Welcome, everyone. We're so glad you're here. Have a great group of esteemed GEN panelists with us. I think it's going to be an exciting event. I'd like to turn this over to Anna Valdez, our GEN Editor-in-Chief, and she's going to get us started. Thank you, Nan. Welcome, everybody. I am so delighted to see so many people who I know and people who I don't know who are joining us. I see that we have some section editors and editorial board members and reviewers as well. Thank you so much for being here. Before we get started, I want to introduce you to our editorial team. I'm Dr. Anna Valdez. I'm our Editor-in-Chief. Dr. Pat Normadin is an Associate Editor. She's also very interested in mentoring and wears a lot of hats for us. And then Dr. Mohamed El-Hussein, I'm so sorry if I said that wrong, I think I got it, is one of our Associate Editors. Dr. Susan Barnison is also an Associate Editor. They handle papers, so if you submit an article or a paper for consideration, it may be handled by any one of those members of our team. And then Annie Kelly is our Managing Editor, and she does all the major workings of this journal and provides support for all of us and you. So thank you, team, for being here. They'll be back at the end. We may not have time for a lot of live questions, but they'll be back at the end, and they will also be monitoring the question and answer area and answering things that they can do in writing and then leaving things that they want me to address live. So watch if you put a question in, watch for the answer. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Okay, so what are the objectives of this workshop? I'm an educator, so I always have to talk about objectives. We're going to talk about how to prepare a manuscript for publication using guidelines, reporting standards, and best practices. We're going to talk a little bit about the differences between writing a paper for school, including doctoral projects and dissertations, and writing for publication. And then I'm going to share with you some resources available to support authors, especially aspiring authors, but really any authors that are available through Elsevier. So first, why publish your paper? There are several reasons. One is to disseminate research and project findings. It minimizes the duplication of efforts. If you did some research or some project and you didn't publish it, people might not think there's any evidence out there. If you do quality improvement projects or research, you honor the participants in those studies or projects by publishing. It's a big ask of people to participate in studies, and we want to share the experiences and the knowledge that came from that. You also want to increase the visibility of your work. It can be used for career advancement, recognition. You get the benefits of peer review and get to learn in that process. But it also allows you to share your experience and your voice, including innovative things that you may be doing in your emergency setting. So part of that is really understanding what you want to write, what you enjoy writing, and what the best audience is for that. So you want to select your journal carefully. And when I'm selecting a journal, I think about who do I want to read this paper? Who will this paper impact most? People may also choose for other things like impact factor or visibility, but I think the most important thing is who is it that you need to reach? Who is going to benefit from what it is you're writing? And select a journal that matches that. Be sure to only submit a paper to one journal at a time, and you'll attest to doing that. And that's because, you know, let's say you submitted to three journals, and we're all doing the work and the peer review on that, and then you withdraw papers from other journals because one accepts. That creates a lot of extra work that's not needed, and it's an ethical issue. Also, be careful about copyright. If you have published your work someplace else, make sure that you disclose that in your cover letter, including doctoral repositories. Now, we do not consider at Elsevier doctoral repositories to be a copyright or previously published. So if you published your dissertation or your project or your thesis, that is totally fine, but you want to tell us in your cover letter so that when I see it's got a high originality score, I know where that's coming from. And then also, when you select your journal, carefully review the author guidelines and the scope and aims of that journal to make sure that in terms of the scope of aims that your paper is appropriate for the journal and what we say we do, but also that you understand the author guidelines and are able to follow those. So some of the questions that you should be asking yourself before you submit a paper for consideration to be published is, first, what is already known on this topic? Like you may be really passionate about a topic, let's say sepsis, and there's been a ton published on sepsis. So does your paper add something that's new or fill a gap in the literature? Why would that paper contribute something that would support practice? Is it different in some ways? Does it implement something new? Or does it fill a gap that hasn't really been addressed? And then does my paper provide an update to existing knowledge? Or is it, you know, literally filling a gap where there is no knowledge or research or evidence to pull from? Will the paper impact emergency nursing practice? For me, the most important impact that Journal of Emergency Nursing has is direct nursing practice. You know, it's important to have things like a good journal impact factor and good alt metrics, but the reality is the most important thing is what we publish helps nurses to do their best work in an emergency setting. And then who is the intended audience? And is this the right journal for my paper? It saves you time of editors looking and say, this doesn't really fit the scope and aims of our journal. So very important to read the author guidelines. And I suggest you do this before you start writing. If you have a dissertation, a thesis, a major project, you're going to have to really kind of rewrite that from your knowledge anyway. So make sure that you carefully look at the author guidelines. They're long, I understand that, but you want to go through them. Things that don't apply to you, you can disregard. Make sure that you're following AMA style 11th edition. We used to have your paper your way, but what we found was that people were not looking at the author guidelines at all, and it created the need for multiple revisions. Follow all guidelines for the paper type. So if it's research, make sure you follow what it says for research or quality improvement. If it's a section paper, make sure that your