What Editors Wish Authors Knew
The following heartfelt desideratum comes from the Conference of Historical Journals. Although it was written for scholarly authors, writers of any stripe can profit from most of its advice (except for the passages on peer reviewing).
What Journal Editors Wish Authors Knew
Submitting a Manuscript
Know your journal. Acquaint yourself with the scope and limits of a journal’s subject field before you submit your manuscript.
Consult the submission procedures outlined in the latest copy of the journal. If the editor requires three copies of a manuscript, send them. Observe stated word or page limits. Most editors will respond to telephone inquiries. Many journals, on request, will provide guidelines for the preparation of manuscripts.
Look at the footnote form employed by the journal to which you are submitting your manuscript and model your notes accordingly.
Double space your entire manuscript, including text, block quotations, tables, and notes.
Use endnotes rather than footnotes.
Many historical journals practice double-blind peer review. Authors should therefore take steps to preserve their anonymity. The author’s name and affiliation should appear only on a separate title page. Do not place your name on the first page of the manuscript or in the running heads. Do not reveal your identity in the notes through the use of the first person (such as, “In my recent article in the Journal of American History, I concluded that this hypothesis was balderdash”).
Do not send your manuscript to more than one editor at a time. Historical journals frown on simultaneous submissions.
If submitting illustrations with your essay, send photocopies, not original photographs or artwork.
Most historical journals do not accept material that has appeared in substantially the same form elsewhere or is about to do so. In addition, some journals will not accept material that is available electronically, such as through posting on a LISTSERV or mounting on a Web page. If in doubt about a journal’s policies, explain your circumstances to the editor.
Always include a cover letter in which you outline the substance and significance of your work. What makes your research different from everyone else’s? You should also identify anyone who has critiqued your manuscript. If the editors know who has read the work, they will not have to waste time asking someone to comment on an essay only to have that person decline because he or she has already read it.
Include in your cover letter your full physical address, phone number, FAX number, and e-mail address.
If you want your materials returned to you, enclose sufficient postage.
Be patient. The solicitation of qualified outside readers and the gathering of evaluations often takes two to three months and sometimes more.
After Acceptance
It is the author’s responsibility to obtain the necessary permissions to quote or cite copyrighted or manuscript materials or to reproduce illustrations. As a courtesy, provide copies of the permission letters to the editor.
Tables are expensive to set, and some journals require authors who cannot provide camera-ready copy of their tables to pay for composition. Clarify this point with your editor to prevent surprises.
Once a manuscript has been set in type, do not try to rewrite it. Changes at this stage are very expensive. Correct only errors in fact, grammar, usage, and spelling.
Reviewing Books
Most history journals do not accept unsolicited book reviews or requests by potential reviewers to review a particular title.
Always include the page numbers of quotations from the work under review and the title and page numbers from other works. The reference will allow editors to check for accuracy even if the journal does not footnote reviews.
Be prompt. The historical profession is a small one. Authors and reviewers who are continually late get reputations among editors.
If for personal or professional reasons you cannot complete an assignment, return the review copy at the earliest possible date so that the editor may find another reviewer. Remember that tenures and promotions are often affected by having one’s book reviewed.
If you decline an invitation to review, editors welcome suggestions for alternative reviewers.
Compiled for the Conference of Historical Journals by Sara B. Bearss, with the assistance of Roger D. Adelson, John C. Inscoe, Nelson D. Lankford, Michael McGiffert, Ann Gross, and John E. Selby
Related posts:
December 6th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Oh, dear authors, are you listening?
December 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
“Do not reveal your identity in the notes through the use of the first person…”
I knew someone, let’s call him H, who tried to submit a condensed version of his PhD thesis for a conference. Because of the double-blind review process, though, H had to remove the reference the thesis. The reviewer rejected it and told him to read H’s thesis.