Comments for

Comment on New Editor for Nurse Author & Editor by Nursing Journal

Nursing Journal — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:42:45 +0000

Marilyn has a lot of experience in writing for publication: she is author of more than 170 articles in peer reviewed journals, chapters, and editorials, and is editor of a nursing journal. From this experience she is able to offer many suggestions to authors.

Comment on Editors’ Pet Peeves and Gold Stars by Jaynelle Stichler

Jaynelle Stichler — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:58:04 +0000

Great comments and I certainly agree with the gold stars and pet peeves posted. Gold star to those authors who respond to reviewer comments in an organized manner or indicate a sound rebuttal as to why they choose not to revise a specify section of the paper. The comments are very helpful!

Comment on Editors’ Pet Peeves and Gold Stars by Lucy Bradley-Springer

Lucy Bradley-Springer — Mon, 21 May 2012 15:47:09 +0000

Peggy – I am with you 100% on using the journal’s instructions for authors. We also provide a style guide and a sample title page. It is very clear that these documents are rarely used – even when I attach send them to authors who have submitted papers or are considering a submission. I love a properly formatted MS – everyone has an easier time. A good first impression goes a long way.

A related pet peeve: reviewers who do a full editing job on the manuscript. I know it is hard to ignore style and grammar problems (hence, the need for authors to submit well-formatted and proofed papers), but editing gets in the way of the purpose of the review – to assess the quality of the paper – and it wastes the reviewer’s time.

So I give a gold star to reviewers who make a one-sentence observation that there are a lot of formatting, grammar, spelling, etc. problems that will need to be addressed. This gives authors a heads up that major editing is in their future and it allows the reviewer to go back to assessing content.

And a final gold star: Authors who learn from our work with them. I love it when I see a 2nd or 3rd submission from an author who has taken our edits to heart and who makes fewer formatting and style errors in subsequent papers. Kudos to those who learn from their publishing experiences!

Comment on Editors’ Pet Peeves and Gold Stars by geri pearson

geri pearson — Mon, 21 May 2012 14:49:50 +0000

Great blog post, Peggy. My pet peeve is authors who resubmit the manuscript WITHOUT making the reviewer changes OR commenting on why they chose not to do this. Do they think we are going to miss this??? I also hate it when authors try to influence the editorial decision about the manuscript by their relationship with the editor. Ths doesn’t happen often but it is very uncomfortable…

Gold star to those who return edited manuscripts in a timely fashion and are polite. geri

Comment on Editors’ Pet Peeves and Gold Stars by Cynthia Saver

Cynthia Saver — Sun, 20 May 2012 21:10:29 +0000

Leslie, I’m with you about the manuscript that has been submitted elsewhere. I’ve also had them get the name of the journal wrong…..!

Comment on Editors’ Pet Peeves and Gold Stars by Leslie

Leslie — Fri, 18 May 2012 21:04:33 +0000

Hi Peggy,

Great post! For me, a gold star is when I receive a manuscript from an author who has actually looked at my journal–maybe is even a reader–and has familiarity with what we publish, our style, and our format. The pet peeve of this is the author who has obviously never cracked open the journal–never even taken the time to look at one PDF article online.

I have a competing journal (informatics, but not in nursing) that uses structured abstracts and numbered headings (1, 1.1, 1.1.1, etc). I use neither but have received many manuscripts that are formatted that way. It’s not rocket science to figure out the paper was rejected there and now sent to me. Couldn’t the author at least tried to disguise the paper a little bit by correcting the format to CIN style? Sigh…

Comment on Editors’ Pet Peeves and Gold Stars by Cynthia Saver

Cynthia Saver — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:55:02 +0000

Well said, Peggy! Another gold star for me: The author understands and respects the role of the editor in editing the manuscript: the two are a team! A pet peeve: Authors who don’t let you know they won’t make a deadline until you email them a day or two after the deadline to see ask where the manuscript is. We all certainly understand that things happen, but we appreciate knowing right away if there is going to be a delay because we plan out our editorial calendars in advance.
It would be interesting to hear about authors’ gold stars and pet peeves with editors…

Comment on An Interesting Situation: Repudiation or Retraction? by Susan

Susan — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:28:32 +0000

Hmmm. As an academic reference librarian who also follows gay rights politically, I have a few thoughts. First, I see nothing wrong with Spitzer’s curiosity to prove or disprove the counterfactual. I think it’s safe to say that both gay rights supporters and our opponents would like to simplify reality to fit our political needs.

By this I mean that if you speak to almost any human being at some length about their sexuality, you’ll find that it doesn’t fit into a neat box. Desire, fantasy, and actions do not align 100% for most people. We are human beings, we have complex minds. Gay rights opponents make the claim that all human beings are naturally heterosexual which leaves gay rights supporters stuck making the argument that gay people are naturally gay.

Given the nature of this debate, which to my mind is about all of the wrong things, the issue of whether anyone ever chooses their sexual orientation is certainly a reasonable area of scientific inquiry. It was a reasonable study to do and everyone seems to agree that Spitzer’s methods were also reasonable. So, what does he want to retract? His interpretation of the data? The general public’s understanding of the data? The way the data has been used politically?

If he has something to say on the topic, by all means, he should publish it. When people do ground-breaking research, it is common for them to reach a preliminary conclusion. The idea is that there will be future studies on that topic, that the data will develop, that we will learn more.

We are now about 10 years out from the original study and I’m sure there has been more work on the topic. If Spitzer feels that new data suggest that his interpretation was wrong, by all means, he should publicly clarify his thinking.

On the other hand, if he feels that both the data and the interpretation are still valid, but that it has been misunderstood or misapplied by the general public, he should publish a different kind of article entirely. I’m sure the New York Times would be happy to grant that interview.

Comment on An Interesting Situation: Repudiation or Retraction? by David Keepnews

David Keepnews — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:30:31 +0000

I don’t think “honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)” would fit here as a basis for retraction. Spitzer has changed his mind about how to interpret the data. (If the guidelines covered errors in judgment—now, that might be a different matter…)

From the link that Alice posted earlier, it seems that Spitzer’s retraction request to the Annals of Sexual Behavior came in the midst of a telephone conversation with the editor on another topic. As far as his “request” for The American Prospect to print a retraction—Spitzer really couldn’t have expected The American Prospect to print a retraction of something published in Annals of Sexual Behavior.

At any rate, it appears that the Annals editor has indicated that he will print a letter from Spitzer if he receives one. That sounds like a sensible approach. Clearly, Spitzer now has regrets about what he published. He should be able to say so in print (and why). And journal readers should be made aware of his reevaluation of his findings.

There are some other questions posed by this repudiation/retraction/renunciation/regret. (I guess whatever we should call it, at least we know it starts with an “r”). I recently posted something about its context/significance on another blog. I won’t repeat myself here, but the link is:
http://centerforhealthmediapolicy.com/2012/04/14/shutting-the-door-on-reparative-therapy-2/

Comment on An Interesting Situation: Repudiation or Retraction? by Shutting the Door on “Reparative Therapy” « CHMP

Shutting the Door on “Reparative Therapy” « CHMP — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:10:11 +0000

[...] (On the blog of the International Academy of Nursing Editors [INANE], Leslie Nicoll provides some thoughtful discussion of this matter). And many people have commented on the seeming contradiction presented by Spitzer’s study—that [...]