuscripts in the past few years in my role as an editorial board member for two journals and a monographic series. I recently spoke on the topic of journal publishing for an in-house workshop on tenure and promotion. Since my appointment as editor of Reference & User Services Quarterly (RUSQ), I have responded to several queries about publishing in RUSQ. I am using this column to pass along my perspectives on writing for peer-reviewed journals in general, and RUSQ in particular. I want to acknowledge the assistance of former RUSQ editors Connie Van Fleet and Danny Wallace, who knowledgeably and patiently answered my many questions about the RUSQ referee process during the past few months. Additionally, I want to thank David Kohl, my mentor and role model, for sharing his insights about scholarly publishing as well as his philosophy about the role of a journal editor. First, there are some general trends that I have observed. It appears that there has been an increase in manuscript flow. In the case of the journals that I have been involved with, there have been more manuscript submissions in the past few years. Perhaps the number of librarians on the tenure track has increased. Unfortunately, too many of these prospective authors are writing about the same topic. As a manuscript reviewer, I have evaluated a disproportionate number of manuscripts relating to library instruction. There are literally hundreds of articles published annually on this topic. My advice to authors is to find an area that has been largely ignored. For example, my perception is that there are far fewer articles published per year relating to access services than library instruction. I have frequently been asked by untenured colleagues to provide some sense about a particular journal's prestige. I caution against placing too much emphasis on a journal's impact factor, as this measurement is derived from a tool that does not index many of our profession's journals. Additionally, certain types of articles (like review articles) are often read but rarely cited. A better gauge of a journal's prestige may be the recent Nisonger and Davis study (which replicates the 1985 Kohl-Davis study) ranking the perception of library and information science (LIS) journals by LIS educators (deans to be precise) and directors of Association of Research Libraries (ARL) libraries. (1) I have also been asked about the manuscript review process. Most journals publish instructions to authors that establish the review process for that journal. These instructions will let you know if an editor alone is a referee, if an article is submitted to a single blind reviewer, or if a double-blind review process is used. The instructions will also let you know how long the review process takes. Prospective RUSQ authors can review the Instructions to Authors in the Fall 2006 issue of RUSQ (vol. 46, no. 1). These instructions can also be found online at www.rusq.org/index.php/ instructions-to-authors. RUSQ employs a double-blind review process, meaning that manuscripts are sent to two reviewers for evaluation. The referees do not know who has written the manuscript, as information that might identify the author is removed. Members of the RUSQ Editorial Advisory Board serve as blind reviewers. However, if the manuscript flow is too much for the editorial board to handle or if a manuscript is specialized, the RUSQ editor may call upon other experts to serve as referees. The RUSQ review process generally takes six to eight weeks. Most journal editors are going to instruct reviewers to look at common elements. When I send out a manuscript to reviewers, I ask them to complete the RUSQ Referee Evaluation Form. This form uses five selection criteria. Because these five areas represent typical pitfalls (not only for RUSQ submissions but journal submissions in general), I would like to provide some guidance on how to avoid common problems. …