Getting Published: Journey into an Editor’s Mind. Sally St. George, PhD, RMFT Dan Wulff, PhD, RMFT, RSW University of Calgary Faculty of Social Work Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Our Context. Co-editors of The Qualitative Report for 10 years Reviewers for numerous journals and publishers
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Getting Published:Journey into an Editor’s Mind
Sally St. George, PhD, RMFT
Dan Wulff, PhD, RMFT, RSW
University of Calgary
Faculty of Social Work
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
In this workshop we will reveal specifically what the editors of TQR are looking for in terms of content and writing style when they read manuscripts. In a frank presentation we will also tell you what “bugs” us when we are working on the rewriting process.
Title indicates content and method
Abstract is concise, not abstract
Key Words are carefully
constructed for searchers
Introduction sets the scene and grabs the reader with the purpose, rationale, audience, and answer to the “so what?” question
Literature Review shows what knowledge base is available and the knowledge gaps
Author Context reveals
interest, investment, intention
Explanation of IRB or
and literature support
What type of qualitative inquiry
are you using?
How were your
What constitutes your data?
How did you collect it?
Reveal each step of your analysis.
Discuss how you built trustworthiness
Organize the presentation
of your results
(must flow from analysis)
Attentive to journal details
(e.g., writing style, journal mission)
Even if manuscripts are not formal studies, they still must be purposeful, transparent, clear, without excessive jargon, and answer the “so what?” question
Letter with submission should summarize the author’s hopes for the manuscript
Remain open to feedback
Attention to detail inside manuscript
Narrative must have a
solid progression of thought
Narrative must have scholarly literature support
What drives us crazy!
(e.g., failing to use
and show Track Changes)
Ignoring or not answering
within a revision
Correcting only one
occurrence of a repeated error
Acting as if one is
using APA style
when one is not
Failing to proofread
Anthropomorphizing or misattribution of agency
the editor’s time and help
Saying more than the data allows