Perspectives on manuscript review criteria

From the editor Perspectives on Manuscript Review Criteria The readership ofa journal has at least a right to be presented with and, ideally, a right to contribute to the development ofthe editorial policy of the publication. No single individual determines editorial policy, nor is policy a static feature. The staff, Board of Editors, and Journal Advisory Council can most easily influence policy, but formal or informal comments and suggestions from authors and readers have significant impact. Also, trends in research and practice, significant public issues, and development of methodologies and tools influence the type of manuscript submitted and contribute to the evolution ofpolicy. With a journal that covers as broad an area as nutrition education, it is difficult to present a concise statement of editorial policy because unique criteria are applied to different types of submitted material. An aspect of editorial policy is reflected in the papers that are published in the Journal; however, these represent less than one-jourth of the papers submittedfor publication. Perhaps a better view ofeditorial policy would be gained by examination ofthe manuscriptsfrom and the correspondence with authors whose papers have not been accepted for publication. Yet these rarely are available. Recently, however, the editorial office engaged with an author in an extensive correspondence that ranged from specific review criteria to the future of nutrition education. At the suggestion of the author and because the exchange touches on many topics relevant to present policy and to future directions ofour Journal, the correspondence is reproduced here. We hope to stimulate a broad consideration ofthe issues, and we welcome additional comments and suggestions, privately or for publication.

To THE EDITOR I am writing regarding two manuscripts that were not accepted for publication in JNE. We have not had any difficulty getting the manuscripts accepted for publication elsewhere. I've read the comments of the reviewers several times, and I have some general concerns and impressions about the type of review that was done on the manuscripts. All of the reviewers seemed to approach the manuscripts with a very experimental orientation. Granted, there is an important place for experimental and quasiexperimental research in nutrition education. However, there is a place for the unique type of research done in the "Food for Thought" program as well. It falls between the "cracks" of conventional research activities. Its epidemiologic, public health, educational, and methodological uniqueness has been repeatedly recognized by public health and nutrition health officials around the country and in several other countries as well. Our unique use of computer-based inventories has sparked a request for a paper on our approach to evaluation of nutrition programs. VOLUME

12

NUMBER

2

1980

One of the comments included in the letter stated that the "Food for Thought" game has minimal implications for education. Since the game was completed, we have had two thousand individual inquiries (requests for actual use - not casual inquiries) from national and international groups. We estimate that the game will reach about 15 million people in the next two years. Nutrition education, as you well know, encompasses a multitude of sins. I submit there is ample room for interesting and responsive public health oriented nutrition education programs. I think the criteria used to review our manuscripts reflect a major demise in nutrition education today. Most reviewers come from, granted, distinguished research backgrounds but, I submit, have views on "utility to nutrition education" that reflect a parochial stream of interest and one that is unresponsive to the needs of Americans for nutrition education and information. I strongly feel that the tremendous lack of interesting and effective nutrition education programs is, in part, due to adherence to research criteria that are irrelevant

to the public's need. While there is a plethora of discussion and well-controlled studies on nutrition education, there is a noticeable lack of useful programs and materials for the public on nutrition education. I submit that our program filled (quite creatively, I might add) a void in the area of public nutrition education. Moreover, the program has been recognized by several outstanding "applied" public health researchers as a "milestone in methodology and creativity." Your reviewers failed to perceive what, I think, are very important points in reviewing nutrition education research. Instead, a very orthodox review was levied on a rather innovative nutrition education program. I think there are many people like me doing research pertinent to the interests of JNE readers. I submit there is a place in JNE for responsive and creative research that does not totally adhere to the tenets of conventional nutrition education research criteria. One must make compromises in design and methodology to develop applied and relevant programs, but I do think the Journal should find a place for such work-given its importance to the public. Perhaps other "types" of researchers ought to review applied and innovative materials. I think nutrition education should come "out of the closet." We live in exciting times; nutrition is an extremely important topic for the health of our country. Our nutrition education researchers should be more responsive to public health needs and hopefully develop more relevant criteria and guidelines for nutrition education research. It would be tragic to see responsive and relevant nutrition education research in the sole hands of a more commercial and entrepreneurial group. Steven M. Zifferblatt, NIH/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Building 31, Room 4A18, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20014. EDITOR REPLIES

I am sorry that you chose not to follow the editorial suggestions to revise and resubmit your articles to Readers Forum. Had you done so, you may have found that the Journal and its reviewers are not participating in what you term "a major demise in nutrition education today." There is room in the Journal through Readers Forum for descriptions of innovations and JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION

41