When is one reviewer enough?

Diane B. Monsivais, PhD, CNE, ANEF

At the Trailhead

Why This Matters: Editorial circumstances may arise when one peer review provides sufficient information to support an informed decision.
What judgment this supports: One peer review may provide enough credible, relevant, and thoughtful information to make a fair editorial decision.
How an editor might use this: Use the considerations in this article to assess whether you have enough information to make an acceptance decision or need additional peer review.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

When does an ‘oops’ become a corrigendum?

DaiWai M. Olson, PhD, RN, CCRN, FNC

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: Editors, authors, and publishers have a commitment to publish the truth, and mistakes happen.
What judgment this supports: When you determine that an author has made an error that does not materially change the results or conclusion, a corrigendum may be appropriate.
How an editor might use this: This information can help you determine when and how to publish a corrigendum.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

How detailed should submission requirements be?

Roger Watson, BSc, PhD, FRCP, Edin, FAAN

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: Clear author guidelines are a journal’s first line of quality control.
What judgment this supports: Editors need to determine how detailed and comprehensive submission requirements should be.
How an editor might use this: Use the guidance to strengthen author instructions, reduce recurring submission problems, and save editorial time.

Detailed submission requirements are a journal’s first line of quality control. Clear, specific guidance helps authors prepare stronger submissions, promotes fair and consistent screening, and reduces preventable queries, revisions, and editorial delays.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

Co-Editors: How do they work together?

Debra H. Brandon PhD, RN, CNS, FAAN

Jacqueline M. McGrath, PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN

Co-Editors in Chief; Advances in Neonatal Care

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: A co-editor model can strengthen a journal by combining complementary expertise, sharing workload, and providing continuity in editorial leadership.
What judgment this supports: Determining whether a co-editor model is appropriate for a journal and, if so, how responsibilities, communication, and decision-making should be structured to ensure effective editorial leadership.
How an editor might use this: Use this guidance when establishing a new co-editor partnership, redefining responsibilities within an existing editorial team, or evaluating whether shared editorial leadership could better meet the needs of the journal.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

Is your editorial board working?

Roger Watson, BSc PhD FRCP Edin FAAN

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: Active editorial boards strengthen journal quality and credibility.
What judgment this supports: Define expectations, evaluate performance, and renew membership based on contribution.
How an editor might use this: Review your board annually and align membership with the journal's needs.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

How should editors treat experienced authors?

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

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: Editorial decisions must remain consistent regardless of an author’s reputation or status.
What judgment this supports: Fair, rigorous, and unbiased editorial evaluation of all manuscripts.
How an editor might use this: Apply standard editorial and peer review processes consistently—even when working with highly experienced or well-known authors.

The Temptation to Treat Some Authors Differently

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

How do people access the content in my journal?

Jacqueline K. Owens, PhD, RN, CNE

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

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: Publishing content does not guarantee readership. Access pathways shape who finds your journal and how it influences the field.
What judgment this supports: Editors must consider discoverability and accessibility as part of editorial strategy.
How an editor might use this: An editor might review indexing, distribution channels, and communication practices to strengthen readership.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

What are ICMJE and COPE?

Peggy L. Chinn, PhD, RN, FAAN

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: Worldwide scholarly publishing standards guide best practices in journal publishing, assuring the scientific credibility and integrity of your journal.
What judgment this supports: These standards provide the basis for your journal’s policies and practices. You can rely on them when you face difficult editorial situations, such as ethical beaches, authorship controversies, or scientific misconduct.
How an editor might use this: These standards guide every aspect of your editorial role. They form the basis for your journal’s editorial structure, including your “Author Guidelines,” peer review process, and your approach to manuscript acceptance, rejection and revision.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

How should an editor recruit reviewers?

Diane B. Monsivais, PhD, CNE, ANEF

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: Recruiting strong peer reviewers is the foundation of a journal’s quality control system.
What judgment this supports: Reviewer communities are dynamic; building them requires more than simply “finding” reviewers.
How an editor might use this: Use targeted outreach and long-term relationship management to recruit and sustain a strong reviewer community.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

Do I need an editorial in every issue?

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

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: In an article-first environment, the purpose of the editorial is no longer assumed.
What judgment this supports: Whether an editorial adds value—and when it should be included.
How an editor might use this: To decide when to publish an editorial and how to position it as part of the journal’s voice.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

How should editors use the EQUATOR network when evaluating manuscripts?

Roger Watson, BSc PhD FRCP Edin FAAN

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: Reporting guidelines are widely recommended, but editors must decide how strictly to apply them and how to avoid turning them into box-ticking exercises.
What judgment this supports: When to require reporting guidelines, whether to desk reject manuscripts that do not use them appropriately, and how to balance checklist compliance with editorial judgment.
How an editor might use this: To revise author instructions, incorporate checklist requirements into submission workflows, strengthen editorial triage, or guide decision letters when reporting standards are not met.

This content is part of the Working Guide to Editorial Systems.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Join Now to Continue Reading

Already a subscriber? Log in here

What qualifications do peer reviewers need to have?

Linda Laskowski-Jones, MS, APRN, ACNS-BC, CEN, NEA-BC, NREMT, FAWM, FAEN, FAAN

At the Trailhead

Why this matters: Editors often default to academic credentials when selecting peer reviewers, but this approach may overlook people with valuable content expertise and lived experience.
What judgment this supports: Matching reviewer qualifications to manuscript type, purpose, and content rather than relying solely on formal academic degrees.
How an editor might use this: To broaden reviewer pools, strengthen manuscript evaluation, and develop new reviewers through mentorship and guided participation.