Abstract
With the new year upon us, I felt it would be timely to reflect on the process of how manuscripts are published since the 1st of January 2015. As with any scientific journal, and certainly an important goal of the NJNR, there is an ambition to publish outstanding and relevant research that will be read by an extensive international audience.
However, in order to accomplish this, it is vital and necessary that manuscripts are critically evaluated (without bias) on their scientific value. This scholarly scrutiny means that expectations on quality are high and, as a result, it is rare that manuscripts are submitted and accepted without any proposed revisions, or even spelling mistakes. It is also not uncommon that a manuscript is rejected at the ‘final decision’ stage, either immediately or as a result of the peer-review process.
As is custom for many scholarly journals, the NJNR adopts the double-blind peer review approach and also strives to engage researchers who can provide reviews that add new perspectives to a submitted research study. The Internet enables efficient access to research centres and universities, and provides a database of researchers who may agree to be reviewers. Thus, a positive aspect of the journal’s motivation to become global is that an increasing number of eminent researchers outside the Nordic region have accepted the invitation to review submitted manuscripts. I am convinced reviewer critique thus far has supported the ability of authors to successfully revise and improve their submissions.
As Editor-in-Chief, I am entrusted with providing the final decision, one that may result in either acceptance or rejection. This is not an easy task and, based on my own personal experience as a nurse researcher, I have empathy regarding how an author or a research team may react to a rejected manuscript. A feeling of great disappointment after weeks or months of research and anticipating publication can make it difficult to absorb the reviewers’ critique.
However, I also know after the initial disappointment and frustration subsides, the authors begin to, in an appreciative manner, take on-board the reviewers’ critique and become empowered to successfully undertake either a major revision or re-submission of their manuscript.
So, what are the main reasons a manuscript is rejected? Manuscripts that are not well written, that have obviously not been language edited or where the author has not adequately adhered to the instructions on how to submit a manuscript are immediately rejected and not distributed for peer review. Some other common reasons for rejection by peer-reviewers include:
‐ The research topic does not resonate with the journal’s aims and scope. ‐ There is a lack of new knowledge; which should be reflected in the results, discussion and, importantly, within the conclusion. ‐ The research itself may not have international relevance. ‐ The methodology is either inadequately described or inappropriate. ‐ It is evident that the review of literature has been limited, which often means a manuscript omits major research that has been previously undertaken surrounding the topic.
In other words, the above critique cannot be changed by undertaking major revisions of the submitted manuscript. Background, aims, methods, result and conclusion are all interconnected within the research process, which means that a study may need to be completely re-worked or re-designed.
Furthermore, it is essential that the title and abstract are well prepared and carefully considered to ensure they are compelling and attract the attention of a potential reviewer and qualify for peer-review process. So, my advice is to invest time and focus on developing a robust, attractive and interesting title and abstract, which, accompanied by a strong conclusion, clearly outline the scope of the new knowledge and insights and the contribution it will provide to the research field.
Future guest editorials
Within the last three editorials submitted in 2015, the topic of person-centred care has been presented from different perspectives. In the June 2016 issue I am pleased to introduce Kirsten Corazzini, PhD, Associate Professor, Duke University School of Nursing, Senior Fellow, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development. Dr. Corazzini is a 2015–2016 Fulbright Schuman Scholar who, along with Dr. Inger Ekman at the University of Gothenburg’s Center for Person-Centered Care, and Dr. Julienne Meyer at City University London, collaborates for the purpose of advancing knowledge of how registered nurses can accomplish person-centred care in residential long-term care, and the regulatory structures that relate to these practices. Her editorial examines these issues from a comparative perspective, with implications for health and social care policy in both the US and EU to address our critical and shared challenges within this field.
I hope that all NJRN editorials concerning person-centred care will be of interest to our readers and I encourage you to submit your responses and feedback via ‘Letters to the Editor’ (a maximum of 1000 words). I trust that 2016 will bring you great success and I look forward to another year of interesting and valuable research published in the NJRN.