Copy Editing Research Articles

Erratum to: Diffusion of Finite-Size Particles in Confined Geometries

The authors note that due to a printer’s error, in the text immediately following Eq. (2a), F(X) = (f(x), . . . , f(x)) should have read F(x) = (f(x1), . . . , f(xN )). They also note that, due to a change in notation during copy editing, the same notation x has inadvertently been used for the (dN)-dimensional argument of P and the d-dimensional argument of p; see for example Eq. (4) and the text immediately before it.

Ciclosporin in canine dermatology: a decade of comfort

I OFTEN begin a lecture on atopic dermatitis by reflecting what on our very limited (perhaps even naive) view of the pathogenesis of this challenging condition was 20 years ago,...

Indonesia’s Courts of Industrial Relations: Context, Structure, and a Look at Surabaya Cases

Indonesia established special courts for labor relations in 2004, but little systematic research has been conducted on these to date. This paper examines the legacy of the P4 system, which preceded the labor courts, the structure and political role of the new labor courts, and patterns of adjudication in one of the largest and most heavily used such courts - in the capital of East Java, Surabaya. While no one pattern predominates, we can find instances of judicialization, forum shopping, bureaucratic competition, and less coherent paradigms across the cases that came before the courts in their first several years.N.B.: This paper has been accepted for publication but is still undergoing copy editing. Some minor changes may thus be made before it is appears in the journal.

Art & Psychoanalysisby WalshMaria. London, I.B. Tauris, 2013, 176 pp., $25.00.

Art & Psychoanalysisby WalshMaria. London, I.B. Tauris, 2013, 176 pp., $25.00.

Book Review: Weighing Anchors: When Network Newscasters Don’t Know Write from Wrong, by Mervin Block

Weighing Anchors: When Network Newscasters Don't Know Write from Wrong. Mervin Block. Portland: Marion Street Press, 2012. 216 pp. $18.95 pbk.Readers expecting to find something new in Mervin Block's Weighing Anchors: When Network Newscasters Don't Know Write from Wrong are going to be disappointed. However, its message demands your attention-too many network news anchors and programs suffer from writing errors that erode the reputation of that individual and the quality of that broadcast.Block explains why his book, a reprint of many of his website posts, is important to educators, university students, and the general public.Most scripts at the Big Three networks are free of mistakes, but network scripts shouldn't have so many defects. So why write about faulty scripts . . . ? [Because] we expect a network to do good work; when it doesn't, it's worth a story.Block identifies the Big Three (ABC, CBS, and NBC) in the aforementioned pref- ace, but the book also evaluates CNN's anchors and programs. But he never explains why MSNBC and FOX News are exempt from his evaluation and criticism. This is one of the shortcomings of Weighing Anchors.Several themes emerge from Weighing Anchors. Block repeatedly discusses the important role a quality copy editor provides newsrooms, and how the absence of such an individual partially explains the numerous mistakes that appear on air. He cites examples from almost every prominent news anchor and program, including ABC's World News, NBC's Nightly News, CBS' Evening News, and CNN.The potential for qualifier words worming their way into news stories could be flagged by a strong editor, Block asserts. He reminds his readers that journalism stu- dents are taught not to characterize news as good or bad, happy or sad. Or amazing, shocking, disturbing or alarming. Listeners can decide for themselves how good or bad the news is.Block acknowledges budget cuts have eliminated the copy editor from many news- rooms, but he does not accept that as a sufficient reason for abandoning copy editing. The ND [news director] should choose someone who's a strong writer, knows English well and is confident enough to edit even anchors, he states.Another theme Block examines is network and cable television's overuse of learned. He notes,Some of broadcast's biggest names are among the biggest learners: they tell us they've this or that. And though they usually imply they've something important, whatever they've is often not new, or not true or not theirs alone.Block identifies multiple examples in which learned events were in fact stories disseminated by the Associated Press or another news agency hours (and in some cases days) before the broadcasts began. …

