The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 1: Building a Program of Research
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
- Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
- Part III Data Collection
- Part IV Statistical Approaches
- Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career
- 29 Designing a Line of Research
- 30 Successfully Publishing Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- 31 Presenting Your Research
- 32 Building Fruitful Collaborations
- 33 Performing a Good Peer Review
- 34 Handling Submitted Manuscripts: As Editor and Author
- 35 Grant Writing Basics
- 36 Teaching Research Methods and Statistics
- 37 Working Outside Academia
- Index
- References
34 - Handling Submitted Manuscripts: As Editor and Author
from Part V - Tips for a Successful Research Career
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 May 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
- Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
- Part III Data Collection
- Part IV Statistical Approaches
- Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career
- 29 Designing a Line of Research
- 30 Successfully Publishing Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- 31 Presenting Your Research
- 32 Building Fruitful Collaborations
- 33 Performing a Good Peer Review
- 34 Handling Submitted Manuscripts: As Editor and Author
- 35 Grant Writing Basics
- 36 Teaching Research Methods and Statistics
- 37 Working Outside Academia
- Index
- References
Summary
Submitted manuscripts usually have an arduous journey, while also having the potential to make significant contributions that reach wide and relevant audiences. In this chapter, I offer a path and guidelines for journal submissions; this includes both the editor’s perspective on handling submitted manuscripts and implications for the authors. Although journals may vary in how manuscripts are handled, the following three main phases most likely occur in some form: (1) submissions are screened to determine their appropriateness for a journal; (2) manuscripts that remain after screening are usually assigned to reviewers by the editor or associate editor; and (3) manuscripts that remain after the review process are accepted and published. I’m hopeful that the information will be helpful to editors and authors by elucidating the process of handling submitted manuscripts and improving the chances of successful and productive contributions.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral SciencesVolume 1: Building a Program of Research, pp. 734 - 754Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Albertine, K. (2010). Advice for submitting manuscripts to scientific journals. Experimental Biology, 24(S1). https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.24.1_supplement.8.1Google Scholar
Altman, Y. & Baruch, Y. (2008). Strategies for revising and resubmitting papers to refereed journals. British Journal of Management, 19, 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00542.xGoogle Scholar
Andersen, M. Z., Fonnes, S., & Rosenberg, J. (2021). Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: A systematic review. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 37(6), 985–993. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2021.1905622CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
APA (2020a). Summary report of journal operations, 2019. American Psychologist, 75(5), 723–724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000680Google Scholar
APA (2020b). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th ed. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., et al. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force report. American Psychologist, 73, 3–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191Google Scholar
Cooper, H. (2018). Reporting Quantitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards, 2nd ed. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000103-000Google Scholar
Degele, L. (2010). New illustrated guide for authors submitting to ScholarOne Manuscripts™ (formerly Manuscript Central). Editors’ Bulletin, 6(2), 40–42. https://doi.org/17521742.2010.516195Google Scholar
DeMaria, A. (2011). Manuscript revision. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 57(25). 2540–2541.Google Scholar
Forsyth, A. (2021). Peer review in a generalist journal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 87(4), 451–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2021.1958551Google Scholar
Garand, J. & Harman, M. (2021). Journal desk-rejection practices in political science: Bringing data to bear on what journals do. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(4) 676–681. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096521000573Google Scholar
Hall, D. (n.d.). J K Rowling turned down by 12 publishers before finding success with Harry Potter books. Available at: https://riseupeight.org/jk-rowling-harry-potter-books/.Google Scholar
Harlow, L. L. (2017). The making of Psychological Methods. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000141Google Scholar
Holmbeck, G. N. & Devine, K. A. (2009). Editorial: An author’s checklist for measure development and validation manuscripts. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34(7), 691–696. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsp046Google Scholar
Johnson, C. & Green, B. (2009). Submitting manuscripts to biomedical journals: Common errors and helpful solutions. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 32(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.12.002Google Scholar
Judge, W. (2008). The screening process for new submissions. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(6), i–iv.Google Scholar
Kennedy, M. S. (2018). Journal publishing: A review of the basics. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 34(4), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2018.09.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kusumoto, F. M., Bittl, J. A., Creager, M. A., et al. (2021). High-quality peer review of clinical and translational research. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 78(15), 1564–1568.Google Scholar
Lake, E. T. (2020). Why and how to avoid a desk rejection. Research in Nursing & Health, 43, 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22016Google Scholar
LaPlaca, P., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2018a). How to write really good articles for premier academic journals. Industrial Marketing Management, 68, 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.11.014Google Scholar
LaPlaca, P., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2018b). How to revise, and revise really well, for premier academic journals. Industrial Marketing Management, 72, 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.01.030Google Scholar
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., et al. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151Google Scholar
Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9269-xGoogle Scholar
Mendiola Pastrana, I. R., Hernández, A. V., Pérez Manjarrez, F. E., et al. (2020). Peer-review and rejection causes in submitting original medical manuscripts. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 40(3), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000295Google Scholar
Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory Care, 49 (10), 1246–1252.Google Scholar
Pierson, C. A. (2016). The four R’s of revising and resubmitting a manuscript. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 28(8), 408–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12399Google Scholar
Price, B. (2014). Improving your journal article using feedback from peer review. Nursing Standard, 29(4), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.184651910.7748/ns.29.4.43.e9101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raitskaya, L. & Tikhonova, E. (2020). Seven deadly sins: Culture’s effect on scholarly editing and publishing. Journal of Language and Education, 6 (3), 167–172. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2020.11205Google Scholar
Rigby, J., Cox, D., & Julian, K. (2018). Journal peer review: A bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper’s revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation. Scientometrics, 114, 1087–1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2630-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R. (2020). Learning from Leonardo – The importance of the rough draft. Available at: https://blog.shrm.org/blog/learning-from-leonardo-the-importance-of-the-rough-draft.Google Scholar
Steer, P. J. & Ernst, S. (2021). Peer review: Why, when and how. International Journal of Cardiology Congenital Heart Disease, 2, 100083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcchd.2021.100083Google Scholar
Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., et al. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE): A proposal for reporting. JAMA, 283(15), 2008–2012. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.Google Scholar
Su’a, B., MacFater, W. S., & Hill, A. G. (2017). How to write a paper: Revising your manuscript. ANZ Journal of Surgery; 87(3), 195–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13847.Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Al-Khatib, A., Katavić, V., & Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2018). Establishing sensible and practical guidelines for desk rejections. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 1347–1365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9921-3Google Scholar
Tikhonova, E. & Raitskaya, L. (2021). Improving submissions to scholarly journals via peer review. Journal of Language and Education, 7(2), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.12686Google Scholar
Williams, H. C. (2004). How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51(1), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2004.01.049CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed