Sharing best practices and contributing to the body of knowledge in the field of addictions nursing is a professional responsibility by those who focus on the "prevention, intervention, treatment, and management of substance abuse, misuse, and addictive disorders" (International Nurses Society on Addictions, 2014). Professional conference presentations, although an important means of dissemination, reach a smaller audience than publications; less than 25% of conference presentations are ever published within 5 years (Grindstaff & Saliba, 2012; Smith, Bogenschutz, Bayliss, Altenburger, & Warden, 2011). Writing a manuscript for a peer-reviewed professional journal can be perceived as daunting and time-consuming series of steps toward publication. From the viewpoint of an experienced peer reviewer for the Journal of Addictions Nursing (JAN) and other professional journals, the goal of this editorial is to illuminate the roles of a peer reviewer while aligning these roles with strategies for authoring an accepted manuscript for publication.
Peer reviewers are familiar with the scope and type of submissions solicited by the journal before reading a manuscript. JAN invites authors to submit "original articles on current research issues, practices and innovations as they related to the field of addictions" (International Nurses Society on Addictions, 2014). For authors, it is essential first to review author guidelines to become familiar with the journal of interest and formatting instructions, to decide if the article is suitable for the targeted audience, to read previous publications, and if necessary, to email the journal's editor for feedback on interest of the topic (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013; Roederer, Marciniak, O'Connor, & Eckel, 2013; Saver, 2006; Smith, 2013). In the first two quarters of 2014, JAN published a wide variety of articles including two qualitative research studies, three quantitative research studies, and four descriptive articles of innovative interventional programs in clinical practice and educational settings. In addition, my first professional manuscript was published in JAN, a descriptive article linking a theory of adolescent risk behavior to clinical assessment in adolescent inhalant use (Cazzell, 2008).
Peer reviewers volunteer their time and effort to review manuscript submissions for journals. The journal's editor chooses reviewers based on their expertise in a particular area and also on their availability (Grindstaff & Saliba, 2012). Because of the significant time allotment to complete a serious manuscript review, the quality of the manuscript upon first submission is critical toward an "accept" decision. From a survey of 63 nursing journal editors, three main reasons for manuscript rejection were described: (a) poorly written manuscript, 35.8%; (b) irrelevant topic for journal, 32.8%; and (c) issues of methodology, 16.4% (Northam, Yarbrough, Haas, & Duke, 2010). Kalpakjian and Meade (2008) penned a whimsical yet practical article delineating 10 "tips to assure that you will not get published" (p. 230):
1. Reviewer annoyance from poor grammar, punctuation, and spelling
2. Avoidance of or "blowing off" author guidelines
3. Overwhelming or underwhelming review of the literature
4. Inappropriate use of statistics (not related to research purpose or question)
5. Reviewer frustration from an unorganized manuscript
6. Results section not mirroring Methods section
7. Sloppy misinterpretation or overgeneralization of results
8. Figures, graphs, and tables with missing information and redundant narratives
9. Salami publications: same data and narratives across multiple articles
10. Dismissing reviewer-suggested revisions
The next sections outline positive actions by authors that can definitely impress the peer reviewers toward outcomes such as revise and resubmit or accept. First, Smith (2013) asserts that most manuscripts could be trimmed by 20% without any loss to the author's intent or story. Reviewers embrace clear, coherent, and concise manuscripts in plain English (minus frilly or fancy words) with active verbs used in mixed-length sentences. Roederer et al. (2013) suggested recruiting friends or peers, who are not familiar with the topic, to read the manuscript to assess for any comprehension issues. Colleagues can be excellent proofreaders before submission-one way to show respect for the journal's editor and peer reviewers (Kalpakjian & Meade, 2008).
Usually written last, the Abstract is the first impression given to peer reviewers about the manuscript. The Abstract provides an informative snapshot of the manuscript to persuade the reviewer to volunteer and review the article. The author should avoid abbreviations, acronyms, and references as well as random "cut-and-paste" deposits from within the manuscript into the Abstract (Veness, 2010). Written in the past tense, the abstract should include the purpose, study design or intervention, population, setting, primary outcome measure, analysis method, important findings, and conclusion (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013).