Your Natural Breasts

FigureAs a service to our readers, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® reviews books, DVDs, practice management software, and electronic media items of educational interest to reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons. All items are copyrighted and available commercially. The Journal actively solicits information in digital format (e.g., CD-ROM and Internet offerings) for review. Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant interest. Reviews are solely the opinion of the reviewer; they are usually published as submitted, with only copy editing. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® does not endorse or recommend any review so published. Send books, DVDs, and any other material for consideration to: Ronald P. Gruber, M.D., Review Editor, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 5959 Harry Hines Boulevard, POB1, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas 75390-8820. Although the concept of fat grafting in plastic surgery is over a century old, enthusiasm for its use in aesthetic and reconstructive surgery of the breasts has gained momentum over the past decade. Drs. Khouri and Biggs have made significant contributions to understanding and refining techniques for fat transfer to the breasts. They have extensively described Brava (Brava, LLC, Miami, Fla.) and autologous fat transfer for breast augmentation and reconstruction and have accumulated significant experience with their technique. In Your Natural Breasts: A Better Way to Augment, Reconstruct, and Correct Using Your Own Fat, Drs. Khouri and Biggs outline their concepts, technique, and outcomes using Brava and autologous fat transfer. The book is divided into three sections. The first section provides a history of fat transfer to the breasts, outlines concepts for Brava and autologous fat transfer, compares Brava and autologous fat transfer with traditional techniques, and discusses some potential challenges with Brava and autologous fat transfer. In the second section, the applications for Brava and autologous fat transfer for cosmetic breast reconstruction are presented, and in the third section, the applications for Brava and autologous fat transfer for breast cancer reconstruction are outlined. This book contains many before-and-after photographs showing results following Brava and autologous fat transfer. These results are a testament to the versatility of this technique. What is particularly impressive are the results shown in Chapters 16 and 17 describing the use of Brava and autologous fat transfer for salvage reconstructions after failed implant and flap reconstructions. In these challenging cases, I do not know whether it is possible to achieve the results that are shown by any other approach for breast reconstruction. The results in Chapter 10 are equally impressive; correction of developmental deformities, including tuberous breasts, is shown. This book is well suited for patients who are interested in finding out more information about breast reconstruction and the option of Brava and autologous fat transfer. The authors have made a conscious effort to discuss the information in a way that is easy for patients to understand. There are many patient stories throughout the book—these provide patients’ perspective on their journey and will help to not only inform prospective patients but also reassure them that there is hope. For the plastic surgeon performing aesthetic and reconstructive surgery of the breast using Brava and autologous fat transfer, this book would be very useful to help inform patients about this technique and prepare them for this surgery. In summary, Your Natural Breasts: A Better Way to Augment, Reconstruct, and Correct Using Your Own Fat, will be useful to both patients considering breast reconstruction and plastic surgeons performing Brava and autologous fat transfer.

Erratum: Effects of dynamic range compression on spatial selective auditory attention in normal-hearing listeners [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133, 2329–2339 (2013)

This article contains some errors that originated during the copy editing process. The description of moderate compression speed on p. 2330 (Sec. I) contains an error; the statement should begin with “Moderate compression speeds on the order of tens of milliseconds could increase interactions.” The description of the adaptive procedure on p. 2332 (Sec. II D) contains an error; the statement should read: “For three of these four digits, each pair of symmetric masker digits came from one of three fixed spatial separations: ±15°, ±30°, and ±90°.”

Rhinoplasty

Rhinoplasty

E-ditorial: State of the Journal

E-ditorial: State of the Journal

In this issue – January/February 2013

In this issue – <scp>J</scp>anuary/<scp>F</scp>ebruary 2013

Guantánamo: An American History by Jonathan M. Hansen (review)

Reviewed by: Guantánamo: An American History by Jonathan M. Hansen Daniel R. Miller Guantánamo: An American History. By Jonathan M. Hansen. New York: Hill and Wang. 2011. Guantánamo might seem narrow as a topic of study, but the author places it in broader contexts, which it also serves to illuminate. Geological prehistory, personal stories of women, workers, racial minorities, political and military developments, continental diplomacy, and constitutional issues all figure in the story. The overriding theme is the tragic incompatibility of liberty, the announced aim of U.S. policy, with its true objective: imperial control. Hansen depicts Guantánamo Bay as a stage on which America’s (and before that Spain and Britain’s) imperial ambitions played out. He makes frequent allusions to the wider Caribbean setting that defined Guantánamo’s strategic value for American policy makers long before it came under U.S. control. Hansen recounts little-known but fascinating episodes such as the British-led occupation of the bay during the War of Jenkins’ Ear, an episode in which hundreds of North American colonists participated, and he provides welcome detail on familiar ones such as the tense negotiations between the U.S. government and delegates to the Cuban Constitutional Convention over the terms of Cuba’s independence. Hansen makes effective use of social history to personalize the story of imperialism. He notes that in its heyday, Guantánamo was touted as an idealized American town, “the ultimate gated community,” but it was a town that enforced racial discrimination (236). Moreover it could not escape the fact that it was a military base in the tropics. Navy wives suffered from tedium when the fleet was away and from excessive male attention when it returned. U.S. labor laws did not apply to Cuban or Jamaican workers on the base while prostitution and other vices illegal in the U.S. flourished just outside. Sometimes Hansen seems excessive in his condemnation of the U.S.—he gives too little credit to turn-of-the-century anti-imperialists, and his claim that Fidel Castro sought good relations with the U.S. until he was rebuffed in the spring of 1959 seems naïve. On the other hand, he cites evidence that the U.S. War Department wanted to prolong the Cuban insurrection of the 1890s in the cynical hope that “the extermination” of both sides would facilitate the island’s annexation. And it is dispiriting to learn that the Kennedy administration contemplated manufacturing an “incident” at Guantánamo to justify an invasion of the island by U.S. troops. Hansen’s last two chapters detail the horrific treatment of Haitian refugees and military detainees of “The War on Terror,” practices that were facilitated by Guantánamo’s status as an [End Page 90] imperial enclave. They make for painful but salutary reading and go far to vindicate the author’s thesis. Some minor issues mar this otherwise excellent book. It is silent on Guantánamo’s role in U.S. imperial adventures in the early twentieth century. Additional maps would have been helpful in places such as the detailed account of the arrival of U.S. forces in 1898. A bibliography would also have been useful. Finally, the text would benefit from more careful copy editing (e.g., “U.S. military planners expected to begin the war not [in Cuba, but in?] in Puerto Rico” on page 86 and “flout” for flaunt on page 190). Daniel R. Miller Calvin College Copyright © 2013 Mid-America American Studies Association

On Rejection, Resilience, and Retraction

This issue of Photomedicine and Laser Surgery (PMLS) marks the first issue of the New Year. Our journal continues to evolve and improve, thanks to our authors, reviewers, editors, and staff who provide, assess, and produce the cutting edge material our discerning readers enjoy and demand. We also thank our readers without whose support we would not exist. This journal strives to publish high quality scientific information and we are quite fortunate to receive numerous manuscript submissions for our review. We continuously refine our process and announced changes in our editorial process coincident with our monthly publication in 2011. The manuscript acceptance rate is used by some as a measure of quality. PMLS has a 50% rejection rate at the present time. The rejection rate has steadily increased over time, which demonstrates an ongoing commitment to select only the highest quality work for publication. The editorial process is rigorous, with each manuscript being evaluated by three or more reviewers and with the submissions checked for plagiarism and duplication using iThenticate software in addition to copy editing for language and content clarity. Authors must also provide a disclosure of relevant conflicts of interest as pertains to their work. Such practices are consistent with the standards of other scientific publishers and are representative of a collective effort to present and publish material that adds significantly to the body of scientific knowledge and that meets standards for scientific and professional integrity. It is this scholarly publication process that forms the nucleus of this editorial. Most of us who have been involved with scientific research and discovery have had to deal with some form of rejection. Perhaps this came in the form of the manuscript that was rejected for publication or the grant that was not funded. The specific details for the negative outcome may vary and their basis might have been appropriate, or perhaps the decision might have stemmed from real or perceived bias on the part of the evaluators. It is abundantly clear that not every manuscript is accepted for publication, and that the authors’ selection of a target journal to which their manuscripts are submitted for consideration is an important process. Calcagno and colleagues investigated the prepublication process and uncovered some surprising findings. They had hypothesized that authors would initially submit their work to high impact journals and that low impact factor journals would receive and ultimately publish articles that were rejected by the high impact factor journals. They surveyed authors of scientific research papers published in 923 scientific journals in the biological sciences between 2006 and 2008. They were able to retrieve information for 80,748 articles. They sent an e-mail survey to 200,000 corresponding authors asking whether the paper had been sent to other journals before the one it was ultimately published in, and if so, which one immediately preceded the successful submission. Their data demonstrated that 75% of papers were submitted to the first journal that would publish them and that authors generally did an excellent job of targeting their work to an appropriate journal. To their surprise, however, Calcagno and colleagues found that high impact journals published proportionately more articles that had been resubmitted from another journal. Even the highly respected journals Nature and Science were publishing articles that had been rejected previously by the other. Stepping down to a journal with a lower impact factor after an initial rejection occurred in 25% of cases. Calcagno’s group found that within this 25% group, papers that were submitted more than once tended to be published in journals with a lower impact factor than the journal that was the initial target of submission. Another interesting and unexpected finding of Calcagno’s research was that the number of times a resubmitted paper was cited was higher than that of other papers in that journal, regardless of whether a paper was ultimately published in a higher or lower impact factor journal, with the exception of papers that were resubmitted to journals in a different field. They concluded that this phenomenon was a positive benefit of manuscripts having gone through multiple rounds of peer review and revision. Therefore, the manuscript’s authors and competing journals benefit from the initial rejection. Kim et al. investigated whether there is a psychological basis to support the concept often espoused by eminently creative people that the experience of social rejection is a fuel for creativity. They posited that for individuals with an independent self-concept, rejection may amplify feelings of distinctiveness and increase creativity by conferring the willingness to recruit ideas from unusual places and move beyond existing knowledge structures. They hypothesized that rejection will reinforce the desire for individuals with an independent self-concept to differentiate themselves from others and that mindset would lead to more creative outcomes. They conducted three studies of college students

