INTRODUCTION--WHY WE WRITE
Each of us has to identify where writing for publication fits into his or her professional life. Where academicians at large research universities are concerned, publishing is a necessity for pay increases, promotion, tenure, prestige, and acceptance among colleagues and, in general, for career success. At institutions where faculty engagement is more focused on teaching and service endeavors, one might argue that faculty members who regularly publish distinguish themselves from their less writing-prolific peers. Non-academician health educators and other health professionals who write and publish get a great deal of my respect and I wish we had more practitioners who were eager to share their data, experiences, and wisdom.
I have heard many stories of why my colleagues 'write'--even from those whose careers would not be remarkably altered if they never wrote another paper. Making a contribution to the literature and being competitive in a grantsmanship environment notwithstanding, some people write because of ego, perceived 'immortality,' the need for a creative outlet or setting one's self apart from peers, and numerous other reasons.
Now in my fourth year as Editor of the American Journal of Health Education (AJHE), I have seen, and I dare say, 'read,' close to 800 papers that have been submitted for publication during that time span (Table 1). A little more than 80% of these papers never get beyond the initial review process. Now and then I will recognize one of the reviewed papers when it appears in another journal, but more often than not, I have no way of knowing its eventual fate.
I do believe that one of the roles of editors should be to instruct prospective authors on how to maximize the possibility of getting their work published, especially at a time when there is a deliberate attempt to enhance the overall competitive position of AJHE. Beginning with this inaugural issue of volume 40, I intend from time to time to share a few observations and insights about publishing in AJHE. I hope that readers and potential contributors will not find this initiative as my ego in motion, but rather, as a well-intentioned effort to augment writers' future success.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLISHING IN AJHE AND WHAT THE EDITOR AND REVIEWERS SEEK
There are numerous viable opportunities for publishing in AJHE that can be pursued:
* Data-based research paper (quantitative or qualitative or both);
* Program description or case study (applied theory, perhaps data-based);
* Theoretical paper (new theory or framework);
* Philosophical paper or commentary (informed view of health education practice);
* 'State-of-the-art' paper (systematic and comprehensive literature review); or
* Point--counterpoint paper (egalitarian perspectives on a controversial issue).
If these possibilities are not exhaustive enough, consider one of these publication options:
* Historical analysis (e.g., evolution of HIV/ AIDS education; approaches to drug education);
* Challenges for the profession (respect, competition, certification, improving professional preparation, enhancing the database for practice decisions, demonstrating evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence, etc.);
* Advocacy with persons in positions of power and influence (politicians, entrepreneurs, decision makers, etc.);
* Letter to the editor (any subject likely to be of widespread interest); or
* Photo essay (photographic images that support or augment a viewpoint).
For years AJHE has published teaching ideas for classroom settings. More recently, this 'practice' concept was expanded to other settings, first through the now defunct CLIPs column, and after that, through Community, Care Setting, and Worksite Initiatives. The volume of teaching idea submissions was down last year, and the number of unique and innovative ideas was even smaller. Submissions related to other practice settings have become nearly non-existent.
Data-based papers intended for AJHE should add a new dimension to what is known, and authors should be explicit about how their work advances the state of knowledge. Reviewers specifically seek evidence for how the work offers a new wrinkle. New manuscripts that mirror recently published papers command less excitement all around. Whereas, studies that report or confirm previous findings often are valuable, the 100th study to report that children and youth watch too much television and play too many video games (as opposed to being physically active) is less compelling to publish.
Research papers should be methodologically strong. What are some common shortcomings? A few culprits that the editor and reviewers can offer include:
* Having a small sample size;
* Using samples of convenience, especially ones comprised of university students;
* Lacking sample size calculations for achieving statistical power;
* Employing poor instrumentation--lacking information pertinent to validity, reliability, readability, practicality, etc.;
* Using multiple statistical tests without considering statistical conclusion validity and the risks related to Type I and Type II error;
* Using weak statistical tests and not considering confounding matters of effect size;
* Not connecting research hypotheses with theory;
* Asking trivial research questions;
* Describing the background for the study only superficially;
* Failing to define a clear purpose for the study;
* Not demonstrating a link between the research and an important challenge in health education practice or the health status of a particular population (e.g., a Healthy People 2010 objective);
* Making indefensible conclusions;
* Failing to point out limitations or failing to recognize that limitations are too compromising to draw valid conclusions from the data;
* Having an inadequate discussion about the findings, often failing to link findings with previous research; and
* Making only a marginal effort to link findings and practice when such a link exists, or the converse, i.e., overstating a relationship for which there is little evidence.
