Interest in and concern about scholarly communications through social work journals seem to have increased recently. One indicator of this concern was the publication of the Miami statement. A Society for Social Work and Research Presidential Task Force was created to continue work on these issues. This article discusses the work of one subcommittee of that task force. This subcommittee developed a set of suggestions pertaining to the processes of submitting social work manuscripts to journals and to the system of editorial review and processing. The authors view these suggestions as expanding on the Miami statement.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Anastas, J.W. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: Issues and possible answers. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 57-65.
3.
Benjamin, L.T., & VandenBos, G.R. (2006). The window on psychology's literature: A history of psychological abstracts. American Psychologist, 61, 941-954.
4.
Bornstein, R.F. (1990). Publication politics, experimenter bias and the replication process in social science research. In J. W. Neulip (Ed.), Handbook of replication research in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 71-82). Corte Madera, CA : Select Press. (Reprinted from a special issue of Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1990, Vol. 5)
5.
Brown, P., Brunnhuber, K., Chalkidou, K., Chalmers, I., Clarke, M., Fenton, M., et al. (2006). How to formulate research recommendations . British Medical Journal, 333, 804-806.
6.
Browning, J., & Winchester, N. (1999). Scholarship, inclusiveness, and social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 113-114.
7.
Clark, J.P. (2003). How to peer review a qualitative manuscript. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in the health sciences (pp. 219-235). London: BMJ Publishing Group.
8.
Cliff, N. (1987). Analyzing multivariate data. New York: Harcourt Brace.
9.
Cowden, S.J. (2005). Reed Elsevier and the international arms trade—Reed Elsevier's reply. Lancet, 366, 889-890.
10.
Drisko, J.W. (1997). Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: Standards to promote academic integrity. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 185-197.
11.
Else, J.F. (1978). Social work journals: Purposes and trends. Social Work, 23, 267-273.
12.
Epstein, W.M. (1992). A response to Pardeck: Thump therapy for social work journals. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 525-528.
13.
Epstein, W.M. (1999). Of newsletters and scholarly journals. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 111-112.
14.
Feder, G., Rohde, J.E., San Sebastian, M., Janlert, U., Jimba, M., Materia, E., et al. (2005). Reed Elsevier and the international arms trade. Lancet, 366, 889.
15.
Fišter, K., Marušić, A., Hutchings, A., Kern, J., & Marušić, M. (2005, September). Editors' impact on improving the accuracy of references: Randomized comparison of standard practice, brief reminder, or educational intervention. Presented at the Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Chicago, IL. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/
16.
Fortune, A.E. (1992). More is not better—manuscript reviewer competence and citations: From the past editor-in-chief of Journal of Social Work Education . Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 505-510.
17.
Giles, J. (2007). PR's “pit bull” takes on open access . Nature, 445, 347. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7126/full/445347a.html
18.
Gillespie, D.F., & Khinduka, S. (1992). A response to Pardeck: From the associate editor and the chair of the editorial board of the Journal of Social Service Research . Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 511-514.
19.
Ginsberg, L. (1999). Reviewers, orthodoxy, and the passion to publish . Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 100-103.
20.
Holosko, M.J. (2006). A suggested authors' checklist for submitting manuscripts to Research on Social Work Practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 449-454.
21.
Hopps, J.G. (1992). A response to Pardeck: From the past-editor of Social Work. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 497-498.
22.
Hudson, W.W., Thyer, B.A., & Stocks, J.T. (1985). Assessing the importance of experimental outcomes . Journal of Social Service Research, 8, 87-98.
23.
Hughes, C.A. (2006). The case for scholars' management of author rights . Retrieved January 23, 2007, from http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/opinions/author_rights.html
24.
Jennings, C.G. (2006). Quality and value: The true purpose of peer review . Retrieved July 17, 2006, from http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05032.html
25.
Jenson, J.M. (2005). Structural factors and the quality of publication in social work journals. Social Work Research, 29, 67-71.
26.
Karger, H.J. (1999). The politics of social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 96-99.
27.
Kreuger, L.W. (1999). Shallow science?Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 108-110.
28.
Leighninger, R.D. (2006). The perils of self-censorship. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 33(4), 9-10.
