Jamie Bourgeois, MSN, CNM, PMHNP-BC
Writer’s Camp Counselor
Abstract
Jamie Bourgeois shares key lessons from her journey in scholarly writing, emphasizing the importance of recognizing distinct writing styles, mastering Microsoft Word, and thoroughly proofreading submissions. She highlights the necessity of adhering to journal guidelines, keeping track of revisions, and reviewing citations meticulously to avoid common pitfalls encountered during the publication process.
Lessons learned on the road to scholarly writing.
For years, two constants have shaped my professional life: nursing and writing. They were not always intertwined, but in the later stages of my career, writing has become embedded in my daily work. I am no stranger to clinical and academic writing, having completed a Master of Science in Nursing and a post-graduate certificate and now pursuing a PhD. Yet on the road to publication, I have still managed to collect an impressive assortment of mistakes and faux pas. I offer these personal flubs as lessons learned, in hopes that you will not have to learn them the hard way. They also serve as a reminder that, no matter how experienced you may be, guidance for novice writers is still worth following.
Mistake 1: Assuming All Writing Is Equal
All writing builds the writing “muscle,” but not all writing is the same. Writing clinical articles differs from writing scholarly articles, and both differ from completing academic assignments. Experience in one style does not guarantee a smooth landing in another.
Most of my writing as a nurse has been academic, with a small sprinkling of clinical-content contributions to a medical textbook. That work followed rubrics and strict outlines—comforting formulas that allowed me to feel confident as long as I followed the method. Completing a final draft brought a sense of accomplishment, and clicking Send felt reassuringly competent.
That confidence does not automatically translate to scholarly writing. Author guidelines offer journal-specific instructions, much like academic rubrics, but there is far more to learn from reading the kinds of papers you aspire to write. If your goal is to publish a theoretical or philosophical paper, for example, reading published papers of that type is crucial to absorbing the style. Read articles that pique your interest as well as articles in the journals where you hope to publish. Do not expect this style of writing to come as easily as academic assignments or clinical articles, and give yourself grace if your timeline grows longer.
Mistake 2: Confusing Decades of Microsoft Word Use with Competence
I have used Word since the early 1990s, when software came on floppy disks, work did not autosave, and programs consumed much of a computer’s hard drive. I transitioned seamlessly to Microsoft Office in 1995, then upgraded to Word 97 two years later on my shiny new Gateway computer, purchased with my first nursing paycheck. That was where I became acquainted with “Clippy.” Despite this pixelated paper clip’s many attempts to assist me, I decided I did not need its help. Consider this a forewarning of my arrogance.
Fast-forward to the present day: despite Word’s many capabilities, it never occurred to me that I still needed to learn how to use it. As it turns out, I understood Word’s nuances about as well as I understood what Clippy was trying to do all those years ago: move me beyond the basics. I did not know how to use Track Changes—or how to turn it off. I did not know how to format headings properly or view a document in different editing modes (or that different modes existed). These deficits became obvious during the submission process, when the platform converted my Word document into a mangled-looking PDF—which brings me to my next mistake.
Mistake 3: Skipping Pages of the Submission PDF
Imagine dressing for a professional event in a new suit and trying a new eyeshadow shade, only to discover at the venue that the tags are still attached to your clothes and the color around your eyes suggests a raccoon was your personal assistant. This is what the submission PDF can reveal about your manuscript.
Do not submit your article until you have reviewed every page of the converted PDF and corrected any errors you find. Yes, this may mean repeating the submission steps. That is still far better than sending the editorial office a version that displays every revision, tracked change, and reviewer comment. Better yet, methodically proofread your Word document before generating the submission PDF; doing so will reduce the likelihood that you need to make corrections. Shellenbarger provides an excellent guide to proofreading your manuscript.1
Mistake 4: Believing Anonymizing Means Deleting Your Name from the Title Page
What I did not realize was that Microsoft Word retained document properties containing my full name, even after I removed it from the title page. The editorial assistants at the journal were kind enough to return my submission to draft status so I could fix it rather than issue a desk rejection for failing to follow the guidelines. Do not assume that every journal will extend this courtesy; failure to follow author guidelines is a well-documented path to rejection.2
Now, one of my final steps in preparing any manuscript is to run Word’s Inspect Document feature (File > Info > Inspect Document; note that Word for Mac does not include the Document Inspector), which can remove document properties, personal information, comments, and revision marks. It takes about a minute and can prevent considerable embarrassment—and a potential rejection.
