ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

Suggestions for editors

By J. C. Bennett Assistant Professor of Library Science Eastern New Mexico University

The other side of the manuscript.

Although most librarians are not formally required to publish written work, a great many—particularly in academic libraries—will consider doing so at some point in their careers. Many library science journals exist for the purpose, and they seem typical of periodicals as a whole. Almost every journal contains either “guidelines for authors” or “instructions to authors” or the like. This usually consists of a page in each issue addressed to prospective authors, detailing the style submitted manuscripts should take, the length and form preferred, and other miscellaneous information. Often authors are nastily told that submissions that do not fit the guidelines will be returned unread.

The relationship between author and editor should be one of mutual respect. If authors are bluntly directed to follow some conventions and not others to make editors’ jobs easier, it is reasonable to ask that editors also do what they can to lighten authors’ tasks. A list of suggestions for journal editors follows. It is hoped that editors will take these seriously. The present lack of discipline and standardization discourages many who might otherwise be very successful writers.

1. Do not require that the first submission of a manuscript be in any particular style. Since many styles exist this wastes a great deal of authors’ time. Any recognized style will allow review of a manuscript; if it is clearly unacceptable, the author does not wish to spend time putting it into your particular style. You may also lose your chance at publishing noteworthy pieces. This is especially pronounced if your journal has a high rejection rate. Above all, do not give special instructions that do not follow recognized styles; if a manuscript is accepted, its author will be more than happy to change it to any style you wish.

2. Put in your guidelines a statement on the topics you wish manuscripts to address. This must be as specific as possible. It will lighten your load, as well, for you will spend less time mailing back utterly unsuitable manuscripts. Do not tell authors to read back issues to find out what you require; since budgets are shrinking many libraries have dropped their subscriptions to your journal, and authors will often have only a photocopy of your guidelines to refer to.

3. Comment on each manuscript you reject. If your guidelines contain a detailed statement of the topic(s) you desire articles on, you need only send authors of unsuitable submissions a copy of guidelines with a note stating the particular unfitness. The following excuses for rejection are unacceptable:

a. “We reject a lot of manuscripts.” This does not tell authors why theirs are unsuitable.

b. “The tone (or style or format) is not what we’re looking for.” Unless you suggest the author rewrite and resubmit the piece, you have not given reasons for rejection.

c. “We do not agree with your logic.” If you do not offer sound logical reasons which negate the author’s argument, this excuse is not an appropriate point of departure. If you wish to reject an article simply because you don’t like its conclusions, you should consult with the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee for guidance. In such a case any conscientious author will contact that committee to complain about you. Remember, if you cannot find the time to explain your reasons to each rejected author, you do not have time to be an editor.

4. If you wish an author to rewrite and resubmit a piece, tell exactly what you would like altered or added. Too many authors have been frustrated by editors who simply mail them copies of reviewers’ reports, for these often contradict each other or are too vague to be used as guides.

5. Do not ask that an author submit the original copy of a manuscript. It is perfectly acceptable to ask authors to state that their articles are not under consideration by other publications, but to require that a manuscript be retyped when you reject it (since you will have mangled its corners or left coffee stains on its pages) is unconscionable. In your position you probably have a computer or word processor, but not every writer can afford one.

6. Be fair about time limits. If it has taken you months to review and accept a manuscript, do not expect its author to return proofs to you within 72 hours of receipt. Also authors should realize that you have little control over your referees, but it should not take a non-reſereed periodical more than six weeks to review a manuscript nor a refereed one longer than four months. The approximate time yours will take should be listed in your guidelines; if delays occur after submission, notify the author of them.

7. Enjoy your work. Editing is an honor, not a right, and deserves the best you can give it. Authors need you, and you need them.