Shh! Editor Confidential: An Interview with Gayle Roux, PhD, RN, FAAN

Cynthia Saver, MS, RN

Writer’s Camp Counselor

---

A Canadian journal expanding its reach offers authors a new outlet, complete with its editor’s tips.

---

In this third edition of Shh! Editor Confidential, I sat down (virtually) with Gayle Roux, PhD, RN, FAAN, editor-in-chief of Canadian Journal of Nursing Research (CJNR). The target readership for this online, quarterly, peer-reviewed journal encompasses nursing clinicians, educators, leaders, policy makers, and researchers, along with other healthcare providers. Despite its name, CJNR isn’t limited to Canadian authors and readers. As noted on its website, the journal is designed to serve “Canada and the international nursing community as a forum for the dissemination and communication of nursing knowledge and research.”

Roux, who is based in Texas, assumed her role as editor-in-chief in 2023 after previously serving seven years on CJNR’s editorial board. In addition to her journal work, Roux has been a consultant and co-owner of 2ED LLC since 2019. She has extensive experience in academia, including roles as dean, professor, and grant specialist at the University of North Dakota College of Nursing and Professional Disciplines and associate dean for research at Texas Woman’s University College of Nursing.

Cynthia Saver: How would you describe Canadian Journal of Nursing Research in a nutshell?

Gayle Roux: Canadian Journal of Nursing Research publishes a broad scope of research—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research; and systematic and scoping reviews. We also publish editorials and commentaries that are relevant to nursing. Our topics generally include nursing science and practice, education, leadership, policy, models of care, health services, and health systems.

Our broad scope makes the journal attractive to potential authors because we aren’t focused on any one clinical area. Although it’s important for authors to include literature that applies to the Canadian community, it’s also important for them to try to apply their work globally. We’re looking for global health initiatives, so we can increase our readership outside of Canada.

CS: What is the balance between Canadian and international content?

GR: We’re working on increasing submissions from other countries so we ultimately have about a 50/50 ratio. To help reach that goal, we broadened our editorial board membership, so now we have members not only from Canada, but also from the UK, Ireland, Australia, Brazil, and the United States. We ask those board members to solicit articles and encourage submissions. Our aim is to increase readership, not only because it’s the right thing to do for scholarship and dissemination, but also to generate revenue. We publish through Sage, which has been a very valuable partner for CJNR. We always have to balance research scholarship with the ability to generate revenue. Sometimes authors don’t realize that journal publishing is a business, and there has to be revenue to support the business.

CS: What happens after the initial submission of a manuscript to CJNR?

GR: The steps can vary by journal, but at CJNR, a peer review editor, employed by Sage, reviews the article to see if it follows the journal’s guidelines. If it doesn’t follow the guidelines (for instance, it’s too long or has too many tables), they ask the author to revise the article to fit the guidelines and resubmit. They are not looking at content in depth but rather checking items such as formatting.

Once it clears that step, it comes to me. I take my role in performing the desk review very seriously. I determine whether the article has potential value for publication and should be assigned to a peer reviewer or whether it’s not a good fit and should be rejected.

CS: What are common reasons why you reject an article?

GR: A common problem is that a research or clinical article is too narrowly focused to apply broadly to our readers, making it a poor fit for the journal. I think this is something we scholars, researchers, and educators can do a better job of helping authors avoid. We should encourage researchers to be sure their problem statement has real-world application. Researchers and others on the research team can become so immersed in a topic they feel passionate about that they don’t think about the application for those who will be reading their work. Authors working on clinical articles also need to ensure their focus isn’t too narrow.

This narrow focus often shows in the section on implications for future research, practice, or policy. I would advise authors to remember that they want people to read their results, apply the findings to practice, and cite the article so others read it too.

CS: If you decide the article is a good fit for the journal, what happens next?

GR: It’s assigned to a board member, who functions as a “handling editor.” The handling editor assigns two external peer reviewers. We aim for a peer review time of 4 weeks. Based on the reviewers’ comments, the handling editor decides if the article should be rejected or returned to the author for major or minor revisions.

Developing authors should know that few articles are accepted without at least minor revisions. Revision is part of refining an article into work they can be proud of and that others will cite.

CS: I think many authors don’t understand the editorial board’s role, so thank you for sharing their involvement. What else should readers know about the board?

