THE LONG JOURNEY TO PUBLICATION: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE JOURNAL REVIEW PROCESS Sandra P. Thomas, Editor How many of you have put the ® nishing touches on a manuscript, sent it forth to meet its critics, and waited quite a long time for word regarding its fate? How often have you disagreed with its reviewers, and what (if anything) did you do? Have you ever called or written to an editor after receiving a rejection letter? What was the editor’s response? Did you submit your paper to a second or third journal after its rejection by the ® rst journal? In recent years, I have had many conversations with nursing colleagues across the country about dissatisfaction with the journal review process. Getting published in some journals has become much more dif® cult. Some authors have observed that editor and reviewer comments are increasingly more detailed and demanding. Others have admitted their discouragement regarding the massive revisions requested or the caustic tone of the reviewers’ remarks. The words of many friends ring in my ears now that I have become an editor: ª I waited a year to receive a response from the journal, only to learn that the manuscript was rejected. I wish I had sent it to a different journal in the ® rst place.º ª The reviewers were wrong. We did not use quota sampling. I even quoted Polit and Hungler on quota sampling, but the editor was not convinced. What can you do when the reviewers are wrong?º ª One of the reviewers wrote a scathing critique, alleging that I knew nothing about depression. But I had written a 20-page paper about it. Surely I knew something!º ª I had to cut several sections of the paper. I did it because I wanted the paper to be published, but I really didn’t want to take those sections out.º ª Two of the reviewers really liked my paper, but the other was downright nasty. I guess the editor was swayed by the nasty one.º ª I was told that I should obtain help with my writing from a senior scholarº (Little did the reviewer knowÐ the woman who related this to me is a senior scholar, with well over 100 published articles and books.) Nursing is not the only discipline encountering discontented authors. A group of psychologists who shared their frustrations at an international conference used pejorative terms such as arbitrary, ar-

Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 19:415±418, 1998 Copyright ° c 1998 Taylor & Francis 0161-2840/98 $12.00 + .00

415

416

From the Editor

rogant, self-serving, and irresponsible to describe reviews they had received (Epstein, 1995, p. 884). Reviewers were said to have an ª I gotchaº mentality, gleefully seizing on minor ¯ aws and limitations of the research. Some of the psychologists actually believed that the more innovative their research, the greater the likelihood that reviewers would recommend rejection of their articles. They felt that ª safeº contributions were favored over creative or iconoclastic ones. It hurts to be rejected. Levenson (1996) noted that there is no outlet for the narcissistic injury that may be sustained when one’s work is returned accompanied by a clear judgment of its inadequacy. Thus, it is not uncommon for a rejected author to blame biased reviewers rather than own up to ¯ aws in the conceptualization of the research or the murky language of the writeup. Some authors’ complaints can be correctly attributed to ª sour grapes.º But many complaints that I hear appear to be valid. Reviews that are destructive rather than constructive do not foster the development of young researchers and do not advance the science. It is time that nursing journal editors and reviewers pay more attention to the complaints. There should be greater accountability and standardization in the journal review process. During the past few years, a number of scholars have written articles about improving the journal review process. In a 1995 article in American Psychologist, Epstein offered suggestionsthat bear repeating to a nursing audience. He urged editors to override reviewer recommendations in some cases, relating an unfortunate incident in which an editor admitted that reviews of an article had been inappropriate but his policy was to go along with the majority of his reviewers as he did not wish to alienate them. . . . on a previous occasion, when he had overridden the recommendations of two reviewers, both indicated they would refuse to review for him if he behaved that way again. (Epstein, 1995, p. 884)

In addition to his admonition to editors, Epstein urged that reviewers be given explicit, uniform guidelines. For example, reviewers should (a) conduct their reviews in timely fashion, (b) offer constructive as well as destructive comments, (c) distinguish between correctable and uncorrectable limitations, and (d) guard against bias arising from their paradigm preferences. Authors should have the right to (a) know who their reviewers are, (b) evaluate the reviews they receive, and (c) appeal improper evaluation of their work. Epstein even proposed allowing authors to recommend potential reviewers when they submit their manuscripts. Although many of Epstein’s (1995) suggestions are meritorious, I wonder if revealing reviewers’ names serves any good purpose. When I

From the Editor

417

took over as editor of Issues in Mental Health Nursing, a blind review process was in place, which I have continued.The reviewers do not know who the author is, nor does the author know who the reviewers are. If anonymous review is abandoned, there may be greater hesitancy to make critical comments to an author, especially if reviewers know the author and have a good professional or personal relationship.Rabinovich(1996) warned of the possibility of unpleasantness at professional meetings as discontented authors confront their reviewers. A better approach may be for the editor to allow authors to critique the constructiveness of their reviewers’ comments after the ® nal decision has been made regarding disposition of the manuscript (Fine, 1996). If a particular reviewer is consistently evaluated as ª off the mark,º whether too cursory or too critical, the editor can drop that reviewer from the panel. There are many other issues worthy of discussion. For example, how much revision is appropriate for the editor and reviewers to do? Bedeian (1996) noted that some editors and reviewers were crossing the line of authorship and functioning as ghostwriters, changing lengthy portions of text and even retitling an author’s work. He stated that Although this commingling of the legitimate roles of author, editor, and reviewer is troublesome, what is even more disturbing is the ® nal product: a manuscript that its author may not have intended to write, which expresses in someone else’s language thoughts the author may not have intended to convey, under a title the author may not have selected. (Bedeian, 1996, p. 1189)

Overly invasive reviewers and editors usurp the writer’s responsibility for his or her own work and adversely affect the integrity of the science. I would like to invite dialogue among the reviewers and authors of this journal. How do you feel about the proposal to allow authors to evaluate reviewers? About abandoning the anonymity of the review process? About instituting an appeals process for rejected articles? My own views have been shaped by 20 years as an author and reviewer before assuming the role of editor in July 1997, so I tend to have great empathy for those who receive my rejection letters. It hasn’ t been that long since I’ ve been on the receiving end myself. I have asked the members of the review panel to be prompt and fair. In my ® rst year as editor, I have been pleased with reviewers’ professionalism and thoughtful, cogent commentaries. But perhaps we should be doing more. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

418

From the Editor

REFERENCES Bedeian, A. G. (1996). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51, 1189. Epstein, S. (1995). What can be done to improve the journal review process. American Psychologist, 50, 883±885. Fine, M. A. (1996). Re¯ ections on enhancing accountabilityin the peer review process. American Psychologist, 51, 1190±1191. Levenson, R. L. (1996). Enhance the journals, not the review process. American Psychologist, 51, 1191±1193. Rabinovich, B. A. (1996). A perspective on the journal review process. American Psychologist, 51, 1190.