29.
Leventhal, J.M. (2006). Improving the quality of Child Abuse & Neglect: The peer-review process does matter. Child Abuse & Neglect , 30, 579-581.
30.
Lindsey, D. (1976). Distinction, achievement and editorial board membership . American Psychologist, 31, 799-804.
31.
Lindsey, D. (1978). The scientific publication system in social science . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32.
Lindsey, D. (1992). Improving the quality of social work journals: From the editor of Children and Youth Services Review. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 515-524.
33.
Lindsey, D. (1999). Ensuring standards in social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 115-120.
34.
Midgley, J. (1999). Academic merit, professional needs, and social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 104-107.
35.
Midgley, J. (2006). International social work, globalization and the challenge of a unipolar world. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 33(4), 11-18.
36.
Neulip, J.W., & Crandall, R. (1990). Editorial bias against replication research. In J. W. Neulip (Ed.), Handbook of replication research in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 85-90). Corte Madera, CA: Select Press. (Reprinted from a special issue of the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 1990, Vol. 5)
37.
Nicol, A.M.N., & Pexman, P.M. (1999). Presenting your findings: A practical guide for creating tables. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38.
Pardeck, J.T. (1992a). Are social work journal editorial boards competent? Some disquieting data with implications for research on social work practice . Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 487-496.
39.
Pardeck, J.T. (1992b). The distinction and achievement levels of social work editorial boards revisited. Research on Social Work Practice , 2, 529-537.
40.
Pardeck, J.T. (2002). Scholarly productivity of editors of social work and psychology journals. Psychological Reports, 90, 1051-1054.
41.
Pardeck, J.T., Arndt, B.J., Light, D.B., Mosley, G.F., Thomas, S.D., Werner, M.A., et al. (1991). Distinction and achievement levels of editorial board members of psychology and social work journals. Psychological Reports, 68, 523-527.
42.
Pardeck, J.T., Chung, W.S., & Murphy, J.W. (1995). An examination of the scholarly productivity of social work journal editorial board members and guest reviewers. Research on Social Work Practice, 5, 223-234.
43.
Pardeck, J.T., & Meinart, R.G. (1999a). Scholarly achievements of the Social Work editorial board and consulting editors: A commentary. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 86-91.
44.
Pardeck, J.T., & Meinart, R.G. (1999b). Improving the scholarly quality of Social Work's editorial board and consulting editors: A professional obligation. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 121-127.
45.
Reamer, F.G. (1992). A response to Pardeck: Form the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Social Work Education. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 501-504.
46.
Reamer, F.G. (1999). Social work scholarship and gatekeeping: Reflection on the debate. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 92-95.
47.
Rosenthal, R. (1990). Replication in behavioral research. In J. W. Neulip (Ed.), Handbook of replication research in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 1-30). Corte Madera, CA: Select Press. (Reprinted from a special issue of the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 1990, Vol. 5)
48.
Schilling, R., Baer, J.C., Barth, R., Fraser, M., Herman, D., Holden, G., et al. (2005). Peer review and publication standards in social work journals: The Miami statement. Social Work Research , 29, 119-121.
49.
Schuerman, J.R. (1992). A response to Pardeck: From the editor of the Social Service Review. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 499-500.
50.
Science Media Centre. (2003). Peer review in a nutshell. Retrieved July 17, 2006, from http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/downloads/peer_review_in_a_nutshell.pdf
51.
Smith, R. (2007). Reed-Elsevier's hypocrisy in selling arms and health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 100. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://www.rsmpress.co.uk/KA07-02-09.pdf
52.
Spivey, C.A., & Wilks, S.E. (2004). Reference list accuracy in social work journals . Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 281-286.
53.
Whiting, P.F., Weswood, M.E., Rutjes, A.W.S., Reitsma, J.B., Bossuyt, P.N.M., Kleijnen, J. (2006). Reproducibility of the STARD checklist: An instrument to assess the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 9.
54.
Wilkinson, L., & the Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines & explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
55.
Wilks, S.W., & Spivey, C.A. (2004). View of reference list accuracy from social work journal editors and published authors. Advances in Social Work, 5, 172-181.
