Submitting Manuscripts to Journals: An Editor’s Perspective

Michael K. Lindell

Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center

Texas A&M University

Personal Experience

• I have had experience with many different journals in a variety of disciplines– Social/behavioral science, research methods, environmental

science, engineering, planning/policy, and public health– I have reviewed manuscripts for 40 different journals– I have published articles in 37 different journals.– I am currently the editor of the International Journal of Mass

Emergencies and Disasters

• I have found some variety but, more important, significant consistencies across journals.

Where Should You Submit Your Manuscript?

• Probably to one of the journals that you cite most frequently in the reference section of your manuscript.

• Go through back issues of that journal to identify relevant articles.– This will help you better understand what issues are being

addressed in that journal.– It will also let you know who are the likely reviewers.

Where Should I Submit My Manuscript?

• If there are many choices, select on the basis of the – Impact factor: The ratio of citations to that journal divided by

the number of articles in that journal provides a measure of a journal’s influence.

– Rejection rate: Journals with high rejection rates often provide the most insightful reviews. You can learn a lot even if the paper is rejected.

– Review turnaround: Many journals publish the dates of original submission, revision receipt, and acceptance. Journals that turnaround reviews in 10 weeks are very useful to untenured faculty.

– Publication lag: This can be as little as three months or as much as four years from date of original submission.

Basic Requirements for the Your Paper

• There are four basic sections to any empirical paper– Problem Statement/Introduction– Method – Results– Discussion

• Inconsistencies among the different sections are the most common deficiencies in papers submitted to journals.

Basic Requirements for the Problem Statement/Introduction

• State clearly the theoretical or practical problem you are addressing.

• Identify the previous research literature relevant to that problem.

• State one or more research hypotheses or research questions that address your problem statement.– Be sure to clearly define the variables in each research

hypothesis/question.– Clearly state the rationale for that hypothesis/question.

Basic Requirements for the Method Section

• Describe how your data were collected (e.g., your sampling strategy). – Describe how the sample corresponds to the population

from which it was drawn.

• Describe how you measured each of the variables in the research hypothesis/question. – Fully describe the measurement of all the variables in the

research hypotheses/questions.

• Provide an overview of the analytic methods.

Basic Requirements for the Results Section

• Present the results of your analyses in the order the research hypotheses/questions were presented in the Introduction.– If there are many research hypotheses/questions remind the

reader what each was before presenting the results for that hypothesis/question.

– Clearly indicate the degree of support for any hypotheses (fully supported, partially supported, not supported, contradicted).

Basic Requirements for the Discussion Section

• Remind the reader what each hypothesis/question was before presenting the discussion for that hypothesis/question.

• Discuss whether the results clearly answered the research questions or supported the research hypotheses.

• Discuss the study’s theoretical implications by referring to literature addressed in the introduction.

• Discuss the practical implications of your study.• Discuss the methodological limitations of your study.• Provide suggestions for future research.

How to Needlessly Annoy Reviewers and Editors

• Fail to ensure all citations in the text appear in the reference section.

• Fail to ensure your references are all in the required format--or sometimes even in the same format.

• Fail to ensure that all figures and tables are – Legible and understandable, – Located at the end of the document, and – Correctly numbered.

• Use lots of lengthy footnotes/endnotes instead of incorporating the material into the text.

What Should You Expect From the Reviewers?

• You should expect comments that are– Thoughtful, – Fair, – Specific, and – Constructive.

• You will sometimes receive comments that are none of the above.– Respond as best you can to vague comments. – Try to ignore any nasty comments.

Recommended Action

Reject 1

Major revisions required 2

Minor revisions required 3

Accept in present form 4

Manuscript Evaluation Please rate the manuscript in the following areas by circling the numerical rating , placing an X over it, or highlighting the cell contents (any color is acceptable). If there are deficiencies in the manuscript (i.e., ratings of 1 or 2 in any category), please describe the specific deficiencies below and provide suggestions for fixing them. Also, feel free to identify any other ways in which the manuscript can be improved.

Manuscript Evaluation

1) Significance of the problem to disaster theory, research, planning, or policy

None 1

Minimal 2

Modest 3

Moderate 4

Major 5

2) Adequacy of the literature review Totally inadequate

1

Seriously deficient

2

Minimally adequate

3

Moderately thorough

4

Extremely thorough

5

3) Logic and clarity of the study’s objectives

Totally inadequate 1

Seriously deficient

2

Minimally adequate

3

Acceptably logical/clear

4

Completely logical/clear

5

4) Adequacy of data collection and analytic methods (if applicable)

Unrepairably flawed

1

Seriously deficient

2

Minimally adequate

3

Competently executed

4

Unusually sophisticated

5

5) Necessity and clarity of figures and tables (if applicable)

Totally inadequate 1

Seriously deficient

2

Minimally adequate

3

Competently presented

4

Extremely well done

5

6) Quality of the discussion of empirical findings or theoretical arguments

Totally inadequate 1

Seriously deficient

2

Minimally adequate

3

Moderately thorough

4

Extremely thorough

5

7) Overall contribution of the paper to disaster theory, research, planning, or policy

None 1

Minimal 2

Modest 3

Moderate 4

Major 5

What Should You Expect from the Editor ?

• You should expect an action letter that– Is timely, – Informs you which reviewer comments are most important

for you to address, – Provides additional comments on issues that might have

been missed by the reviewers.

• You will sometimes receive action letters that meet none of these criteria.– Sometimes it is better to send the paper directly to another

journal.

How Should You Respond to the Reviews?

• Outright acceptance– Don’t bother to plan for this, it is extremely rare (only twice in

35 years for me).– If it ever does happen to you, go out and celebrate.

How Should You Respond to the Reviews?

• Revise and resubmit– Write a letter pointing out what idiots the reviewers are and

then throw it away (sometimes this makes you feel better).– List each reviewer and editor comment and then decide

whether to respond to it in the manuscript or the cover letter. – Revise the paper to address these comments.– Write the cover letter listing each comment and explaining

how you addressed it in the paper or why you didn’t address it (be sure you have a very convincing argument for dismissing any reviewer or editor comments).

– Wait a week and re-read everything before resubmitting.

How Should You Respond to the Reviews?

• Outright rejection– This should usually follow the same process as a revise and

resubmit.– You can use the reviews to revise the manuscript and

resubmit the revision to another journal unless• You agree the paper is hopelessly flawed, or

• You think the revision will take more effort than it is worth

Remember

• Writing is a skill and, like other skills, it can improve with practice.

• For most people, skillful writing (clearer writing produced more rapidly) requires thousands of pages of practice.