Writing for publication in the JMHC: follow the yellow brick road.

In this editorial, we address common writing errors observed in submissions for publication in the JMHC. We provide suggestions to those seeking publication of their work in JMHC on how to avoid these common pitfalls and improve the chances of their work being more favorably reviewed.

**********

If happy little bluebirds fly beyond the rainbow Why, oh why, can't I? E. H. Harburg, The Wizard of Oz, 1939

In past issues of the Journal of Mental Health Counseling (JMHC), we have provided suggestions on how to prepare manuscripts for publication (see Kress, 2006; Rogers, 2002, 2006; Prieto, 2005), covering various issues of import regarding the structure and content of submissions. We will not revisit those particular points. Rather, the purpose of this editorial is to, in a different way, help the wayfaring author on her journey toward the proverbial Emerald City where bluebirds (with several JMHC publications to their credit) eat berries and exchange scholarly chirps in leafy trees. Herein, we will address common style and grammatical errors that can endanger a journey on the yellow brick road; perhaps fatally so, most obviously judged via the reception of a rejection letter from the Wicked Witch of the East, Dr. James R. Rogers, the JMHC editor-in-chief.

Like the fabled Oz, the editor and his staff may seem all powerful, all knowing, and magically able to grant wishes, but this is just not so. Most published authors in the JMHC (or any other journal), just like Dorothy and her traveling companions, ultimately recognize that the editorial staff, board members, and ad hoc reviewers are just simple folk who are a part of operating a grand production machine that magically produces a journal issue for readers' shelves about once every three months. To get the gears of this machine moving, more so than a heart, a brain and some courage (all three of which the editorial staff are constantly a bit short on), we need simple good grist for the mill. That is, from authors we need manuscript submissions in a form that allows the editorial staff to methodically and reliably evaluate them. There is no magic that will bring a less than optimally formatted or written manuscript to acceptable form for evaluation or publication. We cannot transport a confusingly written, errantly statistically analyzed, or poorly conceptualized article into print in the JMHC, no matter how many times Jim Rogers taps the heels of his glittery red slippers and wishes it to be so. Once the curtain is pulled away, there is no magic. Rather, all that remains is a complex machine and a simple crew to staff it. All that remain are basic rules of APA style and formatting; simple rules of English grammar, syntax, and punctuation; and the clear expression of scientific ideas. These are the things that really work magic. These are the tools that can keep at bay the Wicked Witch of the East and his dreaded letters of rejection. These are the tools that allow an author to follow the yellow brick road and provide her manuscript the best chance of survival on the way to Emerald City.

Indeed, this is the place where we will base our suggestions, in the most basic ideas and guidelines that we find a surprising number of authors either do not know or choose not to follow. And, straying from the yellow brick road is a recipe for disaster, say the Munchkins. They should know; not one of them has ever been published in the JMHC!

Common APA Style Errors

In each issue of the JMHC, "Instructions to Authors" are printed on the inside of the journal cover, so that authors know exactly how to prepare their submissions. Yet, amazingly, every week we receive manuscripts that do not follow APA 5th Edition formatting (APA, 2001). For example, in the past years, we have seen such violations as a mere fraction of an inch margins all around, single-spaced manuscripts or reference sections, font so small that it strains already bifocal eyes, or text printed on both sides of the page! One well-meaning author tried to be "green" by printing off his manuscript on pages that had already served another purpose (e.g., syllabi, assignments). Although we applaud the goal of conserving paper, the appearance of any text on a manuscript that is not actually a part of the scientific article not only detracts from the professionalism of the document, but also is distracting as heck to read and edit. Of course, there are also those students (or advisors) who are trying to publish theses or dissertations who basically submit these documents in the form that their institution requires, rather than in APA style. Typically, it is the bullet point outline of the 19 hypotheses being tested that gives these culprits away as well as opening headers like "Introduction to the Problem" and "Review of the Literature." We reluctantly anticipate the day we simply receive a bound copy of a dissertation to review for publication.