paper fits within that section. Make sure you read the ethics and AI information. We do allow the use of AI for things like strengthening the paper, checking the grammar, checking the structure, but not for doing any research within that or replacing the author. Of course, anytime you use AI, you have to go through that very carefully and make sure that things are correct and that it's in your own voice, that it makes sense. And know that AI pulls for available information, and sometimes it's inaccurate, and sometimes AI lies. They literally make things up. So I actually put my name in and asked them to tell me about myself, and they listed three awards that don't exist and that I've never received. It was very thoughtful, but it wasn't helpful. So pay close attention to that. Review the checklist before submission. In the author guidelines, towards the bottom, there's a checklist. Make sure before you submit that you have addressed all of those things. Commonly missed items are IRB approval. Annie Kelly will send it back to you if that's missing to add. Consents for case reviews and graphics. So for case reviews, because it involves patients, we don't want you to submit the consent. What we want you to do is attest to the fact that the patient has consented and to address that in your manuscript. For any kind of graphics, photos, things like that, things that you're using from another source, you need to include the permission to be able to use those. Adherence to reporting guidelines for QI, PI, and research papers. In our author guidelines, we have links to a variety of reporting guidelines that are all really housed on the Equator network. And so take a look at that. There's a different kind of reporting guideline for each type of study. And we use QIIR 2.0 for quality improvement and performance improvement. Often we miss emergency nursing implications. So generally, after the results or the discussion, you know, as a part of the discussion and then below that, usually after limitation, we want a header that says emergency nursing implications. And that is a short narrative of what does this all mean to the emergency nurse? What findings from your work, your project, your innovations can emergency nurses apply within their practice? Not all of our readers enjoy reading, research, or even know how to analyze it. So this emergency nursing implications is really important so that all nurses can look at it and see how this work impacts their practice. And then we require bullet points of contributions to emergency nursing practice, which are separate from the manuscript, but something that you submit. It's three bullet points. Can't be more than 120 words. Generally, you know, I'll let you get 150. And there are three specific questions that are prompts for those. And those are included in our author guidelines. So let's talk a little bit about types of publications. Full-length articles, we have research, quality or performance improvement, literature reviews, clinical science translation and implementation papers, and major clinical papers. And then we also accept shorter articles, section articles. We have a variety, about 15 different types of sections. And the thing that's unique about those is that we have section editors that work with authors. We also have a blog. And I really encourage you to check that out just as a reader. But this is about the other side of the rails where you can share experiences or share the experiences or encourage patients to share their experiences of being seen in an emergency department or cared for. And then we also accept letters to the editor. Often the letters to the editor are specifically about a publication. But they can also be something that you wanted to inform our readers. And there are special guidelines for each of those. So full-length articles are usually not more than 3,500 words for the body of the paper. Less than five or equal to five tables or figures and less than 75 references. Now, I'm not real stringent if there's a reason why you have 78 references like you did a systematic review and meta-analysis. I support that. Or like you did a major concept analysis. So these are not hard numbers. But you should try to stay close to them. Recommended length for case reviews, department or section manuscripts are no more than 2,000 words. And again, less than or equal to five tables and less than 50 references. And many times those section-type papers or case reviews end up having less than 10. And that's okay. Supplementary material is welcome for all manuscripts. So if you have research data, and this is where we usually see it, that you are wanting to share or many different types of figures, we can post that online with your manuscript so that people can access that without filling up tons of pages. Justified exceptions, again, are definitely considered. And you just have to request that. Where I suggest you request that is in your cover letter to me, where you tell me why this paper is relevant and should be included in GEN. And if you went over the page count, the word count, just let me know why that is. If it's been shown someplace like in a repository or you have done a presentation on it, let me know that so that I'm aware of it. And also, if you worked with a section editor for their section, please include in your letter who you worked with for that section so I know who to communicate with. So full-length articles, the flow of it is you may inquire with the editor. Now, lots of editors do not take inquiries just because the volume of papers that we get in. Right now, I can still manage inquiries. So if you have a paper and you want to know if it would be a good fit for GEN, please feel free to email me. It's helpful if you provide an abstract of why you think it fits for GEN. So when you have gone through all the author guidelines, you've written your paper, you've gone through the checklist, the next thing you do is submit it to editorial manager. And it's going to ask you to do several things, like have a title page that's separate, the manuscript that's separate, have a cover letter. You have to do a conflict of interest form. So it's going to ask you for several documents as you go, so be prepared for that. Then it comes to me. So first, Annie Kelly looks at it and she'll send it back to if there are major issues like IRB is missing. It'll come to me and then I make a decide to either reject it as the editor or to send it for peer review. The most common reasons why I reject it at my level is that it doesn't fit our scope and aims. There's nothing new about it that's going to impact nursing practice. It might not be properly reported or there may be originality issues, which is, again, why it's important for you to tell me if that article and parts