Information for Prospective Authors

Letters of rejection are missives nobody likes. Prospective authors do not want to receive them, and editors, who must write a great many of them, do not relish the task. Some publishers maintain a file of form rejection letters, drafted, one might suppose, to spare their editors from whatever angst may be associated with lying to the hopeful and to keep prospective authors from the unpleasantness of having to deal with their own shortcomings. This practice may be therapeutic for editors at presses with 300 submissions a month and rejection rates of 95 per cent; but it does not serve the letters’ recipients very well at all, especially first-time authors who might happen to be communicating with a press that actually bothers to consider manuscripts by first-time authors. Rejection letters traffic in euphemism, the effect of which is to obfuscate and thereby postpone any authorial facing of facts. In my editorial day (which seems like yesterday, except for the manual typewriters), there was a line our press employed liberally in thankyou-but-no epistles. We were not, we announced to supplicants, the ‘publisher of choice.’ Naif that I was, I once asked during an editorial meeting what the phrase meant. Were we simply saying that we did not choose to publish the manuscript? Or did we mean that the author had chosen the wrong press to which to submit his or her manuscript? Or that the manuscript concerned a topic beyond our range of interests? Or what? As it happened, nobody in that meeting had an answer. Finally, someone said, ‘It means whatever you want it to mean.’ Thus interpreted in-house, the phrase was convenient to any unpleasantness emanating from that week’s mailbag. Inasmuch as I do not recall any rejected author ever asking the question I had asked,

As Statistical Editor of Health & Social Care in the Community (HSCC), I statistically and editorially review all manuscripts reporting empirical quantitative research before they are accepted for publication. Some common faults in statistical analysis occur from time to time, but the problem that causes most work in statistical review lies in the reporting. By expanding our author guidelines for reporting quantitative research studies in HSCC, this article aims to help prospective authors with the planning and writing of their manuscripts and facilitate the peer review process. It gives a more detailed explanation of the structure, layout and content expected for manuscripts reporting the results of empirical quantitative research. The article includes general advice on the reporting of statistical findings, outlines common statistical faults seen in submitted manuscripts, and covers the reporting of commonly-used methods with examples of good practice from HSCC and suggested layouts for tables. Guidance on how to submit a paper to HSCC is also included. Authors intending to submit quantitative manuscripts to HSCC are strongly encouraged to read our author guidelines and this article to help them structure, write and submit their manuscripts. While this article goes into considerable detail, prospective authors may only need to study relevant sections to improve their manuscripts..

At the Asia Pacific Journal of Management (APJM) part of our mission is to help prospective authors, particularly those new to the academic management field, develop their work and publishing skills so as to further build management and organizational research in Asia (Bhagat, McDevitt, & McDevitt, 2010; Fang, 2010; Ahlstrom, 2010a). To that end, since 2010, APJM has been running a series of articles to assist authors with the many challenges of publishing in mainstream management journals such as APJM (e.g., Ahlstrom, 2010a, b, 2011a, b). Prospective authors who want to know more about the research and publishing process (particularly for APJM) should read these editorial articles and other helpful works cited to become more familiar with APJM’s content, paper organization, aims and scope, and style. APJM desk rejects a good number of papers. Many of these desk rejections probably could have been avoided if authors were more familiar with what APJM typically publishes (Ahlstrom, 2012), its aims and scope (Ahlstrom, 2011a), and were careful to read the editorials mentioned here and the works cited therein (e.g., Abrahamson, 2008; Colquitt & Ireland, 2009; Cummings & Frost, 1985, 1995; Huff, 1999, 2008; Van de Ven, 2007). In 2010, APJM published three editorial articles with some recommendations on publishing in the journal (Ahlstrom, 2010a), steering clear of several common mistakes that normally lead to desk rejections, such as failing to specify the paper’s Asia Pac J Manag (2012) 29:191–194 DOI 10.1007/s10490-012-9296-6

Official publication of the College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka and was established in 1995. Full text articles available.Journal of the College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka (JCCPSL) has been recognised by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as a publication following the ICMJE Recommendations. The journal is indexed in DOAJ.Manuscripts are only accepted online through the portal of the JCCPSL https://jccpsl.sljol.info/ . The prospective authors must read carefully the section on Author Guidelines and prepare their manuscript accordingly. To submit a manuscript or to check the status of a submission the authors must first be registered in the JCCPSL Editorial Management System using an existing or newly created username and password. Next, choose the ‘Start Submission’ link and follow the five-step article submission process which is a simple and self-guided process.