Yes, APA style is pedantic. Maddeningly so, some say. But, let us stress that, in this missive, we are not highlighting and chastising minor deviations away from the yellow brick road. Nay! Instead, we speak of literal three-day excursions via flying monkeys away from the yellow brick road!

Please know that we have learned to cheerfully tolerate:

* Authors who errantly head their "Methods" section (it is "Method") or choose to use some alien hierarchy in organizing their section headers (APA provides specific levels of headers, positioned and formatted to create a particular organization in the manuscript; there is no room for creativity here).

* Authors who write about the "relationships" variables possess (they do not, they have "relations"), and who also forget that two variables have a relation between them, but three or more variables have relations among them.

* Authors who place two spaces after periods (only one space is required)

* Authors who use "and" in parentheses and an ampersand for in-text citations (for citations, the ampersand is used inside the parens, the word "and" between names in text).

* Authors who forget that for every citation in the text there must be a corresponding reference (with the exact same name and date, please) in the reference section.

* Finally, authors who mistakenly think that there is statistical significance at p < .000 because that is how the statistical printout reads (p < .001 is the farthest one should extend the decimal) or who use zero placeholders in correlation coefficients (0.78 should simply be .78).

However, some style issues are pretty important for scientific writing. For example, we need to rid ourselves of the vestiges of racism left in scientific writing where European American participants are referred to as "Whites" or "Caucasians" but people of color are referred to as African Americans or Asian Americans. First, color-based or anthropological labels are frankly inaccurate (interestingly, if authors feel it appropriate to refer to European Americans as "Caucasians" why do these same authors fail to consistently use anthropological labels and call African Americans "Negroids" and Asians "Mongoloids"?).

In addition, when authors refer to European Americans as Whites or Caucasians and do not use the suffix of "American" with this group, they (inadvertently) suggest that Whites or Caucasians are "Americans" by default, but that African, Asian, Native, and Latino/a "Americans" need to be designated as such. The consistent use of an ancestral origin prefix with the American suffix (African American, Asian American, European American, Native American, Latino/a American) ensures that all racial groups are afforded their accurate identity with respect to historical settling in the United States. We might mention in passing that many South and Latin Americans as well as Canadians consider it quite arrogant that U.S. persons refer to themselves as "Americans" (as if they are the only "Americans" in the hemisphere), however, that issue may best be left for another discussion. Suffice it to say, for precision, those who call themselves "Americans" should more likely opt for the more accurate label of "persons from the United States."

Sexist writing is still abundant in submissions as well. Authors need to avoid using sexist descriptors (e.g., mankind; rather, use humanity) and the masculine neutral (e.g., "An author can learn to write in a non-sexist way if he tries"; rather, use plurals "Authors can learn to write in a non-sexist way if they try").

Another critical error in style is the use of the passive voice. Despite what elementary, high school or college English teachers drummed into our heads, APA style requires an active voice, which means unless inappropriate, attention should focus on the subject rather than the object acted upon. In essence, the passive voice uses the object of a sentence as the subject of a sentence. For example, a classic error is "This study discussed the effect of widget color on worker productivity ..." The active voice would read "In this study, I discussed the effect of widget color on worker productivity ..." Abstracts are notorious for being the home of many passive voice statements. Authors should simply return to the old rule; a subject, a verb, and a direct object--every good sentence needs them.

Basically, we have one blanket suggestion for any and all matters of APA style. Buy the APA manual, consult the APA manual, and write manuscripts exactly as the APA manual dictates. Even if you think you know the manual like the proverbial "back of your hand," double check anyway. No better treatise on the rules of the yellow brick road exists! If this advice does not persuade, perhaps this next piece of advice will. There is simply a high likelihood that those submissions with several violations of APA style will be summarily returned to authors and not even sent out for review until such time that they do comply with APA style. Therefore, authors can save much time (and frustration) by simply following the rules of the yellow brick road.