of it, that manuscript were published someplace else. Also, if it is a study and you have broken up that study in some kind of way and published on it someplace else, I need to know that as well. And generally, we don't support what we call salami slicing, and that is when you have one study and you try to get three manuscripts out of it, and that's for ethical reasons. Two specifically, one is that it can confuse readers about the evidence out there and make them think that there are three studies when in fact there's only one study. But also it is a lot of extra work and often dampens the impact of that research, right? There are some exceptions, really large epidemiology type of studies, studies that have multiple different arms. I think that that's acceptable, but you need to still share that with the editor so we can make a decision together. So once I decide that I'm going to send it to peer review, and peer review is a good thing. It means we're interested. We do a minimum of three blinded reviews. And so what that means is the reviewers don't know the author's name and the authors don't know the reviewer's name. At times with research, you may be able to ascertain who the author is because they may be an expert in that field or something like that. And so reviewers will usually tell me, and if they feel like they can objectively evaluate, we just proceed. And then often at that point, you're either going to get a rejection or usually a revised and resubmit. I have only accepted a paper that didn't need revisions twice in 15 years. So you should expect that you will get a revision if it's not rejected. And what that means, that's a good thing. People get revisions and they're like, oh, that's a lot of work. But it means we have an interest in your paper and we want to work with you to have it be ready. And so that's an iterative process until we accept or reject, which means you may have to revise a couple of times, especially if there's a lot of revision. We don't always put everything you need to revise because it would be cumbersome to do that. So our section articles are Advanced Emergency Clinicians Corner, Case Reviews, Clinical Nurses Forum, Trauma. We have a wide variety of sections that are relative to emergency nurses practicing in all settings and at all levels. And with that, I want to announce that we will be adding a section that says New to Emergency Nursing. And that will have section editors that have less than 10 years experience in emergency nursing who will be publishing on things specific to our early career nurses and the experiences that they have, the resources they need, the education that they need. So I'm excited because we have advanced emergency clinicians. And I really wanted to speak to our early career nurses because I fell in love with Jen when I was an early career nurse. So in terms of a section article, the process is a little bit different. You're going to first contact the section editors or editor. That information is all available on our website and it is in our author guidelines. So let's say you were interested in publishing to case reviews. You would look and see what that is. And in that case, you just submit it to us because Pat Norman did. Dr. Pat will handle that. But let's say you wanted to submit to clinical forum. You would email the section editor of that section and communicate with them about your idea, send them your paper. They'll give you feedback on it. They may help you to revise it to where they feel like it's ready for peer review. Doesn't mean all the revisions are done. Just feel it feels like it's ready for peer review. And we do that intentionally to support authors who don't have a lot of experience publishing. So for me, it was how I started my first paper. Actually, my second paper, I did one for school for Jen was in a section because I was so nervous about trying to publish and I was able to get mentorship through that. So we offer as much mentorship as we can prior to you ever submitting it. So once you've worked with that section editor and they say, yeah, I think this is ready and it may be with revisions or without, go ahead and submit to editorial manager. Then it will come to me. I rarely desk reject those because editors have already had their hands on them. There would have to be like some serious issue with it for that to happen. So you'll upload it as we described for full length articles, and we do a minimum of two blinded peer reviews because you've already worked with an editor on that paper. And I try to have those reviews done by other section editors because they understand that it may not include research. It could be a full research paper and that's fine, but it may be a short article. And so we want people who know what's expected of those to be doing those reviews. And then at that point, I also ensure that the section editor has approved it before I approve the final draft and it gets through the process like every other paper at that point. So you're getting ready, what do you need to do? So you're gonna write a cover letter and in that you're addressing me, the editor, or Annie, our managing editor, and saying, I'm submitting this paper for this reason. I think it fits into Jen because of this. I think it fills this gap. I think it's an innovation. Whatever it is that you think is the reason why we should review and publish your paper. Also include those other things that I've talked about, the ethical things. If you have a case review, you need to include that you have patient consent. Or that if you make up a case or you fundamentally change it significantly to protect the person because you can't get consent, you need to explain that it's an illustrative case and not an actual case. And that way we know that consent is not needed. You need a title page. There are just instructions for that of all the things that you need on it. You need an ORCID number. We like to have your Twitter handle because we try to put your papers out there in social media. You need an abstract. It is structured with headers. Or research and QI. So we use the MRAD model of introduction methods, results, and discussion. And unstructured rather, so just a narrative, if it's like a section paper. We need keywords, three to five. Really pay attention to your keywords because that's what's gonna tell people, that's gonna help people find your paper, right? It's gonna help them use it. It's gonna help them cite it. So you wanna have really good keywords and pay attention to that. We mentioned that you have to have contributions to emergency nursing practice. And that is a separate page generally that includes that highlights. One of the most common things I have to ask people to add or edit is the highlights or the contributions because they miss it