At recent RUSQ board meeting, board members and I had thoughtful and interesting discussion of the manuscript review process. As we have been working together now for full volume of the journal, it seemed like good time to review the processes and procedures we use to evaluate manuscripts and come to publication decisions. I hope that the below, much of which comes out of that discussion, will be useful to authors considering publishing in RUSQ or in other scholarly journals. When attempting to publish in any scholarly journal, the first thing prospective author should consider and review is the journal's instructions to authors. Here, the journal editor and editorial board have established the process for submitting an article, the desired format of the article when submitted, and the citation standards used by the journal (see RUSQ's instructions to authors at http://rusa.metapress.com/ support/for-authors.mpx). For many editors, these instructions are an initial screening tool. If the instructions ask for separate title and abstract page and that is not included, or if the citations are prepared as footnotes and the journal requested endnotes, there will be concerns about the paper before it has even been read. Similarly, if paper is submitted with tracked changes or comments added during the writing process (i.e., not in its final form), it gives an immediate impression of incompleteness and is less likely to be considered for publication, let alone sent out for review. Additionally, be sure to check your submission for grammatical errors, misspellings, incorrect or missing citations, and the like. These sorts of errors in submitted manuscript raise concerns about the quality of the paper. One of the problems editors often face in reviewing manuscripts is the large number of submissions on the same topic. Former RUSQ editor Diane Zabel noted in 2006 that she was seeing a disproportionate number of manuscripts relating to library instruction. (1) While the subject may have changed, digital reference services and the need for reference desks seem to be the current hot topics, the trend is sadly the same. Prospective authors will make their manuscripts more attractive to editors and to readers by looking for areas that have not already been widely explored. If you are examining topic about which much has been written lately, you need to make clear what your work brings to the discussion and how it forwards that discussion in useful and perhaps provocative ways. PEER REVIEW The review process for RUSQ submissions is double-blind. Articles that are submitted and meet the basic criteria for consideration as feature article in the journal are stripped of any that could identify the author(s) and sent to two referees, neither of whom knows the other. The referees use standard form to evaluate the article and may make comments and suggestions directly in the manuscript. The form asks the referees to rate and comment on the submission in several areas: Topicality/Appropriateness to Readership The referees evaluate whether the subject of the article fits the journal's mission. In the case of RUSQ, the journal seeks articles on information of interest to reference librarians, specialists, and other professionals involved in user-oriented library services. The scope of the journal includes all aspects of library service to adults and reference service and collection development at every level and for all types of libraries. (2) Prospective authors should consider the audience for their piece and submit it to an appropriate journal. In the case of RUSQ, the journal seeks feature articles that present and analyze original empirical research or theoretical pieces that might include longer literature review and an analysis of current issue in library science or revival of an older issue that is still, or perhaps once again, relevant. …