Ding-dong, the Wicked Witch is Persnickety

With respect to grammar and more general composition follies, our observation is that some manuscripts are quite poorly organized which makes it difficult for the reader to follow the logic and flow of the authors' ideas and arguments. This, we believe, is due to a lack of proofreading before submission. By the time an author is ready to submit her work, she has likely read, re-read and re-re-read it so many times that suddenly an entire sentence of German could appear in the Discussion section and easily go unnoticed. A certain degree of habituation to text takes place after reading it five hundred times. This is a bit like driving home from work, and as you pull in your driveway, you realize that you have no idea how you got home (and whether you actually stopped at the red lights along the way). Every submission to the JMHC should undergo several proofreads by various sets of eyes before an author submits the work. Even away from catching "typos" or APA style errors, proofreading serves an additional purpose.

When authors write, they hopefully have a good idea of what they are trying to convey. However, this internal clarity does not automatically translate into intelligible written ideas for the reader. If your colleague, student or mailperson cannot easily discern what your opening paragraph actually means, then go back to the drawing board and start again. Nothing will save a nonsensical manuscript from earning a poor review by the editorial staff (even if its findings are important). If a manuscript is not well organized, it sends a clear signal to the reader (and reviewers) that the research itself was also not well done or organized. Authors' writing is their calling card in this respect; it is all we editors and reviewers have to judge your work.

More along this line, authors need to ensure that their abstracts are brief and actually summarize the manuscript they precede. Remember, the abstract is often what database resources like PsychInfo[R] use to provide a description of a study. A good abstract saves the reader time by allowing her to decide quickly if a study or article is relevant to her needs. Conversely, if an abstract does not contain all pertinent information, scholars may overlook a study highly relevant to their needs. Similarly, article titles need to clearly capture the essence of the manuscript and possess truth in advertising. Nothing is more disappointing than a title that lays claim to much more than the article actually delivers. On second thought, allow us to recant. As disappointing as a deceptive title is a fruitless search in a reference section for an article cited in the text by the author but not included in the reference section. Usually the article is a pivotal, critical piece upon which all of the author's arguments hinge. One of us (Prieto) has been known to call friends who commit this egregious error, at rather late hours, demanding to know: (1) if the author knows just how upsetting this kind of situation really is; and, (2) what is the full citation, anyway?

Some smaller tips on grammar:

* Avoid the inappropriate (often synonymous) use of the words "that" and "which" (the former denotes a restrictive, specific subset of a set and the latter a characteristic or non-restrictive element of a whole set; cf. Lica, 1998)

* Avoid the inappropriate use of the words "since" and "while" when "although" would be the correct word to use (since and while are time-based descriptors and are not correct if the issue of event sequence is not relevant to the point).

* Avoid the misuse of the words "insure" and "ensure" (the former means to guard against financial loss, the latter means to make sure that something happens)

* Ensure that nouns/pronouns and subjects/verbs are consistent with respect to their singularity or plurality (e.g., "The editorial board went berserk over their work load" is incorrect; "The editorial board went berserk over its work load." is correct).

* Avoid the use of articles as subjects of sentences ("It has been shown that heavy work loads drive editors berserk." is incorrect; "Scholars have shown heavy work loads drive editors berserk." is correct).

* Finally, avoid the use of the third person to identify the writer ("This author believes editors are a weird group" is incorrect; "I believe editors are a weird group" is correct.... at least, grammatically).

What Grist is Good Grist?

Generally, authors should select a topic that is timely, is of interest to various counseling professionals, and addresses an issue that is relevant to this broad audience. An immediately clear and apparent answer to the question "Why is this research issue important?" should be provided in the first paragraphs of any paper. An explicit definition of the topic under investigated is also very helpful to readers.