or they don't really follow the direction. So you have three specific prompts and each one should have a bullet point. So what is already known about this topic? That means what is the existing research and literature say about this? I expect that you know that from your background work on the topic. What does this paper add to currently published literature? So where does this impact practice add to the evidence that is missing now? And then what's the most important implication for clinical emergency nursing practice or emergency practice in other settings? This is a very important part of your paper. While we require it, it's extremely important for you because it's at the top there in the paper. So as people are going through the journal or they're pulling papers for school or work, they're gonna look at those contributions to determine whether or not they're going to use your paper or read your paper. So that tells people what to expect, what they can get out of that paper. Again, for research and QI papers, we're gonna use the MRAD format. It's again, that is the introduction, which is kind of the background. Often the end of that includes the scope or aim, the purpose of your quality improvement or research paper. We need to make sure that you have IRB approval or exemption. And I'm very strict about that. Even if it's been exempted, you can't just say we didn't apply for it because it doesn't meet that without giving me a policy for your organization that tells me that that is in fact their process. We're very protective over research involving humans. Make sure that you follow the appropriate Equator Network reporting guidelines. We have many of them listed within our author guidelines, but you can go to the Equator Network and search for your type of study. Is it a cross-sectional observational study? Is a randomized controlled trial? Is it a mixed method study? So you'll find the appropriate reporting guidelines. And what you have to do with that is use it like a checklist and make sure that you check off that you have included each of those. I ask that you follow the order as you're including them, but you don't have to use every heading that is in those reporting guidelines. You just have to make sure that you've addressed them. Occasionally, especially with QI, all of the guidelines are not applicable to your paper. So in that case, just put not applicable so that I can look at that and verify that with you. When you've completed that checklist, you wanna upload it as a part of your manuscript so that I can see that you in fact did that. Because one of the things reviewers will be looking at for a QI or research paper and that I look at is, did you address all those reporting guidelines? And is it in a logical flow? Is it kind of consistent with the MRAD format that we're used to using? And again, all elements may not be required. I suggest like if you have a QI project, and I'm really talking to people who have like master's thesis or doctoral here, although you don't necessarily have to be in that population to be doing this work. When you prepare to write your paper, I would look at the reporting guidelines first and let that help you set up the headers. And actually sometimes when I'm doing a research that I don't do all the time, I'll actually set up headers and put the required content under that. So as I write those sections, I make sure that I have addressed the required elements. Also, if you're getting, if you are embarking on a quality improvement project, or you are embarking on research for your doctoral project, I encourage you to look at those in advance so that you're familiar with what will be asked of you. Now, these reporting guidelines are meant as a guide for how you report, how you document your research. It's not how you conduct your research, but as you're going in, especially as a novice researcher, maybe the first time you've done a quality improvement project, it is helpful to look at that, to see what you're going to be expected to be able to say about that in your paper. So again, here's some examples of different reporting guidelines for you. We use CONSORT for randomized control trials. One of the ones that is missed most commonly is CARE. So our case reviews that are published in our case review section have to follow the CARE reporting guidelines. And that's something that we, I would say 60, 70% of the time, we have to send back for that. With qualitative, we can use COREC, and we can also use other ones that are in the Equator Network as well. So again, as you prepare, read the author guidelines before you write the paper. When I am publishing in a new journal, I always do that. I read them carefully. I write notes that are going to apply to me so that when I write that paper and I submit it, I don't have to waste my time or the editorial team's time and them giving me feedback about the author guidelines that I need to address. It just, it saves a lot of time for you in revision. It can eliminate a whole revision for you. You can use that checklist before you submit, go through it, make sure everything that's applicable to you is done. I really recommend, you know, you can use AI, which Grammarly, for example, is a form of AI to help you some with clarity, grammar, and spelling. But I recommend two things. One, that you have somebody read it for clarity, grammar, and spelling. And I often have somebody read it who is not a nurse, not an emergency nurse. Like my daughter is a pre-nursing student. So if I write a paper, I always give it to her and ask her to read it and give me comments and check for grammar. Because if she can understand what I wrote, then that is successful for me. And also, when we are looking at our own papers, the way that our minds work, we fill in gaps. And so I will read what I expect to read. So the other thing I recommend is before you submit, read it out loud. When you read it out loud, that allows you to find errors that you might have. Make sure you've used quotes for any published language. Even if you were the author, you have to cite your own work. And, you know, I ask that you have minimal quotes. They should be things that are really required that you don't change. And then add line numbers and include page numbers. That helps us so much because it allows us to be able to tell you what page and line we want you to make revision on. It's really hard to give you revision feedback without that. Make sure you follow AMA and then don't salami slice your study unless it meets Elsevier criteria. I will post this presentation, but you can also Google Elsevier in salami slice and it will tell you when it would be appropriate for you to publish more than one paper out of your study. Now, there's a caveat to that. If you are doing a three manuscript