As you will have noticed, Plasma Processes and Polymers (PPP) has adopted an entirely new concept in scientific publishing, which we call “DEBATES”.1 The first of these, entitled Views on Macroscopic Kinetics of Plasma Polymerisation, was launched in May 2010; a second set of DEBATE contributions was issued in December 2010, and a third is set for the spring of 2011. We are very pleased with the way this first debate on Plasma Polymerisation has been developing, and we now launch a new debate on a second controversial topic of profound interest to our readers, namely “Contact angle goniometry (CAG) and wettability studies: methodologies and interpretations”. As you know, this is a very broad subject with an enormous background literature of its own, one that far transcends plasma-treated surfaces, but obviously also includes these. It is our intent to have the debate on CAG progress on that very broad basis, as long as it achieves the objective to give our readership the full mastery of sophisticated diagnostic tools; in other words, we shall not insist that plasma-modified surfaces or plasma-deposited coatings be an obligatory ingredient of contributions considered for publication, although those sub-themes will clearly be of interest. In order to kick off the CAG debate, we have asked selected leading experts on this subject to contribute a first commentary. Drs. M. Strobel and C.S. Lyons of 3M Company's Corporate Research Laboratories have written an essay on their own perception of this subject.2 Drs Rosa Di Mundo and Fabio Palumbo of the University of Bari3 and Drs Michaela Müller and Christian Oehr of FhG-IGB4 have also so far contributed to this second debate. Their contributions appear in this current (January 2011) issue of Plasma Processes and Polymers. We are now soliciting further contributions in the form of short original papers, communications, even letters-to-the-Editor, which will be clustered together in future issue(s) for ready accessibility. Thereby, we seek to create a stimulating, thought-provoking archival forum designed to drive forward the collective knowledge in our chosen area of research. We believe that the essay of Drs. Strobel and Lyons will constitute an excellent spark-plug to initiate and give a boost to this CAG debate, and we sincerely hope that you will elect to participate and “reply to”, “comment on” or “add to” the contributions so far. If you do, could we please ask you to first send us a brief abstract describing the main thrust of your proposed contribution: the purpose of this is by no means to “censor”, but rather to avoid potential overlaps, in case several commentators should choose a very similar approach to the theme. In such an event we, the editors, would put the two prospective authors in touch with one-another, so that such overlaps may be avoided. The commentaries are intended to express expert opinions, backed up by experience and know-how; therefore, they are not subjected to the same editorial process as general papers and are examined only by senior editors of PPP. All contributions to the DEBATES in PPP are open-access publications. If you wish to participate in this very exciting new DEBATE on CAG, submission should follow standard author submissions to PPP, but submitting to Special Edition: CAG We look forward to receive your contribution.

Zoological institutions manage animals for conservation, education, entertainment, and research purposes. Zoological staff have a responsibility to safeguard the welfare of animals in their care. Retrospective morbidity and/or mortality studies (MMSs) can be useful tools to highlight common diseases in captive wildlife populations. There is currently no standardized methodology for conducting MMSs. Variation in the methodology of MMSs, particularly the categorization of diseases, can make comparisons between studies challenging and may limit the applicability of the results. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) compliant systematic review was performed, which identified 67 MMSs describing 146 species of captive wildlife. These MMSs are becoming more common and were predominantly performed on mammals (76/146). Prospective authors are encouraged to perform MMSs on amphibians, birds, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates. The studied animals were mostly managed at institutions in the United States of America (28/67, 41.2%) and Europe (14/67, 20.9%). Classifying individuals into age groups facilitates the identification of disease trends within age classes. Only 22/67 (32.8%) studies cited justification for their age classification; classifications should be based on a referenced source on the breeding biology of the studied species. There is variation in the body systems used by authors and into which system a disease is categorized, which makes study comparisons challenging. Diseases were predominantly categorized by etiology and body system (28/77, 36.4%). Because of its ubiquity, the use of the categorization system employed by the pathology module of the Zoological Information Management System is recommended as a useful standard. This system is imperfect, and amendments to it are suggested. The results and recommendations of this study were discussed with a panel of zoo and wildlife experts; guidelines have been formulated for prospective authors aiming to conduct MMSs in captive wildlife.

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah The intent of this feature is to present a forum for PA educators to share their approaches to teaching EBM. Areas of interest might include reviews of EBM resources; mini-tutorials in areas such as statistics, epidemiology, and study design; ethical, historical, or philosophical perspectives of EBM; and discussion of practice or technological tools that enhance application of EBM. Prospective authors are encouraged to contact the feature editors to receive approval of topics in advance. Authors desiring to contribute to Evidence-Based Medicine should forward submissions to: Constance Goldgar, PA-C, MS University of Utah Email:[email protected] Telephone: (801) 585-7634 or: David Keahey, PA-C, MSPH Email:[email protected] Telephone: (801) 585-7766

INTRODUCTION In April we traveled to McAllen, Texas, to present an evidence-based medicine (EBM) seminar to the faculty of the University of Texas Pan American (UTPA) PA Program in nearby Edinburg. On our route to the UTPA campus, we drove by what seemed to be a plethora of medical facilities ranging from family medical clinics and those focusing on pediatrics and women’s health to subspecialty clinics. There were numerous ambulatory surgical facilities and at least four home health businesses. The hospitals we stumbled across seemed, from the road, to be modern and attractively designed. We agreed that the number of health care facilities seemed out of proportion to what we perceived to be average for a community of McAllen’s size. To our knowledge, McAllen and its suburbs were not known as a research or tertiary care center that would create the need for health care organizations in greater-than-expected numbers. We did not think much more about this as we were focused on effectively delivering our presentation and not getting lost on the way to UTPA. The 21⁄2-day EBM seminar went well and we were impressed with a dynamic UTPA faculty, supported by visionary leadership. As is often the case, we returned home with a number of ideas from our attendees that will likely improve our own curriculum. Shortly after our return I (DK) received an email from a health policy and access listserve that I belong to about the June 1, 2009, New Yorker magazine article1 by staff writer Atul Gawande, MD. Dr. Gawande is on the medical staff at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and has been a writer for the New Yorker since 1998. What drew me to the article was not only my interest in health policy, but also the fact that it focused on McAllen, Texas. Dr. Gawande’s article compared McAllen to El Paso, Texas, and found what he termed “overutilization” of health care services. This was consistent with our decidedly nonsystematic observation that there was an overrepresentation of health facilities in McAllen. Intrigued, I read the article and have since followed the ensuing debate about the factual foundation of his reporting. Dr. Gawande’s finding that McAllen’s 2006 Medicare costs per enrollee of $14,946 were double those of its northern neighbor, El Paso ($7,504), was central to his thesis that current incentives in our health insurance system can lead to overutilization of services when profits rather than outcomes are a prime motive. Of particular interest to Dr. Gawande was the proliferation of physician-owned diagnostic facilities that, in his mind, explained much of the asymmetry of Medicare costs in this south Texas city. The fact that health outcomes were no better — and in some cases worse — in McAllen compared to El Paso suggests that his concern might have merit. The article caught my eye because it underlines the fact that under our current system of health care, incentives are centered on maxThe intent of this feature is to present a forum for PA educators to share their approaches to teaching EBM. Areas of interest might include reviews of EBM resources; mini-tutorials in areas such as statistics, epidemiology, and study design; ethical, historical, or philosophical perspectives of EBM; and discussion of practice or technological tools that enhance application of EBM. Prospective authors are encouraged to contact the feature editors to receive approval of topics in advance. Authors desiring to contribute to EvidenceBased Medicine should forward submissions to:

At the occasion of the 25-year anniversary of EGU Interactive Open Access Publishing, the Executive Editors of Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences (HESS) invite the EGU community to join an interactive presentation about HESS’s past achievements and its vision for the future.HESS encourages and supports fundamental and applied research that advances the understanding of hydrological systems, their role in providing water for ecosystems and society, and the role of the water cycle in the functioning of the Earth system. A multi-disciplinary approach is encouraged that broadens the hydrological perspective and the advancement of hydrological science through integration with other cognate sciences and cross-fertilization across disciplinary boundaries.HESS was founded in 1997 and in the editorial of Volume 1, Issue 1 the rationale for hydrology as a geoscience was given: “Much has been written over the past decade about the need to establish a strong identity for hydrology as a distinct geoscience alongside the atmospheric, ocean and solid earth sciences. The aims and scope of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS) have been designed to give full expression to this goal, and have been strongly influenced by 'Opportunities in the Hydrologic Sciences' (National Academy Press,1991). The functioning of the hydrological cycle within an earth system undergoing global change is currently the focus of research by many leading scientists and it is hoped that HESS will become a major forum for the publication and discussion of such research, as well as all new findings which enhance the position of hydrology as a geoscience.” Interestingly, by now hydrology is very well established as a geoscience and the Hydrological Sciences Division is one of the largest divisions of EGU.In 2005 HESS then moved from print issues to fully web-based open access with a transparent and interactive peer-review process. From the editorial at that time (written by Huub Savenije):“The transition from the classical anonymous and hidden peer review processes to the open discussion style follows immensely successful developments in other communities (in particular high-energy physics) and has the potential to greatly improve the communication in our discipline. Another great advantage of this discussion forum is that it will make publication (and participation in the discussions during the review process) more accessible to the wider community, especially to young scientists. HESS-D will act both as a discussion forum and as a new way (i) of contributing to our science, and (ii) for any scientist to become active and be visible as a creative and responsible thinker.” This transparent and inclusive aspect of HESS remains something we value very much and constantly try to improve on.Current and prospective authors, reviewers, current editors and anyone who might be interested in exploring the possibility to join our editorial board will learn more about HESS’s editorial workflow, from preparing a strong submission with high scientific significance to navigating the interactive public discussion phase on the community platform EGUsphere.Anyone interested in HESS’s transparent, community-driven and not-for-profit publication model is welcome to join, ask questions, share ideas, and explore ways to get involved.

Official publication of the College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka and was established in 1995. Full text articles available.Journal of the College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka (JCCPSL) has been recognised by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as a publication following the ICMJE Recommendations. The journal is indexed in DOAJ.Manuscripts are only accepted online through the portal of the JCCPSL https://jccpsl.sljol.info/ . The prospective authors must read carefully the section on Author Guidelines and prepare their manuscript accordingly. To submit a manuscript or to check the status of a submission the authors must first be registered in the JCCPSL Editorial Management System using an existing or newly created username and password. Next, choose the ‘Start Submission’ link and follow the five-step article submission process which is a simple and self-guided process.

