Full text

There are many things that remain as true today as they were when I first mentioned them in previous JNS editorials. When submitting work, it is helpful to consider that JNS is more likely to publish work that is a good fit for the journal’s mission and so manuscripts on psychometrics or nursing education, for example, are not likely to be accepted (Gennaro, 2019a). Reading author guidelines is a must (Gennaro, 2019b). You want to give peer reviewers the best chance to understand your work, and peer reviewers have expectations based on JNS’ author guidelines. Additionally, author guidelines give you important information, such as how best to provide information about your revisions to peer reviewers (Gennaro, 2019b). I have talked about the importance of having friends read your work before it is submitted (Gennaro, 2018a). You want reviewers to see the best example of your work and so having others read it first helps to assure spelling and grammar mistakes are minimal and that your points follow logically. I have urged authors to ensure that they use current guidelines, such as the CONSORT or STROBE guidelines, when disseminating work (Gennaro, 2018b), and I have talked about common mistakes to avoid in scientific writing (Gennaro, 2016). While encouraging you to submit the most significant and rigorous work, I have encouraged you to develop strategies that ensure you have the resources needed to disseminate this work (Gennaro, 2014).

All of these suggestions remain important but there are new challenges that authors are now facing in getting published. Industry wide we are seeing an increase in submitted manuscripts perhaps due to COVID-19 and changes in researcher’s time. At JNS our submission volume has increased more than three-fold over the past year. Inevitably, that means that there are some good manuscripts that we are not going to be able to publish. Having your manuscript rejected doesn’t mean it doesn’t have worth, it just means it is not in the top 15-16% of the manuscripts we receive as that is about the percentage of manuscripts we are able to currently publish.

While more manuscripts are being submitted we are also seeing an industry-wide shortage of peer reviewers. Currently, it is not uncommon for us at JNS to need to ask multiple reviewers before we get adequate review. Therefore, we are now desk rejecting more manuscripts than ever before because we want to ensure that the manuscripts we send out for peer review are the ones most likely to be published. I am sorry that we can no longer provide valuable peer review for all manuscripts submitted to us, but that is just not possible. I plea for all of who are authors to pledge to review at least four manuscripts of other authors every year. It would be great if you want to do that for JNS (please just email jns@stti.org if you are a published author and would like to review for us). If we all pitch in we can go a long way in ensuring that our readers can trust the information they read as it is carefully peer reviewed.

Given the shortage of peer reviewers with an increase in manuscript submissions, we have also had to make other difficult decisions. If a manuscript has 10 peer review invitations declined we return it to our editorial office to be re-read and to see if we want to continue to try to find reviewers or if we have to release the paper. We understand completely how difficult it is to have a manuscript in review for a lengthy period of time. We are working continually to get your work good peer review in a timely manner but this is becoming more difficult than it has been in the past. So you might find that you are getting a manuscript back that has been in review but for which we have no peer review information to provide (this is a rare occurrence that we try to avoid by all means but it has unfortunately occurredfor a few manuscripts that we are not able to get a peer review from even the most steadfast reviewers). You might also get feedback from us from fewer than 3 peer reviewers. Again, we are trying to ensure that you get solid feedback in a timely fashion and I as editor re-read every manuscript for which we have fewer than 3 reviews and provide my thoughts as well as the reviewer’s thoughts.

We appreciate inquiries from you if you think your manuscript has been in review for a long period of time. Often these notes from you, when forwarded to a reviewer, hastens a review in ways that my constant, polite urging does not seem to be as successful in achieving.

If you are asked to revise and resubmit it is also important to know that it is still essential to respond to each one of the reviewer’s comments in as clear and thorough a way as possible. Reviewers are placing the burden of explanation on you and if you can’t adequately explain a point they are becoming less interested than in the past in re-reviewing a manuscript. We ask reviewers if they will read a revision, as we would like your work to go out to the same reviewers. If at least one reviewer agrees to re-review we will send your manuscript back out for peer review. When no reviewers agree to rereview we have to make a decision in the editorial office as to whether we are likely to get a fair review with new reviewers or if we, to be fair to you and not hold on to your work for too long a time, should reject a manuscript. Of course, as always, a revision often clarifies one area and makes it easier for reviewers to detect flaws that can’t be fixed so it remains true that receiving a request to revise and resubmit doesn’t mean a manuscript will ultimately be accepted. A “revise and resubmit” finding means we are really interested in your work and if you can successfully respond to reviewers concerns we will all be happy with the desired outcome.

