Abstract
In 1990, I was attending a professional conference in New Orleans, and an editorial staff member from Sage Publications, Marquita Fleming, invited me to breakfast to discuss the landscape of available journals in the field of social work. Over her kippers, Marquita asked me whether there were any openings for creating a new and needed journal within social work. Without hesitation, I suggested one devoted to outcome studies in social work practice. We talked about what this would look like, and she asked me to prepare a proposal for such a new journal. I did and she distributed the journal proposal to some social work deans for feedback. The reviews were positive, and I was offered a contract to edit this new professional periodical, to be called Research on Social Work Practice (RSWP). I recruited a very capable editorial board and issued a call for papers, and in due course, the first issue appeared in print (the only available type of journal at that time), appearing four times a year. As we enter our 31st year of publication, I am pleased to note that the journal has never had a late issue. Over time, we expanded to six issues a year, and later to eight issues, and like most journals, we migrated to more of an online format. Every 3 years, I issue a call for self-nominations to serve on the editorial board and invite 40 or so competent social workers to comprise a new board. Many are established academic scholars, but I have regularly appointed social work practitioners and doctoral students to the board, all individuals reflecting diversity with respect to race, gender, methodological expertise, and theoretical orientation.
RSWP’s influence has been substantial. Most importantly perhaps is the considerable number of empirical outcome studies social work authors have published within its pages. In a very meaningful way, the success of the journal is the result of the trust scholars have provided by choosing the journal as an outlet for their valuable work. Their findings have substantially added to the scientific foundations of our field. Especially noteworthy are the large numbers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of social work intervention, a form of research which is noted to be especially difficult to undertake but is appearing with increasing frequency in this and other journals (see Thyer, 2015).
Add to the mix stand the numerous quasi-experimental outcome studies, studies on the psychometric validation of measures useful in practice and research, meta-analyses (MAs), and systematic reviews (SRs), it is easy to understand how RSWP came to become a highly cited journal with a good impact factor. The journal has over 10,000 subscribers and almost 3,00,000 articles are downloaded from its website each year. In 2019, we received 161 submissions, and its acceptance rate was 39%. We are highly visible internationally, with about 60% of our submissions coming from outside the United States and over 7,000 subscriptions from the developing world.
Potential authors are advised that RSWP is now using the 7th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2018). Apart from the formats related to textual style and citations, the expanded Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) found in the APA manual moves us considerably forward in developing a standardized method of reporting different types of research. Authored by leading experts in their respective fields, there are separate JARS for quantitative research, qualitative research, mixed-methods studies, experimental and nonexperimental studies, longitudinal studies, N = 1 studies, and replication articles. Existing scholars, doctoral students, master of social work students, and bachelor of social work students alike should all avail themselves of the JARS so that they can become, at least, more informed consumers of social work research, better able to recognize high-quality studies versus poorly designed ones and pseudoscience. Those undertaking a new research study should consult the relevant JARS well before making irrevocable decisions as to sampling, design, data collection, and statistical analysis. Those using quantitative methods are cautioned that journals such as RSWP are increasingly requiring that the reporting of p values to be accompanied by appropriate measures of effect sizes and confidence intervals, and this latter information be used to discuss the pragmatic meaning of the results. This helped control for statistically significant but practically meaningless changes or differences to be evaluated more comprehensively. Sample sizes should be justified by an a priori power analysis, when possible, and the protocols for clinical trials, RCTs, or quasi-experiments should be preregistered in a clinical trials registry such as clinicaltrials.gov or a periodical such as Trials (https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/). A search conducted in October 2020, using the term “social work,” found 147 articles within this journal, so authors seeking examples of relevant clinical protocols can find what they need to prepare one for their developing study.
Studies involving qualitative data collection and interpretive methods should be guided by the relevant JARS standards to report a clear audit trail sufficient to provide the reader with a sense of trustworthiness and credibility of any conclusions drawn. Qualitative studies whose narrative data were originally collected in a language other than English should provide clear assurances that credible steps were undertaken to accurately transcribe the data from recordings or field notes, to translate the findings into English accurately, and whether or not thematic analysis was undertaken prior to or after translating the narratives into English.
In addition to following the relevant JARS, authors should include with their submission letter (not attached to the article manuscript) a completed appropriate reporting guideline checklist found at Equator-network.org. These are available for RCTs, quasi-experiments (also known as observational studies), qualitative studies, SRs, and MAs, among other types of research. In my opinion, training in the use of these resources—protocol registration, the various JARS, and the Equator-Network reporting checklists—should be incorporated into our doctoral training curricula, both for PhD and doctor of social work programs. While not yet in widespread use with the social work journal community, it is a desirable practice for the authors of submitted articles to deposit their data postpublication in a publically accessible data depository. This permits other scholars to examine your data, replicate your analysis, and perhaps, with permission, to extend the original analyses beyond those reported in the original study. It also facilitates other scholars to locate the detailed data needed to conduct an SR or MAs. Such data depositories are widely available which we can use (e.g., https://www-nature-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/sdata/policies/repositories#social) but there is not one yet specific to social work.
Occasionally, RSWP receives a submission that is inappropriate for the journal. As the editor, I do not send these papers out for peer review. That would be a waste of time for the submitting authors and the journal’s reviewers, and in these cases, I provide what is called a desk rejection. These are indicated, according to the APA manual, when a paper is clearly not a good match for the journal’s focus or when I deem that the paper is of such low quality it is unlikely to fare well during peer review (APA, 2018, p. 381). A purely narrative case report would be an example of the former, and a one-group pretest–posttest design with an underpowered sample size would be an example of the latter. International authors whose first language is not English should have their paper professionally edited by a native speaker of English prior to submission. Such authors are also encouraged to avail themselves of these services provided by Sage Publications prior to submission (https://languageservices.sagepub.com/en/).