The Introductory section should be limited to one double-spaced page, 300 words or two to three paragraphs (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013; Roederer et al., 2013; Veness, 2010). The leading sentence defines the problem. Holzmueller and Pronovost describe the introduction as a "funnel," starting with the broad problem statement and ending with a specific action or aim for problem resolution. Peer reviewers look for justification for the study or project, connections with current evidence while exposing knowledge gaps, and the aim of the study or project in the last statement, smoothly written as if all authors speak in one voice (Roederer et al., 2013).
In the Review of Literature section (sometimes titled Background and Significance), it is preferable to describe links between articles rather than listing one study after another, which causes reviewer fatigue (Smith, 2013). The reviewer wants to be convinced that the most current and relevant evidence was found to support the aim of the study or project. One of my first reviewer tasks is to match each citation within the manuscript text with the listed references and vice versa. Reviewers want to see the current literature (within 5 years) cited throughout the manuscript although older landmark articles may be used and noted (Veness, 2010); this gives an impression that the authors expended serious scholarly effort. In addition, the References section should only include references that were cited within the manuscript, be consistently formatted, and include complete information that shows author attention to detail. In addition, some references may be Web-linked so it is essential that these links are accessible; peer reviewers check these sites.
The Methods section is the most scrutinized area by peer reviewers and is the most influential in an "accept" or "reject" verdict. Reviewers look for logical organization of headings in this section: design, setting, participants, variables, and/or outcomes and a reasonable plan for statistical analyses based on research questions (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013; Kalpakjian & Meade, 2008; Roederer et al., 2103). Was enough detail provided to allow an interested reader to replicate this study or project? With this in mind, reviewers expect clear descriptions of any measurement tools used in a study or project. Whether the measure was well established or newly developed, sufficient detail on development and previous uses, psychometric history on reliability or validity, participant instructions, and scoring protocols are crucial in the Methods section. Oftentimes, reviewers will query authors on sample size, whether sample was based on availability or an a priori analysis.
Reviewers look for parallel organization between the Methods and Results sections; all data described in Results must have been introduced and defined in Methods (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013). The Results section should be a concise, knowledgeable, and factual recounting from data analysis-without interpretation and in same order as outlined in Methods (Kalpakjian & Meade, 2008; Roederer et al., 2013). The word "significant" should only be used in the Results section if "statistical significance" was achieved (Grindstaff & Saliba, 2012). Reviewers look for information on whether assumptions of statistical tests were met, any reported effect sizes, confidence intervals, p values of significance, study power, and reliability of measurement tools (Kalpakjian & Meade, 2008).
The Discussion section is, by far, the most challenging section to write because author creativity is essential to make sense of findings (Veness, 2010). Reviewers are not looking for data "regurgitation;" they highly rate authors' interpretive skills and ability to project future practical implications for professionals (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013). Ideally, the first paragraph summarizes major findings, answers the research questions/hypotheses/purpose, and explains why these findings are novel and important. The next two to three paragraphs integrate other relevant literature that both support and refute findings. One rationale for a peer reviewer judgment of "major revisions needed" is sparse literature integration with study or program outcomes in the Discussion section. This section must describe how the study adds to new knowledge in a particular field of interest. The Discussion section ends with strengths and limitations of the study or project related to sample size, study design, measurement tools-anything that might affect generalizability of outcomes (Roederer et al., 2013). Finally, the Conclusion section clearly identifies a strong take-away message from the Discussion section and offers suggestions as to future research or next steps (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013; Roederer et al., 2013; Veness, 2010).
Even when a strong manuscript is submitted and reviewed, authors may still be asked to revise some aspects before consideration for publication. Table 1 displays an example of a template for addressing reviewers' critiques. It is much easier to dissect multiple reviewers' critiques into this table to address and explain revisions made (which also assists the same reviewer to reread the revised manuscript when resubmitted).
In summary, all nurses and allied healthcare providers in the addictions field should recognize their professional responsibility to share and expand the knowledge of evidence-based approaches for patient care (Grindstaff & Saliba, 2012; Roederer et al., 2013). A manuscript describing a research study, a theory, an innovative therapy with a specific population, a program and its outcomes, a comprehensive literature review, or a policy analysis might spur investigators to conduct rigorous and generalizable research studies. One of the goals of a peer-reviewed publication is replication, the ultimate compliment to an author (Kalpakjian & Meade, 2008). Knowing in advance how peer reviewers approach each manuscript will benefit potential authors, decrease the fear of the unknown, and guide them to an accepted publication.
REFERENCES