doctoral program, that is fine. Those documents are very different. One may be wholly on methods. One may be wholly on your literature review. And then, you know, the third being your full study. But again, I would include that, that this is gonna be a one of three papers that are included in your degree. So speaking of degrees, let's talk a little bit about the differences between academic and journal papers. Academic papers, things that you do in school, are meant to follow the school format and structure. What they're looking for is to be able to demonstrate that you have mastery over the information that you're supposed to be learning. There's a ton of redundancy. If you've done a doctoral dissertation or a BNP project, a master's thesis, you know that you like have to repeat step over and over the purpose of your, or scope or aims of what it is you're doing. And we don't want that redundancy. So, you know, it'll be very different. And then it's often highly structured to follow what it is that your instructor, your professor wants, and it's graded by faculty. So it's rare that you can take an academic paper, like let's say you're in graduate school and you write a great paper about emergency nursing for one of your classes. It's rare that that would be suitable for publication without a lot of revision or rewrite, because you wanna follow author guidelines and what is the norm for the journal. And one of the things that I get periodically is people who will upload their entire master's thesis or dissertation or DNP project. I can't do anything with that. When you are taking that work that you did, that great work that's filling a gap and important to emergency nursing, you really have to rewrite that. You're an expert now in that content. So it's fairly easy to do it. Now you can pull some of the content directly from that paper and put it in what you're submitting for an article, but use caution with that. Sometimes I find people just try to grab pieces and they put it in and it doesn't have a logical flow. It's not concise. It doesn't address the reporting guidelines. So you should keep in mind that when I write this paper for publication, I'm not just gonna be copying parts of my dissertation or thesis. I'm going to be writing this out to conform with what the norms are for papers that are published in journals. And again, it's rather than being reviewed and graded by faculty or your committee, it's reviewed by peers and editors. So if you're doing this with dissertations and DNP projects, and I should have included master's thesis here, make sure you download exemplars. One of the things that I always do, even as an experienced author and editor, that by publishing to a new journal, I will go through papers in the journal that are similar to what I'm publishing on. Like if I'm doing a performance improvement paper, I download a couple of examples that they have published because that helps me to have an understanding of what they consider to be a good paper. And it helps me to have ideas as I'm formatting. Now, of course, don't copy anything from those, but it's a great way to kind of visualize what your paper should look like. If you did either say that you are doing a study or project, they are not interchangeable. One of the things that I get, particularly with DNP projects, is they will interchange the word project and study. Generally speaking, DNP projects are not studies. Now, there are some exceptions to that depending on the school, but you wanna be clear about whether this is a project or a study. If it's a project, it's gonna be presented using SQUIRE reporting guidelines as a performance improvement or a quality improvement project usually. And if it's a study, it has to follow all of the rigor and the reporting guidelines for a study. So when you interchange those, reviewers will think it's a study because you use the word study and apply requirements that may not be relevant for you. Make sure that you're clear and concise using the reporting guideline structure. Make sure you avoid redundancy. We don't need to know your practice question or your research question more than one time. And only include the information required for the article type. That was one of the hardest things for me. I actually chose a journal that had a higher page count because I was so passionate about this work that I had completed and it was hard for me to cut things out. But you wanna make sure that you're only including what is the required part of that. And where you can elaborate on that is in doing presentations or maybe blogs or talking about your research. Then you can elaborate on those things that you feel so passionately about. So DNPs, it's probably a QI project. Don't call it a study unless it was. Follow the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines for all applicable items. Use the MRAD format. Make sure you include implications for emergency nurses. For dissertations, and I hope there's some students who haven't started their research who might benefit from this as well. Key principles to consider, and this is relevant. This first bullets are really relevant to any of our papers. Who cares about what you did? Does the study matter to the readers? Sometimes we do studies that we're really passionately about and that's great, but we're not gonna impact practice with that. So what is already known and is this new information? Now, hopefully your committee is guiding you through that and they're making sure you're filling a gap or addressing a problem with your DNP project. And what does your study add? How will that information influence practice? And also, is it robust enough? Sometimes, especially with COVID, people finish studies or projects really with inadequate samples because they just had no other options and needed to finish school. That might not be publishable. Maybe you can present on it and talk about how you would expand it, for example. Check the rigor, what might've been okay for your school. Like that smaller sample might not hold up to peer review. The most common issue that I have, especially with early career researchers is misalignment between the question, methods, analysis, and outcomes. They all have to align. And that should be something that your committee works with you on, but I want you guys to be thinking about it. Like, does the methodology that we're using address the actual question that we're trying to address? Does our analysis actually describe our results, describe what happened in regard to that question? And the recommendations that you make too, make sure your recommendations align with the research that you did and that you don't overreach your recommendations. And have caution about saying that this demonstrates or proves something, and you can