As much as possible, authors should strive to integrate articles related to the topic under investigation that have already been published in the JMHC. Nothing is a clearer sign of an author who is not familiar with the AMCHA or the JMHC than one who blissfully ignores several previously published articles in the JMHC concerning the very same topic she is investigating! As well, this situation is also suggestive of the fact that an author has not done her homework with respect to conducting a thorough literature review.

The readership of the JMHC consists primarily of practicing mental health counselors, and as such, all manuscripts must have some focus on and discussion of implications for counseling practice. A separate section for this is often helpful. As well, manuscripts must have a mental health counseling focus. This sounds a bit obvious, but over the years we have seen this more or less straightforward fact elude some authors. Mental health counselors hold the professional assumption that people have the capacity to develop and grow (AMHCA, 2000). As well, mental health counselors take responsibility for helping to facilitate clients' optimal development and to identify and build on clients' strengths (Myers, Sweeney, & Witmer, 2001). These tenets are central to a mental health counseling focus. Therefore, authors should convey their written ideas from this base of assumptions (rather than from a pathology focus only) and strive to align their ideas with the conceptual mission of the JMHC. This recommendation also extends to the language of mental health counseling. Specifically, authors should not write solely for or about social workers, psychologists, nursing, rehabilitation specialists, or any other single group of practitioners. Furthermore, with respect to professional labels, we prefer "mental health counselor" be used to describe the generic clinician, and as much as possible, we prefer that samples closely related to mental health counseling or counselors be utilized in empirical research.

Specific to theory, manuscripts that focus on developmental, strength-based, empowerment, prevention, wellness, early intervention, multicultural, or integrated theoretical models and concepts are most appropriate for this section of the journal. Theory building or additions to current theory are also welcome. Authors should understand that in many ways, theory submissions are the most complex and difficult to write. These works call for an in-depth understanding of not only a particular theory base but also a solid understanding of the empirical literature concerning general approaches to personality, mental health problems, and mental health treatment. Obviously, an author does not want to forward a theory or propose an addition to a current theory that flies in the face of well established and empirically supported facts!

Practice manuscripts that provide ideas for mental health counselors to use in developing their professional and clinical expertise are of interest to the JMHC readership. Technique or clinical methods manuscripts should clearly feature ample empirical or conceptual evidence of the usefulness of the proposed technique or method, and also indicate precisely how such techniques or methods fit within the specific etiology, course, and treatment of a mental health difficulty. Additionally, manuscripts that address the complexities of integrating the aforementioned mental health counseling perspective with a traditional pathology perspective would be helpful to the readership (see recommendations in Kress, 2006).

We have already presented suggestions for research articles (see Rogers, 2002, 2006 and Prieto, 2005). We will simply refer authors to those articles for relevant suggestions. Authors preparing a research article for the JMHC will find the APA manual and these pieces by Rogers and Prieto the best help we can extend.

We also strongly urge authors to make use of design and statistics consultants where needed. Mistakes are significantly easier to correct before a project is implemented versus after. Once a poor method, design, or statistical analysis is set in place, resulting errors can be fatal to publication. One of the most difficult things for the editorial staff to convey to an author, who has clearly worked very hard on a manuscript, is that some critical design, instrument, procedural, or statistical flaws make a project "unfixable" regardless of how many revisions the author is willing to make. A word to the wise; obtain feedback early and often on your research and empirical projects, lest your journey on the yellow brick road end in a rather abrupt fashion.

Two other issues concerning research articles bear mention. First, all authors must fully inform the readership (and editorial staff) about the dataset being reported on in terms of how the data has been used in the past or will be used in the future. Specifically, some authors (with or without overt declaration in their manuscripts) are clearly reporting on data in a study that is a subset of a larger data set from which they are planning to write more manuscripts. Many professional mental health organizations (and their associated journals) are very concerned with this phenomenon of fragmenting datasets and publishing findings from (often overlapping) parts of a large dataset in different journal articles.