The types of papers the journal welcomes include the following studies: (1) Original reports of empirically based evaluation studies on the outcomes of social work practice. These should be strong studies—marginal works are discouraged. Keep in mind that a one-group pretest–posttest study can be very useful if it is in a new area, and the conclusions drawn are conservative. Solid replication studies that fail to support prior published research are also welcome. (2) SRs or MAs of the practice literature that convey direct applications to practice. Such studies should conform to the additional (beyond the JARS) guidelines established by the Cochrane or Campbell Collaborations. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins & Thomas, 2019) is the definitive guideline in this regard. Suitable SRs and MAs can take the form of: An SR or MA of the research status of a particular psychosocial intervention or assessment method. An example might be an SR or MA on the overall effects of solution-focused brief treatment, or an analysis of the validity of the Beck Depression Inventory with Chinese people. An SR or MA of various psychosocial interventions applicable to a particular type of client issue or problem. An example might be an SR or MA of various interventions for bipolar disorder, for reducing excessive police violence or racism.
An SR or MA not focused on intervention is not appropriate for RSWP. Examples of such inappropriate studies might examine the potential etiology of a specific problem or issue.
(3) The journal welcomes psychometric studies of methods of practice assessment or research measures. Such studies should be of high quality and conform to solid standards such as those reported by Springer et al. (2002a, 2002b). Solid replication studies that fail to support prior research are welcome.
Social work practice is very broadly defined by the journal and spans the spectrum of micro through macro, from N = 1 studies to the evaluation of large-scale social policies. Well-designed studies that yield negative results are welcome since it is important to determine what does not work, and interventions seem effective.
Authors should submit their manuscripts using the journal’s electronic submission portal (https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/home/rsw) and prepare their paper as one file containing the abstract, text, references, tables, and figures. This initial submission should be prepared blind, de-identified, so authors’ names, affiliations, and locations cannot be determined from the main paper sent out for review. This common practice is intended to reduce bias on the part of the reviewers (hence “blind” peer review). RSWP does not impose arbitrary page limits for submissions—the reviewers and editor will recommend reductions in length if needed.
Many valuable forms of scholarship are not usually accepted for review by RSWP. This does not imply they are of lesser value but serves to help maintain the journal’s niche in our scholarly environment. Examples of inappropriate research submissions include narrative case studies, correlational investigations, theoretical papers, methodological works, surveys lacking a focus on intervention research, philosophical or conceptual works, historical papers, descriptive studies, retrospective predictor studies, or needs assessments. There are rare exceptions to these guidelines, most often undertaken via the initiative of the editor with regard to something particularly useful. For example, RSWP reprinted Flexner’s (2001/1915) paper on “Is social work a profession?” in 2001, and I recruited some contemporary social work scholars to react to it after some 85 years had elapsed. Flexner’s original paper was hard to locate yet it exerted a strong influence in our field. I also occasionally invited someone to provide a commentary piece or an editorial. These are clearly identified as not having been peer-reviewed. I also regularly commission one or two scholars to coordinate a special issue on some topic or a set of conference papers.
A pet peeve of mine as an editor and professor is authors who confuse the five-step process of clinical decision making, undertaken jointly with a client, called evidence-based practice (EBP), with the less sophisticated approach involving locating research-supported interventions and applying them to your client. Real EBP involves full client participation, and consideration of professional ethics, the client’s preferences and values, costs, one’s clinical skills, and legal issues for deciding what course of assessment and interventive methods to offer. Real EBP does not depend on practice guidelines or lists of approved treatments and most certainly does not involve someone such as an agency administrator or government body dictating what interventions should be used within an agency or service, requiring all practitioners to become trained in the chosen method(s) and to provide the approved intervention to all clients. I call the latter the research-supported treatments (RSTs) approach and I am not a fan, although I do believe in consulting the current empirical literature as a part of the process of real EBP. When I receive a submission that mangles the two approaches, I provide gentle guidance to sort things out in a revision. Research involving EBP is welcome, and so are papers describing RSTs. Just don’t confuse them with these two approaches to practice. If the distinction between EBP and RSTs is not clear to you, I suggest reading Straus et al. (2019) and Thyer and Pignotti (2011).
For over 30 years, RSWP has occupied a large proportion of my professional life. This work has been very reinforcing. Little did I anticipate the journal’s success or the longevity of my role as an editor. Words alone cannot express my gratitude to the many hundreds of authors, editorial review board members, guest reviewers, the professional staff at Sage Publications, and to the readership for making this endeavor possible. Thanks to the journal, over the years I have inadvertently acquired an immense network of colleagues and friends from all over the world, and it is a great occasion when I get a chance to meet someone in person, after perhaps a lengthy email-based relationship. This most often happens by attending a professional conference and someone from Beijing, Seoul, Johannesburg, York, or Chicago comes up to me and introduces themselves as an RSWP author or prior member of the editorial board. This often results in a meal together, a pint of adult beverage, or a cup of tea. As I say, this is tremendous fun and has provided me with an international perspective and broad national vision of our field I otherwise would not have had. I have literally gone gray during my editorship, and at 67 years, I am unlikely to be in this role for another 30 years! I have a successor in mind, and he and I have discussed this with Sage Publications so that when the time comes and I step down, through demise or retirement, the transition should be seamless.
So, RSWP marches on. Send us your best work. If you are not sure, just email me (