just do it if it's a small study, a single site study, you want to talk about what it could be useful. Now, Gen Inclusive Language is incredibly important. So make sure that you avoid biased or harmful languages, language or messages. I will check that myself, as well as reviewers and handling editors. Research that includes racial, ethnic identities, gender, sexual orientation, intersectionality, age. Make sure that the language you use is correct and respectable. In terms of gender, rather than using his, her, please use they, their. We want that to be, we want what we publish to be applicable to all people, including people who do not identify with binary genders or who are transgender. We want to make sure we're being respectful. We have specific guidelines about gender and sex. And please note that they are not the same. I often see that in graphs. So sex refers to how you were identified as male or female at birth generally and reproductive organs. Gender is about your identity. So that's female or man, woman, right? So female, male is sex, man, woman is gender. So you want to make sure those are correct. You can include your pronouns with your author information. We will put that in the byline. I recommend you download and use the AMA AMCC Advancing Health Equity Language Guide. There's a link for you here. It is also in our author guidelines. It's very good. It talks about what words to use, what words not to use and why. And I really appreciate the inclusion of why. So again, common problems when it gets to me, when I look at it, there are writing issues with grammar, syntax, and spelling. If you are not English speaking as your primary language, I recommend that you have an English language expert edit that. It could be somebody you know, but use caution with that. You want them to be very fluent so that it flows. That way reviewers aren't looking at it and saying, you know, this is not worthy of publication, even though it's a great study or whatever, just because of the writing style. Make sure that you are submitting papers that add something new. And if you're not sure, send an inquiry. Don't try to condense the project or dissertation. Make sure you follow the author guidelines. Make sure you use a scholarly tone. Also, if you submit your paper to a journal and you withdraw it, they reject it, you decide not to use that. When you go to apply to another journal, please make sure that you have changed your paper to their appropriate guidelines and that your cover letter addresses that journal. I often get submissions that say, dear editor, some other name from some other journal, I'm submitting my paper because of this. And so what that tells me as an editor is that you didn't do the work to be ready to publish with us, that we weren't your first choice and you don't have enough respect for our team to make sure that you are addressing us. Doesn't mean I won't review your paper, but it does definitely send a message. So a couple of strategies for success. Know the scope and aim of the journal. Determine if it adds something new. Know the journal readers and tailor to their implications. And especially if you're new or if you're not sure what my interest it would be or the journal's interest would be, send an inquiry, even very experienced authors, they may be wanting to publish something that we published a whole bunch on recently or that doesn't really fit our readers. And so that saves you time and I'm happy to save you that time. Again, find exemplar papers, follow the format, carefully check the paper before submission. And if you are new to writing for a publication, consider working with an experienced author. Especially if it's your first time publishing research or a major project, it is easier to have people who have a lens of experience to be able to help you. And this could be a committee member or your committee members. Do keep in mind that we require the credit information that tells which part of the paper and what contributions every author made. So for example, if your school says that you have to list your committee members as authors, but they're not helping you write that paper at all, you need to really explain the ways that they contributed to that because we don't just put people on as authors who didn't do the work of that writing. So for submission, use the link on our website, make sure you're submitting the correct version. Sometimes people have multiple versions because they've been revising and they send us the wrong version. And that's really a bummer for everybody. Include the required materials and statements, double check before you go. And we have conflict of interest forms, download those, have the authors each sign them so that they can be uploaded with the submission. So now you've done all that work and your paper is submitted. What are you gonna expect? So first it's assembled and reviewed by our managing editor, Annie Kelly. If she determines that it meets the requirement, she will send it on to me. If not, she will send it back to you and tell you what it is that you need to do. So it comes to me, I'll make a decision to send for review or desk reject. I may also assign it to a handling editor and I often assign it to editors who have expertise in that area or usually handle those types of papers. They will look at it. Now they may decide to reject because I don't read line by line every single paper. I do review them carefully but they're gonna take a deep look, a very close look at what they've received. So they may reject it even though it was assigned to them or they'll send it for review. Now, keep in mind that review usually for us usually takes six to 12 weeks. Sometimes it can be longer. You know, around the holidays, very hard to get reviewers, for example. So please be patient. Please make sure that you wait at least 12 weeks before sending Annie or me or email saying, where's this at in the process? Sometimes I have to invite 10 reviewers, 12 reviewers before I can get three reviews that people are not available or busy. Keep in mind that people who are reviewing for you are volunteering their time. They do this work for free to add and contribute to the body of knowledge and our profession. So please be patient and know that it is in process. It is in process. So after the review, we can make a couple of decisions except incredibly rare on first submission. Again, I've only done that twice in my career. Revised, we're interested, that's good news. If we send it back for revision again, even though that might be irritating to you, still good news. If you are not doing what we asked you to do in those revisions, it's likely that you'll get rejected because we will feel like we gave you the feedback, you didn't implement it. So if you're not sure about what