Insights Into the Publishing Process.

Writing for publication allows one to share ideas, thoughts, research, and practice patterns. A valuable tool to disseminate various types of information, peer-reviewed articles contribute to the body of literature and collective knowledge. As Editor-in-Chief of JADPRO, I receive many questions from prospective authors, such as, “Would this topic be of interest to the journal?” Or, “What is the timeline for my paper to be published?” Therefore, I thought it would be a good idea to share a brief background on the publishing process from the perspective of an author and the editorial staff at JADPRO.

STARTING A PAPER

Before a paper finds its forever home in a journal, an idea must first be born. Authors must find a topic that they are passionate about to research or review, which will make the writing process more enjoyable. Once the topic has been selected, the lead author will assemble a team of one or more coauthors to assist with various parts of the writing. During this step, it is important to consider your audience.

Authors will pour their heart and soul into writing the paper. Perhaps this was in the context of a research study or a review of the literature. Regardless, the authors must meet the guidelines set forth by the journal. For an outline of steps, see Table 1. There are some helpful resources for authors at advancedpractitioner.com/submissions.

Table 1

How to Get Started With Writing an Article

Select an idea This could be a particular idea for a specific feature of JADPRO Could be a full review paper (which is really a state-of-the-art paper about a specific topic) Should be something you have a lot of knowledge on or feel passionate about Could be an interesting patient or case you’d like to share with readers If you’ve prepared a lecture for a symposium, use that work to develop a paper. You’ve already done most of the work! Consider working with a mentor, coauthor, or colleague with writing experience Do a literature review Obtain pertinent papers on the topic Use literature databases such as CINAHL, PubMed, NLM, and Cochrane Database Use Google Scholar Take advantage of hospital libraries Search your topic by keywords such as “survivorship issues in colorectal cancer” Consider online sources that have access to full free-text articles, such as PubMed Make an outline (if working with coauthors, consider splitting up content areas) Abstract Introduction Scope of problem Case presentation (if using a case) Discussion/management Implications for the advanced practitioner Conclusion Gather references Use APA 7th edition style Submit the article Consider first sending a query letter With a double-blinded peer review process, expect response to paper within 8 weeks Review comments from reviewers and revise as necessary. Revisions are common and expected.

Note. Adapted from Viale and Vogel (n.d.).

REVIEW PROCESS

Once you have submitted your paper, you may be wondering what occurs behind the scenes. From the numerous papers submitted, the editorial staff work through each paper submitted to determine whether the manuscript fits the scientific mission of the selected journal. Did the author adhere to the journal guidelines? Does the paper provide new and relevant information?

If so, the paper moves through the peer review process. The editorial staff seek two independent volunteer reviewers. The selected reviewers provide strategic recommendations to improve the paper, making it more reader-friendly and impactful. A vast majority of the reviewers are highly supportive of the content submitted and realize all the hard work that went into the writing and publication.

Once the paper has been reviewed by two independent reviewers, the paper is back to the editorial staff and the Editor-in-Chief for review. At this point, the editorial staff and I take into account the comments made by peer reviewers and assist the authors with edits before a final review. After the authors have made their final changes to the manuscript, I decide whether to accept the paper or not. For more information on this process, check out “Peer review: Publication’s gold standard” (Mayden, 2012).

One of my favorite parts of the publishing process is to write the acceptance letter. As I prepare to write this issue’s editorial column, I reflect on all of the articles that we were fortunate to accept and publish in this issue, and how to never underestimate the hard work by authors and the editorial staff!

IN THIS ISSUE

We have many well-crafted papers for you in this issue from advanced practitioners eager to disseminate practice patterns and share valuable information, from management of adverse events in early clinical trials to the impact of an embedded oncology pharmacist in an outpatient oncology center. Whitney Randolph and Joyce Dains discuss ultrasound evaluation of carotid artery intima-media thickness and ask whether this is an effective early marker of carotid artery disease in head and neck cancer patients. Another article explores the role of echocardiogram and electrocardiogram in the early detection of cardiac amyloidosis. Ashley Martinez and colleagues emphasize the importance of timely genetic testing and therapy management in patients with gBRCA-mutated metastatic breast cancer. Next, Katharine Lord and colleagues share experiences in developing a standardized bone marrow procedure training for advanced practice providers. And finally, Gwen Hua and colleagues provide an update on tebentafusp-tebn for metastatic uveal melanoma.

And just like that, another issue of JADPRO is complete. There are many steps from forming an idea to moving through the peer review process. But in the end, these published papers provide invaluable information to clinicians.