The chief problem with the practice of dataset splitting is that articles are published in the literature with findings that are apparently independently supportive of each other or appear to be replications (total or partial) of each other, when in fact, the data source for all of these articles comes from a single large sample collected at a single point in time. Creating multiple publications from a single dataset is a dangerous practice and has real risks with respect to creating a misimpression in the scientific literature. An unknowing reader will reasonably presume that several independent studies have been done in an area of interest or that findings have been legitimately replicated, when in fact only one sample has been reported on a number of times by common author(s). For example, practitioners reading multiple publications from the same dataset may come away having a premature confidence in a clinical approach or technique. The premature use of such techniques can in turn lead to potential problems or bad outcomes in the treatment of clients.

Authors who are attempting to publish more than one study from the same dataset should clearly state this in their manuscripts. A listing of any past or planned studies that have been or will be published from the overall dataset should also be included, as well as a clear rationale explaining why the data could not be reported on in a single study. In this way, editors and reviewers can make an informed decision on the importance and relation of the study to the extant literature. Similarly, readers will realize that findings (if published) come from the same dataset and do not represent independent findings or valid replication of previous findings. Editors and readers understand that some datasets or projects are so large that they cannot be reported on well in a single article. However, without full disclosure on the part of authors, editors and readers naive to the situation can easily be misled and fail to understand the lack of independence of multiple studies that come from fragmented datasets. Finally, authors need to be aware of the ethical guidelines in their professional organizations that govern publication practices. These guidelines may outline the circumstances that both prohibit and allow multiple publication activities.

The second issue concerning research projects is that all authors must explicitly state in their manuscript, if their study involves human subjects, that they have had their projects reviewed by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and received approval to proceed (or had the study adjudicated by the IRB as being exempt from review). The JMHC will not publish work that has not fully complied with all human subjects protection procedures and laws. Yes, we did say laws. For those who may be unaware, the entity that mandates the protection of the rights of human research subjects is the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. The Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Part 46 (45CFR46) details all the applicable rules for investigators to follow. In many settings, investigator compliance with human subjects rights and protections is not an option; it is the law. Investigators can consult the DHHS website for more details (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp).

Almost all other issues aside from the aforementioned "drop a house on a witch" fatalities can usually be addressed with diligence and patience on the part of authors who have been asked to make various revisions to their manuscripts. After all, although the editorial staff may be mere mortals, with not even a trace of Oz magic, we do enjoy sending those letters of acceptance out to authors who create a little magic out of the scholarly work they submit to the JMHC. As any bluebird (or published author) will tell you, there's no place like home.... for an article.

REFERENCES

American Mental Health Counselors Association. (2000). AMHCA code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual (5th ed.). Washington DC: Author.

Kress, V. E. (2006). Theory and practice submissions to JMHC: Keeping the "mental health" in mental health counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 28, 286-288.

Lica, L. (1998). Why Using WHICH and THAT Correctly is Important for Scientists. Available: http://home.earthlink.net/~llica/wchmport.htm.

Myers, J. E., Sweeney, T. J., & Witmer, J. M. (2001). Optimization of behavior: Promotion of wellness. In D. C. Locke, J. E. Myers, E. L. Herr (Eds.), The handbook of counseling (pp. 641-652). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Prieto, L. R. (2005). Research submissions to the JMHC: Perspectives from the associate editor. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27, 197-204.

Rogers, J. R. (2002). Looking back and moving forward: Research in the Journal of Mental Health Counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24, 195-198.

Rogers, J. R. (2006). Editorials: Developing JMHC content-related submission guidelines. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 28, 283-285.

Loreto Prieto is affiliated with the Department of Psychology at Iowa State University and Victoria E. Kress is affiliated with the Department of Counseling and Special Education at Youngstown State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Loreto Prieto, Department of Psychology, W218 Lagomarcino Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3180; E-mail: [e-mail].