Reflections on Two Years of Manuscript Reviewing

417 College & Research Libraries receives a large number of manuscripts each year that have kept the two of us busy, as editorial assistants, with many of the initial reviews of submission for the journal during the last two years. In 2011 alone C&RL received 134 submissions, of which only 46 were finally selected for publication. This acceptance rate demonstrates the rigor of our review process, but it is coupled with our desire to help prospective authors succeed. There are insights we can offer from our editorial experience that help explain why manuscripts are rejected as well as advice on how to overcome typical problems and barriers we have observed. We would like to frame our insights around the editorial questions we are asked to answer in our initial evaluation of manuscripts. 1. Documentation of sources/back-ground information/literature review The literature review needs to introduce the topic or concept, identify notable and relevant existing scholarship, and most importantly frame the research. This does not equate to merely defining key terms and summarizing previous scholarship. It should include providing the reader with discerning insights that highlight patterns, conflicts, or voids in the scholarship. It is within the literature review that the author constructs the context for the research question. It is the author's job to evaluate and explain research that is objective and valuable to the position or argument. If this is lacking, weak, or incomplete, the connection made from your research to what is known about the issue or topic will be inadequate or Reflections on Two Years of Manuscript Reviewing unpersuasive. When a literature review is strong, it is easy to see how your study or investigation , extends, argues with, or refutes what others have found. 2. Methodology We have frequently seen papers that have no research question and thus no methodology. A research question is formulated to advance or disprove an argument or hypothesis. The research question is the " what " , followed by the methodology or " how " to answer the question. We also see a number of papers with poor research questions or weak methodolo-gies. A good research question should be relevant, focused, and novel to pass the " so what " test. The methodology should be a sound process to collect appropriate data that is made richer by critical analysis. The researcher must carefully choose a valid data collection method to ensure valid …