Please make sure that the manuscripts you are submitting are really going to help global nursing science. Although I am happy that we are seeing many more submissions to JNS I am sad to report that this does not mean that we are seeing many more excellent submissions. As has always been true, doing significant work with rigorous methodologies is the most successful way to be published. Meanwhile we are working diligently on improving our review processes so that we are providing excellent and timely peer review. I am very grateful to all peer reviewers and really do believe if we want others to take time to read our own work we need to make sure that we take time to read and review the work of others. I remain hopeful that we will see a decrease in manuscript submission of poorer quality manuscripts and an increase in peer reviewers willing to review. We will continue to develop new ways to ensure timely review and appreciate everyone’s understanding as we all navigate the new challenges we all are facing in getting our research published. We ask that you as authors think carefully about whether your work is a good fit for JNS. I am always happy to answer inquiries as we all move toward having the best of nursing science published in the pages of JNS.


与我在之前的 JNS 社论中第一次提到它们时一样,今天有许多事情仍然如此真实。在提交作品时,考虑到 JNS 更有可能发表非常适合期刊使命的作品,因此心理测量学或护理教育方面的手稿不太可能被接受(Gennaro,2019a)。阅读作者指南是必须的(Gennaro,2019b)。您希望给同行评审员最好的机会来了解您的工作,而同行评审员的期望基于 JNS 的作者指南。此外,作者指南为您提供重要信息,例如如何最好地向同行评审员提供有关您的修订的信息(Gennaro,2019b)。我已经谈到在提交之前让朋友阅读你的作品的重要性(Gennaro,2018a)。您希望审阅者看到您作品的最佳示例,因此让其他人先阅读它有助于确保拼写和语法错误最少,并且您的观点符合逻辑。我已经敦促作者在传播工作时确保他们使用当前的指南,例如 CONSORT 或 STROBE 指南(Gennaro,2018b),并且我已经谈到了在科学写作中要避免的常见错误(Gennaro,2016)。在鼓励您提交最重要和最严格的工作的同时,我鼓励您制定策略以确保您拥有传播这项工作所需的资源(Gennaro,2014 年)。

所有这些建议仍然很重要,但作者现在在出版方面面临着新的挑战。在整个行业中,我们看到提交的手稿有所增加,这可能是由于 COVID-19 和研究人员时间的变化。在 JNS,我们的提交量在过去一年中增加了三倍多。不可避免地,这意味着我们将无法出版一些好的手稿。你的手稿被拒绝并不意味着它没有价值,只是意味着它不在我们收到的手稿中的前 15-16%,因为这大约是我们目前能够发表的手稿的百分比。

在提交更多手稿的同时,我们也看到整个行业缺乏同行评审员。目前,我们在 JNS 需要询问多个审稿人才能获得足够的审查并不少见。因此,我们现在拒绝的手稿比以往任何时候都多,因为我们希望确保我们发送给同行评审的手稿是最有可能发表的手稿。很抱歉,我们无法再为提交给我们的所有手稿提供有价值的同行评审,但这是不可能的。我恳请所有作者保证每年至少审阅四份其他作者的手稿。如果您想为 JNS 这样做,那就太好了(请发送电子邮件至 jns@stti.org如果您是已发表的作者并愿意为我们审阅)。如果我们都参与进来,我们可以在很大程度上确保我们的读者可以信任他们阅读的信息,因为这些信息经过同行仔细审查。

鉴于随着手稿提交量的增加,同行评审员短缺,我们还不得不做出其他艰难的决定。如果一篇手稿有 10 个同行评审邀请被拒绝,我们会将其退回编辑部重新阅读,看看我们是否要继续尝试寻找审稿人,或者我们是否必须发布论文。我们完全理解长时间审阅手稿是多么困难。我们一直在努力让您的工作及时获得良好的同行评审,但这变得比过去更加困难。因此,您可能会发现您收到的手稿已经过审,但我们没有同行评审信息可提供(这是一种罕见的情况,我们尽力避免,但不幸的是,有几篇手稿发生了这种情况)即使是最坚定的审稿人,我们也无法获得同行评审)。您也可能会从少于 3 位同行评审员处获得我们的反馈。同样,我们正在努力确保您及时获得可靠的反馈,作为编辑,我会重新阅读每篇评论少于 3 条的手稿,并提供我的想法以及审稿人的想法。



请确保您提交的手稿确实对全球护理科学有所帮助。虽然我很高兴我们看到更多的 JNS 提交,但我很遗憾地报告这并不意味着我们看到了更多优秀的提交。一如既往,用严格的方法做重要的工作是最成功的出版方式。同时,我们正在努力改进我们的审查流程,以便我们提供出色而及时的同行审查。我非常感谢所有同行评审者,并且真的相信如果我们希望其他人花时间阅读我们自己的作品,我们需要确保我们花时间阅读和审查他人的作品。我仍然希望我们会看到提交质量较差的手稿的手稿减少,而愿意进行审稿的同行审稿人会增加。我们将继续开发新方法,以确保及时审查并感谢每个人的理解,因为我们都在应对在发表我们的研究方面面临的新挑战。我们要求您作为作者仔细考虑您的工作是否适合 JNS。我总是很高兴回答问题,因为我们都朝着在 JNS 的页面上发表最好的护理科学而努力。





















确定 取消



1元 5元 10元 20元 50元 其它