to do, then send an inquiry to Annie. And we may reject, we may invite resubmission with some substantial work, or we may transfer it or suggest transfer to a more suitable journal. And with that review, you'll get reviewer feedback. So you get feedback to revise. Now, what do you do? First, get excited, that means we're interested. They read your paper and we think it might fit in the journal. Carefully consider the feedback. If you choose not to take feedback, give a clear rationale when you respond. We need to know why you decided not to do that. And there may be strong methodological reasons or philosophical reasons, or the revision request might not be accurate. You can explain to us why. Summarize the responses to reviewers for all comments in a table, preferably, I'll show you a table. Consider getting help with writing issues. If we tell you that they're grammatical or writing issues, either use software like Grammarly or have somebody help you with that. And there's a good article here under nurseology.net. You could search for it with nurseology peer review and find it where Dr. Peggy Chin, who is a very experienced editor, wrote a paper about how do you respond to peer review? So some of the best practices. Make sure you address all the feedback. Carefully go through, make sure you have addressed everything that the reviewers gave you. One thing is if you revise and send it back and you ignored the responses and you didn't give a rationale to reviewers, they're gonna recommend rejection. So you wanna make sure you address that. If you don't agree, just tell us why. Resist the urge to be snarky or condescending. I read reviewer information. Make sure that we're not being rude or unkind in that, but it's hard to get criticism of your work, especially if it's the first time. The first time that I got a rejection, I stood at the mailbox because I'm old and it was mailed to me and cried. And it was totally appropriate feedback, but I took it personally, right? So don't take it personally. Peer reviewers are doing this work and giving you this feedback to help strengthen your work. Even if we decide to reject, if we give you feedback, we're giving you that gift so that you can make that change and consider publishing it again. And then when you upload your revision, please use clean copies and not a bunch of track changes because it's very hard for us to track that. I suggest you put together a table, you put the feedback line by line, and then your response. That's the easiest way. You don't have to do that. You could do it kind of narratively, but it's easier for us to be able to just go through a table and I think it's helpful for you too. So you got a rejection. Now what? First thing, don't take it personally. We might've rejected, your paper might be phenomenal and suitable for publication, but we rejected it because it's not the best, our journal is not the best place for it or because we've published a lot on that topic. So please don't take it personally. If you get lots of revisions, take a deep breath, you eat that elephant one bite at a time and know that that feedback is generally given with positive intentions. Don't give up, consider the feedback and keep writing. And sometimes we'll tell you, like this does not fill a gap and it's not gonna impact nursing practice. And so that's a bummer, but don't give up, write about other things, maybe utilize some of what you've written in different types of papers. Just because you're rejected does not mean that you're not a good author and that you can't be published. It just means it didn't fit at that time for that journal. Common reasons for rejection, plagiarism. So that's why it's important if you tell me that some of the words that you are using have been published someplace else. It's pretty uncommon for us to have like frank plagiarism. Often it is people who are using their prior work and not citing it. It's poorly written, it's hard to comprehend because the language is challenging. Author guidelines weren't followed even when we asked you to. It's not in scope or aims, adds nothing new. We will reject research papers if there are fatal flaws, if there are things that are not fixable with revision in that. And then submission of academic papers without revision. So here's the exciting part, you get accepted. So now what? What are you gonna do from here? You will be emailed forms to complete and to review your copy proof. When you get that copy proof, please address it quickly because the faster you do that, the faster we can and it can actually get up online in press or published. The corrected proof will be posted online generally with the exception of a few kinds of articles. As soon as it's posted online and has a DOI number, you can call that a publication. You can start citing it, start sharing it. And speaking of sharing, when you get that acceptance letter or when they've done the copy proof, they put it in press or published it, Elsevier will send you an email and it has an open access link, a free link. This is really super important. You have 50 days. If you did not pay to have it open access or have like a school that pays for that, people will only be able to read it if they have access to the journal. So you wanna make sure you share and disseminate your work as much as possible in that first 50 days. So I encourage you to post it on social media. I encourage you to tag the Journal of Emergency Nursing so that we can also push out your work and share it. If you're not comfortable, but you want it to get out there, email me that link and I will post it online and we will get you attention, right? Everybody could look at it then. And social media is a great way to disseminate your work. And then you will also see your article in print. And I know when it's the first time, that's very exciting. I sent a copy of Jen to my parents with my very first publication. I still have it because I was so excited about that. We have resources for you too. So Elsevier tools and resources page addresses researching, writing, publication, promotion, how you track it. Those are all available under elsevier.com. Again, this will be posted so the links will be available to you. Give us a little time because we're gonna post the full recording which will be free so you can come back and listen. You can point other people to it so that they have that information, but you can also Google Elsevier tools for authors and find that. Elsevier has a researcher academy and it helps with things like research preparation, writing for research, publication process. A lot of really good stuff there that can help you especially if you're publishing for the first time. There are some other resources that are good for converting academic papers. APA has an adapting a