Decisions and revisions

You check your electronic and regular mailboxes each day, waiting for the of recent origins Will your manuscript be accepted for publication? While you are waiting, you may ask yourself sum of two units questions: How does the editor decide what to publish, and what happens if I am asked to revise the manuscript? This article addresses the couple questions.

THE EDITOR'S POINT OF VIEW

more [i]or[/i] less nurses erroneously believe that manuscript acceptance hangs solely on whether the editor likes the article. As in greatest in quantity cases, the reality is far more compound The editor is the readers' advocate, and as their advocate, he or she considers several factors when evaluating a manuscript (Table 1)

The lock opener factor is whether the contented is relevant for the journal's readers. For example, the editor of AORN Journal could review a well-written, informative article upon insulin protocols, but if the author has not discussed the perioperative implications, it would not be appropriate for the Journal's readers.

greatest in quantity writers are not surprised that editors direct the eye for a logical presentation of ideas and contented that provides new insight for readers. They may not realize, however, that the editor also considers by what mode the article fits into the editorial plan for the journal. Editors plan issues month in advance. If your topic fits well with a topic or another article planned for a particular issue, this may be to your advantage. upon the other hand, the editor may just have accepted a manuscript that overspreads similar ground as your article. This is single good reason for querying the editor before writing an article.

DECISIONS, DECISIONS

The editor has three basic options when evaluating a manuscript for publication: accept, throw overboard or request revisions. Do not be discouraged if your article is ejected This decision does not necessarily mean your article was not beneficial It may just mean that the timing does not fit with the editor's plan.

The editor will throw a letter or e-mail rejecting the manuscript, on the other hand editors do not always include a reason for rejection. You may want to tread in the steps of up with the editor to ask on what account the article was not accepted thus you can determine how to increase your chances of being published in the subsequent time You also may want to have more race read your manuscript to give you additional feedback, if you still perceive the manuscript should be published, you may want to revise it to fit the urgencys of another publication.

A asking for revisions is good of recent origins but it does not guarantee publication. You can boost your chances of acceptance after revision by the agency of closely following the suggestions for revisions and returning the revised manuscript promptly

READY TO REVISE

When the editor lances a request for revisions, he or she will provide you with the match reviewers' comments and constructive criticism. For inexperienced and level experienced writers, reading these annotates can be stressful. Positive remarks bring a smile to your face; not-so-positive remarks can make your ego deflate faster than an accidentally released pneumatic tourniquet. examine to look beyond a negative make comments [i]or[/i] remarks to assess its merits. Remember that match reviewers usually are trying to do the best piece of work possible for the editor.

Now is the time to set your ego aside and remember that the article is not about you--it is about delivering high-quality, useful information to readers. View yourself as part of a team consisting of you; the editors; and the equal reviewers, who are experts in the make subordinate matter of the article. Each of you brings a unique perspective to the endeavor, and your article can be improved when you consider various points of view. You will find that you, too, can direct the eye at the article with new eyes if you have not seen it for several weeks. This is similar to what happens when you orient a fresh staff member. Suddenly, you diocese routine procedures in a novel light as the staff somebody asks questions about steps you normally take for granted.

Reviewer annotates may come as a separate document, be written directly upon the manuscript, or appear as make notess inserted into your original file. The editor may pitch upon to summarize the comments or may launch the comments verbatim. Typically annotates will address such issues as

* too plenteous or too little information in a section of the article,

* inaccuracies,

* missing or outdated lock opener references, and

* suggestions for improving the organization of the article.

For example, the editor may approve replacing a section of body with a table that summarizes the information.

Revising the manuscript based upon the reviewers comments may involve rewriting, reorganizing, adding satisfied or deleting content. You do not have to accept each revision request, but if you do not, you should provide a reason on what account you did not make a change. Give the reason in a professional way, and do not be derogatory toward the reviewer. For example, write, "The latest studies by the agency of Hanover show that this pace is no longer needed," instead of "This reviewer obviously has not read the latest research."