Commentary From the Camp Director: Editors Have Memories

Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN

Writer’s Camp Director

---

Most authors never intend to irritate an editor—but certain behaviors make a lasting impression.

---

Once, someone asked me if at the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) meeting, we editors stand around and talk about authors. I was sorry to disappoint them—there is much more on the meeting agenda to keep us busy. However, editors do have memories, especially about authors behaving badly. Making any of the following mistakes may get you on an editor’s exclude list, a place where you don’t want to be.

Arguing with the Editor

You receive a rejection notice and it stings. You don’t believe the editor fairly evaluated your manuscript and worse, the peer reviewers didn’t understand your study or approach. You want to write a letter to the editor, arguing your case and letting them know how they misinterpreted your article. My advice: do not do this. You won’t change the editor’s mind and you will just put a red flag next to your name forever. While you may not agree with the outcome, you do not know everything that went into the editor’s decision to not accept your manuscript. No matter how many rejection letters I have written over the years, it never gets easier. I know the person at the receiving end will be disappointed and possibly angry. These are natural emotions. But don’t try to work out your feelings by arguing with the editor and suggesting they have made a mistake. Instead, use your energy to revise and submit your manuscript to another journal where it will be, hopefully, positively received.

Withdrawing and Submitting Somewhere Else

Arguing with the editor is a big mistake, but this may be worse. You receive your manuscript back from the editorial office, requesting revisions, with comments from the editor and peer reviewers. If an editor is requesting a revision, it means they are interested in your manuscript. Even if the comments are lengthy, the editor believes your manuscript has merit and wants to give you a chance to improve it and return for additional review. Take this optimistically! Do not withdraw your manuscript and submit it somewhere else. If you do, and it gets published in a different journal, it is very likely the editor will see it and know what you did. The world of nursing journals is relatively small and editors read—a lot. Your manuscript, popping up in another place, likely with revisions that had been suggested by the first journal, will stay in the editor’s mind—just not in the way you want. You don’t want to be remembered in this way.

This happened to my colleague, Margaret Freda, early in her tenure as editor of MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing. She was flabbergasted and very hurt, especially as she had spent a great deal of time making comments and suggestions to the author. Years later, she would still mention this to me, as one of the worst things that had happened during her editorship.

Not Making Requested Revisions

Once again, you receive your manuscript with a request for revisions with comments from the editor and peer reviewers. It is important to attend to all the comments, even if there are some you don’t agree with. It is possible to disagree and share your thoughts but don’t do it in an argumentative or arrogant way. Cultivate some key phrases that you can use when you don’t make a change, such as, “While the reviewer makes a good point regarding additional statistical analyses, that is beyond the scope of the findings reported in this manuscript.” Remember that it is much easier to catch flies with honey rather than vinegar.

If you find yourself disagreeing with all the reviewers’ comments, then you need to ask yourself what is going on. Reviewers are peers, selected for their knowledge and expertise. They may not get everything right in a review, but they should be on the mark with most of their comments. If you cannot accept their statements and see their value, then you need to assess your own attitude and position concerning your work. Again, arguing with the editor and reviewers is going to reflect poorly on you. Scholarly discussion is possible without rancor or malice.

Not Revising for Submission to a New Journal

Your manuscript was rejected from a journal and you resisted the temptation to argue with the editor—good! Now you are planning to submit it to another journal that you believe is a good fit. Part of that process is to revise and reformat it to meet the guidelines of the new journal. That means you might need to change references from APA to AMA (or vice versa); make sure the abstract is written correctly (structured or narrative) and the right length; change headings to journal style; ensure the manuscript is the right length, plus any other details required by the new journal.

For CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, the journal I edited for 30 years, our main competition was JAMIA: The Journal of the Medical Informatics Association. We received many manuscripts that had been rejected from JAMIA. Often, the manuscript was very appropriate for CIN with a nursing focus, so the rejection from JAMIA (a medical journal) was not surprising. JAMIA had structured abstracts; CIN had narrative. JAMIA had numbered headings (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, etc.); CIN did not. When an author didn’t care enough to fix these simple things, we instantly knew the provenance of the manuscript and it was a giant red flag on their submission. Being careless about the revision just irked all of us in the editorial office. Don’t make this mistake.

Not Putting Your Best Foot Forward

There is a fine line between trying to make something perfect and having it be good enough to submit to a journal. Perfection is an elusive goal and you are not likely to achieve that with something you write—reviewers and editors will always have comments and suggestions for change. On the other hand, you don’t want to submit an unfinished or sloppy manuscript and expect the editor to fill in the blanks. You need to find the balance between doing your best and getting the job done.

For me, I am a fan of the 94% rule, which I once heard Angela McBride discuss at a Sigma Theta Tau convention.¹ As Dr. McBride said, 94% is an A; the work to get to 100% might be more effort than you should expend on getting the manuscript finished. On the other hand, you might be a 70% or 80% person,¹ which can be acceptable as long as the manuscript is finished, polished, and meets journal guidelines. An editor expects a final product; submitting anything less is disrespectful and impolite. A kind editor (or an editor who needs manuscripts or who knows they are dealing with novice authors) may send it back with a request to complete it. More likely, it will receive a swift desk reject and not be considered further. Don’t blow your chances with this type of mistake.

Do Not Pester the Editor

“Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part,” could very well be a sign that hangs in every editor’s office. As an author, you may perceive your work as the most important, the most innovative, or the most timely, but in the editorial office, you are just another widget in the big machine of manuscript production. I don’t mean to be cynical, but it is not possible to give special preference to individual manuscripts, no matter how much the author pleads their case.

I’ve heard it all: “This needs to be published quickly because—” I need it for promotion or tenure; it is part of my graduation requirements; I need the publication for my grant proposal; the research findings will save lives. If you have an important deadline, then you should work backwards from that to determine when you need to submit. Most journals require 9 to 12 months for an article to go from submission to final journal publication with an assigned issue and page numbers. Individual issues are planned 3 to 6 months in advance and it is generally not possible to “slot” something in to meet your requirements. Pestering the editorial office with requests will not speed things up and only serves to annoy the editor and staff. If you really need a publication post-haste, consider a preprint,^2-3 but make sure to follow that with submission to an established journal.

Conclusion

As editors, we recognize we hold a position of power: our decisions to accept or reject a manuscript can significantly affect an author’s work and sometimes their career. We try to wield this responsibility with fairness and grace. At times, factors unknown to the author may influence an editorial decision; this can understandably feel arbitrary or unfair. Still, editors strive to be as transparent, equitable, and considerate as possible in both decisions and communication.

If you find yourself confused, upset, or angry about an editorial interaction, pause to consider the broader context before responding. Sometimes no response is the wisest course. If you do choose to follow up, let courtesy guide you—polite, measured communication will always serve you well.

Reference

1.  Waldrop J, Dunlap JJ. Is it 70%, 80%, or 94%? The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2025;1(2):1. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.15784353
2. Owens J. Preprints part 2: Considerations for authors and editors. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2025;1(3):11. doi:10.5281/zenodo.17593692
3. Owens J. Preprints part 1: An era of public review. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2025;1(3):10. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.17476019

Author: Leslie H. Nicoll

Reviewed and Edited by: Marilyn Oermann

Copyright © 2025, Writer’s Camp and Leslie H. Nicoll, CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Nicoll LH. Editors have memories. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2025; 1(3):12. doi:10.5281/zenodo.17641508