Search

A former editor (A. S. McGowan) of The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, currently the editor of the Journal of Counseling & Development, and the current editor (M. B. Scholl) present strategies and guidelines for prospective authors to enhance the chance of successful publication in this and other American Counseling Association--refereed journals. This article is an updated version of one that was written by A. S. McGowan and that appeared in 1997 in the Journal of Humanistic Education and Development. ********** Getting published is a great joy that generally is preceded by hard work and frustration for both the neophyte author and the established scholar. Although the process of becoming published can be harrowing and exasperating, it is also a rewarding one, from the development of an idea to its appearance in print. The goal of seeing a work published is achievable if the author possesses most, if not all, of the following characteristics, abilities, and attitudes: writing competency; self-discipline regarding a writing regime; strong scholarly and theoretical foundations underlying the research of the professional ideas being proposed or advanced; ability to create and present practical counseling strategies that work in the field; willingness to accept constructive criticism from peer reviewers and editors; and stamina, strength, and patience to persevere in the face of criticism. Thompson (1995) offered the following perspective on successful publishing efforts: The most productive scholars are (sometimes) distinguished by extraordinary intellect, but some are primarily distinguished by willingness to be systematic and persistent. Success in publishing requires a willingness to tolerate rejection and a willingness to learn from it. Success also will sometimes occur primarily by luck. (p. 342) Although we agree that luck can play a part in getting published, we believe that luck happens only when it meets with preparation and competency. The determined author who has at least the vestiges of a viable manuscript that contributes to the scholarly base of the profession can get it published. As published researchers and authors, we know what it is like to have hopes temporarily dashed by a suggestion to "rewrite and resubmit" of to be rejected after having spent months and weeks on a particular research project or article. We know how disappointing it can be to wait expectantly and hopefully for 2 or 3 months for a response and then receive one of those messages. In truth, when that happened to us, we felt like an autopsy had been performed on the body and soul of manuscripts that we had been certain were of sterling quality. In such instances, we put our manuscripts aside and postponed deciding whether to continue with the project or to move on to another area of research interest. Often, we had to admit that the reviewers' critiques, as painful as they were, allowed us to be more objective and critical of our own work. We found that by accepting and acting on most, if not all, of the critical suggestions, we improved the manuscripts; in all instances, the manuscripts were eventually published. As one of us has noted before (McGowan, 1996), one study was rejected by four journals before it was finally accepted. Because the study was not itself fatally flawed, I (McGowan) was able to improve the manuscript until, finally, it was publishable. In retrospect, I understand and accept that I had to go through that excruciatingly painful process because it resulted in a final product that was finely crafted and well received by the profession. I can now look back on that study with pride. In addition, those rejections made me realize that prior planning is necessary before beginning a study or article if it is to be published. It is extremely important for prospective authors to be willing to accept constructive criticisms. The editor guards the identity of each author, and the reviews are masked ones. …

The author outlines the efficacy of publishing research, theoretically based articles, and in-the-field articles in refereed, professional branch journals of the American Counseling Association (ACA). Means and ways of writing successfully for publication are addressed.

Being named editor of the Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD) is honorific, humbling, and challenging. I follow in the footsteps of prestigious editors and scholars, each of whom has left his or her mark on JCD, the flagship journal of the American Counseling Association. When my appointment as editor elect became effective in July 2001, we began a transition year during which all manuscripts that had undergone the process of a masked review, at least for the first time, were forwarded to me by then editor Dr. Earl Ginter for a decision--either to accept, accept provisionally, reject but invite a revision, or reject. Because of Dr. Ginter's trust and confidence in me and his willingness to share his expertise and sound thinking, the transition has gone smoothly. Dr. Ginter has been editor of JCD for 5 years, and his contribution to the advancement of the scholarly base of the counseling profession is apparent vis-a-vis the quality of the journal issues that he has published. I hope to continue in that vein. As past editor of the Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, the refereed journal of the Counseling Association for Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, and of The Journal for the Professional Counselor, the award-winning journal of the New York Counseling Association, and having served on several editorial review boards, I do bring 12 years of editorial experience with me as I assume this new position. However, I still have much to learn, especially in terms of JCD. The sheer volume of manuscripts received can be overwhelming, and I will be relying on proven expertise of the associate editors and the members of the editorial board, the largely unsung heroes in the world of refereed journals, for their insights and sound recommendations. Although the editor has the final say and the responsibility in terms of what is to be published, he or she does not make such decisions in a vacuum. The recommendations and critiques of the editorial board and the associate editors do count heavily in any such decisions. In addition to the reviewers' critiques and recommendations, which are based on a masked review, the editor must also weigh the merits of a particular manuscript as compared with others, which may cover the same topic. As editor, I must also consider the limited space available in the journal, the needs and interests of our readership who are primarily professional counseling practitioners, and, perhaps most important, the manuscript's contribution to the scholarship base of the profession. I must also resolutely maintain a proper balance of published work between articles addressing issues involving practice and those dealing with theory. Because of the limited space previously noted, JCD can only publish between 18% and 20% of manuscripts received. I cite that figure not to discourage but to encourage. My goal as editor is not to reject, although rejection is most surely a reality, but to encourage authors and researchers to strive for excellence. What that figure means is that primarily only carefully selected manuscripts are published in JCD, and achieving acceptance says much about the author and the manuscript. It is important to note that rejection by JCD does not mean that a manuscript is not worthy of being published or that it is not publishable. JCD may not be the appropriate vehicle. Authors who receive rejection letters should actively pursue publication in other refereed journals if they ascertain that there are no fatal internal flaws that make the manuscript (usually a research one) unpublishable. Indeed, publication elsewhere is certainly possible if the author is able to put aside the very natural feelings of discouragement or anger at receiving a rejection letter, and is willing to objectively consider and implement at least some of the critiques and suggestions of the reviewers. Thompson (1995) noted The most productive scholars are (sometimes) distinguished by extraordinary intellect, but some are primarily distinguished by willingness to be systematic and persistent. …