GR: Editorial board members are not compensated. It’s a volunteer service role. Most CJNR board members are nurses, of course, but we also have a public health expert who is not a nurse. That’s been a good complement to our other board members. In fact, the public health member is often the one to say the article does not have application to nursing.

Some journals have set terms for board members, but CJNR does not. Members can resign if they retire or become too busy with their own research to participate. Our current members are very dedicated.

CS: Are you looking for peer reviewers?

GR: The answer to that is always yes. We are always looking for peer reviewers, and any developing scholar who wants to be engaged in peer review should email me or one of our board members. Being a reviewer is a good activity for promotion and tenure. You also become engaged with the scholarly community.

Peer review also helps you become a better author. You can see not only what works in an article, but also what doesn’t work.

CS: What advice do you have for authors who are asked to revise their manuscript? New authors in particular often feel intimidated by this step.

GR: I’d start by saying that if you receive a request for major or minor revision, you’re almost to publication. Be persistent! Look at the comments as a constructive way to improve your article. We ask that authors create a table with the reviewers’ comments on one side and the revisions made on the other. That makes the process straightforward and makes it more likely the article is accepted on the next submission. Editors check whether requested revisions were made and, if not, whether a reason is provided. The same handling editor reviews the resubmitted article so there is consistency in the review and the final decision step.

CS: You are based in Texas, so what’s it like being the top editor for a Canadian journal, particularly in this time of tension between the United States and Canada?

GR: My involvement as an editorial board member gave me the opportunity to develop trust and a good relationship with the other board members and the previous editor. A valid consideration is whether the editor should be from Canada, but we’re trying to increase our global reach, so an editor from another country works. Our meetings are virtual, although sometimes board members connect at other meetings.

It’s been nice to work with a journal in a sociopolitical system different from that of the United States. For example, the journal can publish freely on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). CJNR and Sage have worked to remain steadfast in their advocacy for the underserved and vulnerable. For instance, we have a collection that focuses on care of refugee and immigrant communities.

CS: Anything else readers should know about CJNR?

GR: Sage has an agreement with a consortium of Canadian libraries, so authors at participating Canadian institutions can publish open access with no fees. Also, I don’t often write editorials; instead, I give other people the opportunity to do so. Writing an editorial can be a good path for a developing author. We usually publish one to three editorials each issue.

We also have detailed metrics for the journal on our website. They include median time for key points in the publication process, such as first decision and peer review. Other data points include acceptance rate and impact metrics. When deciding where to submit their manuscript, authors should check these kinds of metrics. For instance, if your manuscript fits the missions of two journals, you might want to choose the one with a higher impact score or a shorter time to review and final decision.

Authors should also review the author guidelines and the journal’s mission and scope before submitting an article.

CS: What are your thoughts about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by authors? It’s certainly a hot topic.

GR: AI is an extraordinarily hot topic, and as soon as I give an answer, it can already be out of date. Sage, the publisher of CJNR, has published an AI policy online that applies to all its journals. The policy distinguishes the various uses for AI and related technologies. Some uses don’t require disclosure (like grammatical assistance), some require disclosure (like assistance with literature review), and some are prohibited (like use of AI to conduct peer review).

Neither I nor any other editor or reviewer is permitted to put any component of an author’s manuscript into AI because it’s a violation of privacy and publication ethics. On a personal note, my coauthors and I recently used an AI tool to get suggestions on how we could improve our rough draft of an article. We had our own ideas, which AI confirmed. Essentially, we used AI as a cross-check and found it to be very effective.

CS: Final thoughts?

GR: I want to emphasize that when I review an article, I’m looking for application. The information has to have application to nursing and the health professions so that it holds readers’ interest.

I also want to say that this job brings me rewards in two areas. First, I like being involved with the production of research—that is, giving authors an opportunity to publish, disseminate, and apply their findings. Second, I like being a part of a community of scholars. I find great reward in being involved with the board members, other editors, and authors.

CS: Thank you so much, Gayle, for your time and for sharing your insights. Your advice will help authors who are considering CJNR and anyone working to bring their research to a wider audience.

Reviewed and Edited by: Jenny Chicca

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Cynthia Saver. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Saver C. Shh! Editor Confidential: An interview with Gayle Roux, PhD, RN, FAAN. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2026; 2(4):8. doi:10.5281/zenodo.23091950