Good Intentions Gone WrongRussian Historical Scholarship and the Proliferation Effect Evgenii A. Krestiannikov (bio) The beginning of the new millennium witnessed unprecedented changes for Russian journals, driven not by shifts in scholarship or publishing technology but by external factors. By far the most of important of these has been an overt initiative on the part of the Russian government to disincentivize low-impact publication and raise the general level, visibility, and competitiveness of Russian scholarship in the international arena. Given the critical importance that state policy has accorded to numerical/statistical measurement (naukometriia) in this area, journals and authors have found themselves forced to pay attention to their work in new ways, developing the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in what has become an increasingly scrutinized and quantified publishing environment. Although this essay focuses on publication in the historical field, the developments affecting history are similar to those affecting other disciplines. At issue is the unprecedented decision by the government to transform academic journals into the arbiters and regulators of the quality of national research. The shift began some 15 years ago, when the Supreme Commission for Accreditation (Vysshaia attestatsionnaia komissiia [VAK]) of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education determined that successfully defended dissertations could be announced only in a select list of journals—the so-called "VAK list"—that met a number of formal expectations established by the commission. Though the reform prompted some grumbling at first, most prospective authors—that is, advanced graduate students and scholars like myself studying or working in Russian academia—ultimately accepted the commission's decision and adapted to the new development. [End Page 119] Beginning a few years later, in approximately 2012, Russian academic institutions, scholars, and journals then began a marked turn toward prioritizing publication metrics. The famous "May decrees" of President Vladimir Putin—which, among other things, called for upping the number of Russian-authored publications in the Web of Science (WoS) database—were clearly instrumental in driving this new policy. Various initiatives to stimulate academic production then followed, and the result was an unmistakable championing of the new virtue of visible, quantifiable publication activity. Today the consequences of this shift are self-evident: the tracking of publications in international databases has become standard business in Russian academia; and the names of the databases themselves—most notably WoS and Scopus—are commonplaces of the Russian academic lexicon. From a means to improve academic publishing, metrics have morphed into an end in themselves. And the effects of the change have been rapid and confusing. Both overtly and covertly, consciously and unconsciously, the achievement of ever higher counts of international publication has emerged as the principal indicator of success for Russian academic institutions and Russian academics alike. The age of metrics enforcement is clearly upon us. All it takes is a quick survey of the various ways that institutions have sought in recent years to stimulate production as well as punish the unproductive to see that the "scholarly product" of our time is now thoroughly quantified. Researchers and university educators are all but obligated to measure their work in terms of quantified output. A healthy publication profile in recognized international databases invariably translates into good standing and a decent salary, while a weak publication record usually spells the opposite: a pay cut and potential career disaster. Not surprisingly, this leads everyone, administrators and scholars alike, to pay inordinate attention to WoS/Scopus, the two databases that seem to define the acme of current academic production. I acquired my first exposure to the politics of publication in international databases about a decade ago, in 2012–13. I vividly remember how at some point during that year I discovered quite unexpectedly that my university administration considered me one of the most valued workers among our faculty. The reason? This was the time when our administrators began attributing special weight to publication rates in WoS/Scopus, and as I had published some articles in WoS/Scopus journals, my name had drawn attention. Soon there was talk of material incentives. I learned that different universities had begun offering scholars bonuses for their publications that appeared in international databases, paying them in some cases as...

If you are an author or prospective author, I encourage you to submit. Here are some of the things we would like to see when you decide to write it up for the Journal.

Official publication of the College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka and was established in 1995. Full text articles available.Journal of the College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka (JCCPSL) has been recognised by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as a publication following the ICMJE Recommendations. The journal is indexed in DOAJ.Manuscripts are only accepted online through the portal of the JCCPSL https://jccpsl.sljol.info/ . The prospective authors must read carefully the section on Author Guidelines and prepare their manuscript accordingly. To submit a manuscript or to check the status of a submission the authors must first be registered in the JCCPSL Editorial Management System using an existing or newly created username and password. Next, choose the ‘Start Submission’ link and follow the five-step article submission process which is a simple and self-guided process.

A new Editorial Team for the BJU International….

Official publication of the College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka and was established in 1995. Full text articles available.Journal of the College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka (JCCPSL) has been recognised by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as a publication following the ICMJE Recommendations. The journal is indexed in DOAJ.Manuscripts are only accepted online through the portal of the JCCPSL https://jccpsl.sljol.info/ . The prospective authors must read carefully the section on Author Guidelines and prepare their manuscript accordingly. To submit a manuscript or to check the status of a submission the authors must first be registered in the JCCPSL Editorial Management System using an existing or newly created username and password. Next, choose the ‘Start Submission’ link and follow the five-step article submission process which is a simple and self-guided process.