Mistake 5: Trusting the Citation Manager to Convert Every Reference Properly (or at All)
Citation managers (also known as Reference Managers; EndNote is a widely used example) are wonderful time-savers, but they work only as well as the person maintaining the library database. They can manage only the references and in-text citations inserted through the software. Sometimes, while in the flow of writing, it is easier to type a quick in-text citation manually—and then forget you did.
When you later change the reference style to match the target journal’s format, the citation manager makes the conversion look effortless. What it cannot do is detect and convert citations you entered manually. Those citations remain in their original style, essentially waving at a sharp-eyed reviewer or editorial assistant. Ultimately, the best practice is to review the manuscript carefully and confirm that every citation is accurate—even those the software converted.
Mistake 6: Failing to Keep a Tracked-Changes Version of Your Revisions
Picture this: your submission goes through peer review, and the recommendation is to revise. Encouraged, you spend hours thoughtfully incorporating the reviewers’ suggestions, and the paper is stronger for it. Wanting a “clean” document, you copy the revised text into a fresh file. You submit it proudly, careful not to repeat your initial mistakes: incomplete anonymization, citation errors, or failure to review every page of the PDF. You click Submit, confident that everything is perfect. The next day, an email arrives from the editorial assistant: could you please send the tracked changes version showing the revisions?
I confess, I felt defeated. I had avoided Track Changes because I found it clunky, so I had revised the document directly and saved the updated version. It had not occurred to me—and I had not seen in the guidelines—that the editors would need visible evidence of what changed between the original submission and the revision. I also worried that explaining myself to the editorial staff would sound evasive. In an era of heightened concern about artificial intelligence and authorship, appearing to hide one’s revision history is not a good look, even when there is nothing to hide.
Salvation came from an experienced editorial friend: in Word, go to Review, then Compare. Load the original submission and the revised version, identify each one, and Word generates a document displaying all the changes. Although this worked, I learned to keep deliberate, clearly labeled versions of every manuscript. Doing so provides evidence of your original work and gives editors a revision history that is easier to review.
Summary of Lessons Learned
- Read the journals and papers you aspire to write—and do so often. This builds familiarity with scholarly writing that experience with other forms of nursing writing cannot provide on its own.
- Learn to use Word properly and take advantage of its full potential. Keep Track Changes on during revisions so you always have a version documenting your edits, and use Inspect Document to anonymize files thoroughly.
- Review your final document more than once, at different times and with fresh eyes. Reading your paper aloud can reveal errors your eyes have learned to skip.1
- Double-check that every citation and reference is in the proper format, even when your citation manager has converted them for you.
- Proofread the submission PDF before clicking Submit. Review every page to ensure that none of your Word formatting was lost in translation.
- Be willing to laugh at yourself but remember the lessons learned.
Conclusion
Despite my years of experience as a nurse and as a clinical and academic writer, scholarly writing is a distinct skill set that requires careful attention to detail. Do not confuse years of Microsoft Word use with mastery of journal-submission requirements. Do not rush proofreading at any stage, however eager you are to send your paper into the world. Finally, be willing to ask for help, give yourself grace for your mistakes, and carry the lessons forward. Make Clippy proud of how far you have come.
References
- Shellenbarger T. Proofreading for perfection. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2025;1(2):19. doi:10.5281/zenodo.17186888
- Saver C. Reducing publication rejection. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2025;1(3):1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.17251526
Author: Jamie Bourgeois
Reviewed and Edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll
Copyright © 2026: Writer’s Camp and Jamie Bourgeois. CC-BY-ND 4.0
Citation: Bourgeois J. Confessions of a novice nurse writer: six submission mistakes. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2026; 2(3): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22884379
AI disclosure
The author used ClaudeAI version Fable 5 to assist in generating the one-sentence summary of the article from the author’s original work. Copilot was used to refine, edit, or clarify sentence wording. The author reviewed and edited all AI-assisted content as needed and takes full responsibility for the publication’s content.