Editor's message

In the initial Editor's Message of this volume, I stated my intent to involve more students in the publication process. A number of people commented on it being a good idea, but only a couple have followed up. One was Paul Krausman, President of The Wildlife Society. We matched graduate students from the University of Montana wildlife program with manuscripts where each student served as a reviewer. Students were the third reviewer on manuscripts within their area of interest and expertise. I found the experience to be entirely positive. Student reviews were often the first returned from the 3 reviewers. Many of the reviews were very insightful and provided useful information to the Associate Editor, the authors, and me. In fact, many of the reviews identified key points not raised by the other reviewers and these points were pretty much on target. As with all reviewers, they received a copy of my decision letter as well as copies of the other review comments. This allowed them to see how their review contributed to the fate of the manuscript. Hopefully, the experience gave them a good perspective of many aspects of the review process, a perspective that I hope will serve them well in their career. I invite any faculty who would like to explore similar experiences for their students to get in touch with me. I am pleased and honored to work with the Journal's editorial board. Their expertise is broad and their insight is impressive. I rely heavily on them as the subject-matter experts on the manuscripts they handle. This role is critically important because no one person has in-depth knowledge on the wide variety of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. I cannot imagine trying to be EIC without their help. Associate Editors are far more than just gate-keepers. They review the manuscripts they handle, interpret and synthesize comments from the reviewers, and provide recommendations to me. The Editorial Board is dynamic, as people come and go. I try to make sure that we have depth in some topic areas to minimize the time impact on any one AE. That said, I am looking for a few more AEs to bolster our expertise in physiology, waterfowl ecology, and ungulate ecology. If interested, please contact me at [email protected]. A tremendous amount of work is involved behind the scenes with the publication process. Manuscripts are first screened to verify that they fit the Journal. If so, they are assigned to an AE and reviews are solicited. Finding reviewers is nearly a full-time job as we often need to contact 10 people before 2 commit to conducting a review. Journal staff then tracks progress on reviews, AE recommendations, and my decisions to make sure they occur in a timely fashion. Once a manuscript is accepted, it undergoes content editing. This is more involved than copy editing and it requires somebody with technical expertise in wildlife science. Edits are tracked to make sure they are followed and finally a manuscript is sent to the publisher for production. At this stage, galley proofs are developed and sent to authors and Journal staff for proofing. Once proofs are returned and changes incorporated, the issue is assembled and sent to us for one final review. As you can see, numerous steps are involved from submission of manuscripts to publication of each issue. The work is done by true professionals and the Journal would simply not exist without it. I truly appreciate their dedication and commitment to making this the premier wildlife journal in the world. This issue comes with some controversy. In particular, I write of the paper by Heather Mathewson and her colleagues providing the first broad-scale estimates of the population size of the golden-cheeked warbler. Controversy arises because the population estimates they provide far exceed previous estimates. Given that the warbler is a listed species, I suspect that this paper will capture interests of many readers of the Journal. In addition, we have a fine collection of papers addressing the population ecologies of ducks, geese, doves, owls, and wolves, as well as some very relevant habitat, management, and conservation articles. I trust that you will find papers of interest to you.

A Review of 99 Things Parents Wish They Knew Before® … Having “THE” Talk

Numerous books exist on parent-teen communication related to sex, sexuality, and sexual health. However, Chris Fariello and Pierre-Paul Tellier take a new, question-and-answer approach to reaching today's busy parents in their book 99 Things Parents Wish They Knew Before® … Having “THE” Talk. The concept behind the book is innovative, but the execution needs improvement. A revised, second edition is needed to address the clinical/colloquial language confusion, definitions of key words and concepts, and copy editing challenges.

Textual research of Bencaogangmu Yizhilu

Bencaogangmu Yizhilu was compiled by DAI Baoyuan according to Bencao Gangmu in the late Qing dynasty. Due to the limited circulation of the book, it was little studied by people in later ages. Errors could be found concerning the book's content, editions and the author's life. After in-depth research, we concluded that the author's name was Baoyuan (courtesy name Xintian and pseudonym Shouyu). He was born about in 1818 and the year of death was unclear. Compilation of the book was completed in 1885 and the book was published in 1887. Recording 2240 kinds of herbs, the book included 8 volumes, 7 of which were text and the 8(th) volume was the index. It has two editions-the Wu Yuansi added Shanfang printed edition (the 13th year of the Guangxu Period, 1887) and the copy edition of the Qing dynasty.

The Impact of Journalism in Indian English

India is the second largest democracy in the world, having been recognized the Press as the Fourth Estate. The Press/journalism means writing, informing the current issues and incidents of present and the past. The general practice of investigatin g and reporting of events, happenings and trends to a broad audience. Though there are many variations of journalism, the ideal is to inform the citizenry. Along with covering organizations and institutions such as government and business, journalism also covers the sports, cultural aspects of society such as arts, films and entertainment. The field includes editing , reporting, photojournalism , documentary as well as copy writing and copy editing. The first printing press arrived in India in the year 1556, through the efforts of Jesuit missionaries. It was brought from Portugal and installed at the college of St. Paul in Goa . It was used mainly for printing religious literature like tracts, hymn books etc. The first printed newspaper of India was in English, and was called Hicky’s Bengal Gazette. It was edited and published by James Augustus Hicky, an ex-employee of the East India Company. The first issue of this newspaper came out in 1780 and carried only classified advertisements on its front page. It was a weekly newspaper and generally dealt with the arrival and departure of Europeans, timings of steamers, fashionable news from London, Paris and Vienna, and personal news. It attended to the needs of the small European community of Calcutta. Many other Anglo-Indian newspapers emerged after Hicky’s pattern- such as John Bull, Calcutta Journal, Bengal Harkaru. In the year 1781, Hicky’s Bengal Gazette was forced to close down after Hicky published a scandalous story about Warren Hastings, the then Governor-General of India.

Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner &amp; Resh (2010)

1. Two senior ecologists summarised their experience of the scientific publication process (Statzner & Resh, Freshwater Biology, 2010; 55, 2639) to generate discussion, particularly among early career researchers (ECRs). As a group of eight ECRs, we comment on the six trends they described. 2. We generally agree with most of the trends identified by Statzner & Resh (2010), but also highlight a number of divergent perspectives and provide recommendations for change. Trends of particular concern are the use of inappropriate metrics to evaluate research quality (e.g. impact factor) and the salami slicing of papers to increase paper count. We advocate a transparent and comprehensive system for evaluating the research. 3. We stress the importance of impartiality and independence in the peer review process. We therefore suggest implementation of double-blind review and quality control measures for reviewers and possibly editors. Besides such structural changes, editors should be confident to overrule biased reviewer recommendations, while reviewers should provide helpful reviews but be explicit if a submission does not meet quality standards. Authors should always conduct a thorough literature search and acknowledge historical scientific ideas and methods. Additionally, authors should report low-quality copy editing and reviews to the editors. 4. Both early and late career researchers should jointly implement these recommendations to reverse the negative trends identified by Statzner & Resh (2010). However, more senior scientists will always have to take the lead with respect to structural changes in the publication system given that they occupy the majority of decision-making positions.

Most Newsrooms Control Content, Production of Their Websites

The broadest divisions of newspaper labor were fairly consistent from at least the middle of the 20th century almost to its end.1 Although the advent of pagination and design desks created some new newsroom job classifications in the 1980s,2 and some newspapers experimented with team-oriented job titles in the 1990s,3 the basic tasks of reporting, copy editing, photography, design, editorial writing, advertising, marketing, etc., remained fairly stable.Since newspapers began embracing the Web in the late 1990s, however, myriad new tasks have been created. Someone must produce online content or repurpose print content for the Web, insert hypertext links, process content for search-engine optimization and manage interactive features, such as reader comments, social media and audience-submitted content. In addition, someone must supervise overall online operations. Who holds ultimate authority over Web operations, however, has not always been clear. The confusion has been exacerbated by an increased blurring of the line between the business and editorial sides of newspapers, especially where websites are concerned.4This article, based on a national survey of newspaper managers, reports on who those managers say is in charge of the production, content and appearance of their newspapers' websites. It also analyzes the titles of the senior decision-makers for newspaper websites in order to locate ultimate control of the online presence inside or outside the newsroom. This information is important for several reasons. First, it updates information last gathered in the late 1990s, providing information future scholars can build on as they track changes in the newsroom division of labor. Second, it provides information about the titles of managers with ultimate authority for newspaper websites that should prove useful to scholars attempting to identify and contact those industry leaders to gather their opinions through surveys or interviews. Finally, and perhaps most important, the study addresses the development of chains of command in online journalism.Literature ReviewA solid body of literature has examined the place of online operations at newspaper companies, generally suggesting that they were more isolated early in the online news era5-sometimes even located in a different building than print operations.6 Since then, online operations gradually have become more integrated with print operations, 7 although exceptions remain.8 Meanwhile, although several essays have called for further study of online journalists9 and some research has examined their journalistic orientations,10 a more popular line of research in recent years has been how online journalists share news-production authority with site users and other non-journalists.11 Only a few articles, written early in the Web era, have considered who is setting policies for newspaper websites and whether ultimate control of them lies in the newsroom or in corporate offices or marketing arms.12A 1997 survey by Singer, Tharp and Haruta found that newspaper online managers were far less likely than their print counterparts to report directly to a publisher or chief executive officer. 13 Nearly a third of online editors reported directly to the publisher or CEO, compared with about 60 percent of print editors. Other online editors reported to corporate owners or presidents and to print managing editors, editors and executive editors. Similarly, Arant and Anderson reported that a 1999 survey of online newspaper editors revealed that 36 percent reported to the publisher/CEO; 31 percent to the top print editor; 7 percent to an officer in marketing and 3 percent to the production manager.14 The remaining 23 percent of online editors, the authors wrote:. . . had a variety of bosses: the president of a wholly owned newspaper subsidiary, assistant to the publisher, general manager, metro editor, news editor, operations director, president of the interactive publishing division, director of new media, director of technology, technology manager, online director, new media manager and corporate director of online content. …