dissertation or thesis into a journal article. There are some free self-paced modules by Dr. Morton who has graciously shared this link with me where you can go through those modules and learn how to do that. Dr. Morton also wrote a paper about it that I find very helpful. While we're here, if you have published before, we generally want reviewers who have published before who have unique knowledge. If you're interested in peer review, we would love for you to contact us. My email is here. Ask that you send me your resume and what you think you're qualified to do for peer review. If you don't have a lot of experience and even if you do, I encourage you to do the Elsevier Peer Reviewer Certification course. It's free, it's online. You can just Google Elsevier Peer Review Certification and it walks you through all the qualities of a good peer review. People who have never reviewed before, I do require them to do that before I make them a peer reviewer. But people who come to me who have done peer review before, I still suggest that as a possible option. So with that, I will stop sharing and open it up for any questions that people may have in like this last five minutes we have. I'm hoping that a lot of your questions have been addressed in the Q&A. And team, if you wanna come back on screen, you're welcome to do that. And so I'll just kind of turn it over to Nan and see if there are any live questions that we'd like to have answered. Thanks, Anna. Yeah, there is one that I got a couple of questions about, people wondering if the slide deck could be made available to them to use for their students or colleagues, also to be able to click on the links a little easier. Yes, absolutely. When we post the recording, we'll post the recording and also transcripts so that people who are hard of hearing or are part of the deaf community have all of this information. We will post a copy of the slide deck. It'll be in PDF, but we'll post a copy of the slide deck. So all of those links can be clicked on. Please do feel free to share this with your students. Please feel free once we submit that to, we put that all on the website, direct your colleagues, your students, even if they're looking to publish in a different kind of journal, I'm more than happy for them to have access to this. I think it's really important for people to have resources and not be out there on their own trying to figure out how to publish. So we will put all of that up for you, but give us a little time. We'll have to work behind the scenes to edit it, make sure it's all ready and gets up there, may take us a couple of weeks. And I will ask our PR team to push that out when it's available so you know that it's there. There's another, there is one more. It, and I, it's one of the attendees asked, is a peer reviewer able to submit as well? Oh, well, absolutely. So if you're a peer reviewer for our journal, you can absolutely submit your own papers. Obviously we won't assign it to you for review. Also, if you are a section editor or a member of the editorial team, you can publish in our journal. It just requires that we don't have you be involved in any of that process. So for example, if Dr. Barnison wanted to publish in our journal because what she researched was directly applicable to emergency nurses, it's still ethical and fine for her to do that. She just wouldn't have any access to that process, right? Me or one of the other editors would handle it and peer reviewers wouldn't know it was her. So we have those in place to be able to address ethics. Great, thank you so much. I'm looking at the chat here. Pat, looks like you had put a message in there about being able to reach out to you. If you wanna go ahead and do you wanna put your email address in the chat? If you go ahead and do that, make sure you just go ahead and send it to everyone. That'd be great. Yeah, and then, cause I see it to me. So, and you've said, please reach out if you have any questions or would like to inquire about a good manuscript idea. I'm happy to brainstorm and help you. Pediatric case reports and ideas are always welcome. And Pat, raise your hand again so everybody can see you. There she is. And since you guys won't have the links right away, I'm putting my email into the chat as well. If you wanna send me an email, I'll be happy to send you an email. I'm also on the chat as well. If you wanna send me inquiries, Dr. Norman is a very dedicated mentor and puts a lot of work into helping aspiring authors. So thank you, Pat, for putting your email there and offering to be able to provide support. You can reach out to any members of our team. Dr. Barnison is also happy to help. And Annie Kelly is an amazing resource. At EN23, of course, we're going to have a GEN Forum. And rather than having like a publisher's incubator as we have in the past, we'll do that next year. But for this, we wanted to talk about some of the updates, our philosophy at GEN, and just open it up for questions. So we encourage you to come and ask any questions you have. The team will be there. And we will also have a booth in the EN Experience area. I encourage you to come by. I'm gonna try to be there as much as I can during exhibitor hours. So if you want to ask us questions, Annie's there all the time and she's brilliant. She can answer your questions too. So thank you all so much for being here. If you had a question that didn't get answered or that maybe you didn't want to ask publicly, please feel free to email one of us. We're happy to answer your questions. GEN is your journal, and we want you to feel that as a reader, as a reviewer, and as an author. And so know that you're welcome here. And we look forward to seeing papers from you or seeing you continue to be engaged. Thank you everyone so much. Just one last note. I did put my email address in the chat as well. So if you need something related, feel free to send me a message and I will do my best to get that out because I didn't get everyone's email put in. I apologize. So I think that the panelists have been putting them in there, but I am more than happy to relay any messages that you might have. So feel free to reach out to me. I work at ENA in Schaumburg. And have a really great day. Everybody stay cool. One more quick thing, Nan. Andy Foley put her information in for the section, but all of our section editors are very responsive. So their emails, if you're not catching them fast enough, they're on our author guidelines and they do that work to support you. So don't hesitate to reach out to them. Thank you, Nan. So we can go ahead and close it out. You're very welcome. Have a great one. Thanks everybody.

Anna Valdez

Journal of Emergency Nursing

publishing

manuscripts

peer review

author guidelines

mentorship

social media

pediatric case reports