Moreover, for all of our profession's proclamations that health education is powerfully driven by theory, only a small percentage of the 800 manuscripts of the past few years describe interventions that are tied strongly to theory. Often, reference to theory is only partial (one or two dimensions of a model, but not all dimensions) or worse, altogether superficial (a few items on a survey loosely tied to a theory or framework). Whereas, I suppose some involvement of theory in designing and implementing programs and measuring their success is better than none; richer and more comprehensive applications are needed.
Three years after issuing a call for 'letters to the editor' to encourage dialogue about previously published papers, and enrich discussion about ongoing controversies, I have received only two e-mails, neither of which necessitated anything more than a brief follow-up email from me. After soliciting commentaries from the sages of our profession, about five have been submitted, three of which were subsequently published. Certainly our individual and collective experiences are grander than what is reflected here!
A pet peeve of reviewers and the editor is when writers fail to follow the guidelines for authors that are published once or twice per year in AJHE and that are perpetually available through the website (http://www.aahperd.org/aahe/template.cfm?template=ajhe-authorGuide. html). AJHE adopted the American Medical Association (AMA) bibliographic style over five years ago: (1) superscript numeral citations in the text; (2) numerical listing of references, including Index Medicus journal abbreviations, where applicable; (3) structured abstracts for research papers; (4) specific subheadings within manuscripts; and (5) various other stylistic elements. Somewhere between one-fourth and one-third of submitted manuscripts are not in compliance with these relatively simple (and common) author guidelines, a smaller, but nevertheless substantial, proportion of authors fail to follow instructions to blind their work when it is submitted. I think it is Woody Allen who is attributed as having said '90% of life is just showing up.' If I could be permitted to extend that thought to publishing in the AJHE, then 90% of success might just be in following the author guidelines.
IMPROVING THE AUTHOR-REVIEWER-EDITOR RELATIONSHIP
The aforementioned remarks are not meant to represent coyness on my part or be overly pejorative. I want to see people succeed in getting their work published, and I would not mind seeing their best material reviewed and accepted by AJHE. I want neither reviewers nor myself to appear to be bullying the authors. On the other hand, I am committed to high standards and a transparent and fair process that is reinforced by reviewers. Here are some ways that I think I can help you if you have been unsuccessful in having a previous paper accepted for publication in the AJHE:
* Prior to submission, I can screen abstracts or queries about the appropriateness of a paper for AJHE;
* I can put you in touch with members of the AJHE's newly organized Executive Editorial Advisory Panel, a group comprised of individuals who have been recipients of the American Association for Health Education's Scholar Award, and who can offer more wisdom than that to which I am limited;
* I can interpret reviewer remarks and act as intermediary between author and reviewer, respecting the anonymity of each;
* I can guarantee the fastest initial review of manuscripts among peer journals (Table 1);
* I can guarantee you patience in the revision process by the editor and reviewers alike; and,
* Finally, I welcome your input, suggestions, and feedback as AJHE goes through its evolutionary process.
Welcome to year 40 of AAHE's flagship journal!
McDermott RJ. Getting published--what editors and reviewers seek from authors. Am J Health Educ. 2009;40(1):2-4.
Robert J. Mc Dermott is a Professor of Public Health and Health Education and Co-Director in the Florida Prevention Research Center, University of South Florida College of Public Health, 13201 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC 056, Tampa, FL 33612-3805; E-mail: rmcdermo@health.usf.edu
Table 1. Manuscript Traffic for American Journal of Health Education2004-2008 * Number of Number PercentageSubmission Year Submissions Accepted Accepted2004 130 28 21.52005 ** 156 39 25.02006 177 36 20.32007 215 34 15.82008 *** 203 27 14.0 Mean Days to Mean Days FirstSubmission Year Reviewers Review Decision2004 4.5 41.52005 ** 8.5 33.72006 1.0 31.42007 0.3 19.22008 *** 0.8 16.1* Does not include Teaching Ideas, CLIPS, or Community, CareSetting, and Worksite Initiatives** Change of Editor August 1, 2005*** Partial Year: January 1, 2008 - December 18, 2008 due topublication deadline