Transitions and Change

Transitions and Change

Editors Speak: MEDSURG Nursing

Journal name – MEDSURG Nursing Publisher – Jannetti Publications, Inc. Journal home page website – http://www.medsurgnursing.net/cgibin/WebObjects/MSNJournal.woa Aim, mission, and target audience – MEDSURG Nursing, the official journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses, is a scholarly journal published six times per year and dedicated to advancing adult health nursing practice, clinical research, and professional development. The journal's goal is to enhance the knowledge and skills of adult health and advanced practice nurses to prevent and manage disease, and to work with patients and their families to improve the health status of the nation's adults. Circulation and Indexing – Circulation is approximately 13,000. The journal is a benefit to the members of the Academy of Medical Surgical Nursing. The journal is also available through the following indexing services: CINAHL, EBSCO Academic Search Premier, Gale, Infotrieve, Ovid, ProQuest, and PubMed. Submission process – Two copies and one disk copy of the manuscript should be submitted to the editorial office (address and details are on the author guidelines on the journal website). Manuscripts not accepted will not be returned unless requested within 30 days of the notification of rejection. MEDSURG Nursing is a refereed journal. All manuscripts submitted undergo review by the editor and blind review by members of the manuscript review panel and/or editorial board members. Each manuscript is reviewed on its timeliness, importance, clarity, accuracy, and applicability to adult health/medical-surgical nursing. Upon acceptance of the manuscript, the author will yield copyright to MEDSURG Nursing. Acquiring permission to reprint previously published materials is the responsibility of the author. Authors have the responsibility to verify that they have read all the materials cited in their manuscript and, if necessary, have contacted the relevant authors to verify the accuracy of cited material. Manuscripts are subject to copy editing. The author will receive proofs via email for review prior to publication. Acceptance rate and time to publication – The final acceptance rate is approximately 80% and time from submission to publication is currently about 18 months. Specific types of articles sought – The journal accepts original articles: case studies, letters, descriptions of clinical care, and research. Query letters are welcome, but not required. Material must be original and never published before. Material is submitted for review with the understanding that it is not being submitted to any other journal simultaneously. Noteworthy – MEDSURG Nursing presents annual Writer's Awards to novice and experienced authors for excellence in medical-surgical nursing clinical scholarship at the annual Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses convention. In your opinion, what distinguishes the most read or cited articles in your journal over the past few years? The most frequently read articles in this journal are those with direct clinical application. The majority of the journal's readers are bedside care providers who are very interested in evidence-based strategies to improve their clinical practice. In your experience as an editor, what are the top three reasons you reject articles? I reject manuscripts for poor writing. While I am very willing to mentor authors to improve their writing, I may encourage someone who appears to have poor writing skills to seek a local mentor for assistance with a manuscript revision. Some authors also opt for a chatty rather than a scholarly approach to their topics. I also reject manuscripts that rely on older sources or lack nursing references. Finally, I reject manuscripts that do not show awareness of the journal's guidelines for publication; for example, authors may fail to follow APA citation requirements or the journal's standard format for reporting research results. Dottie Roberts, MSN, MACI, RN, CMSRN, OCNS-C Editor, MEDSURG Nursing, dmroberts@southuniversity.edu