The referees evaluate whether the subject of the article fits the journal’s mission. In the case of RUSQ, the journal seeks articles on “information of interest to reference librarians, information specialists, and other professionals involved in user-oriented library services. The scope of the journal includes all aspects of library service to adults and reference service and collection development at every level and for all types of libraries.”² Prospective authors should consider the audience for their piece and submit it to an appropriate journal. In the case of RUSQ, the journal seeks feature articles that present and analyze original empirical research or theoretical pieces that might include a longer literature review and an analysis of a current issue in library science or a revival of an older issue that is still, or perhaps once again, relevant. The journal does not publish annotated bibliographies as feature articles.

This criterion asks the referees to examine how the article builds on and advances existing scholarship on the chosen topic. Feature articles in RUSQ need to do more than simply comment on existing work. Rather, the research should seek to expand the profession’s understanding of a particular area of reference librarianship. It is important to not only detail your research but to use that research to draw conclusions that move the profession forward. Too often, writers fail to take this next step of saying why what they did or discovered is important. While there are no set percentages for different sections of an article, we frequently see articles in which the literature review and results cover multiple pages and the conclusion and discussion cover only a paragraph or two. The conclusion should discuss what is new in the article and what this new knowledge contributes to the literature of the profession. The discussion and conclusion sections make the case for why your paper is worth publishing and should receive the attention they deserve.

The literature review is one of the most important parts of a scholarly article, but also one that frequently needs substantial revision when an article is first reviewed. The literature review has many functions. First, it should include the seminal writings on the selected topic, with some discussion that puts the new research into context of these works. While it is important to include these early writings, it is also easy to pile up a long list of citations trying to indicate that an author or authors have done their research. Instead, authors should use the literature to support their work or to show where it diverges from past research on their chosen topic. The literature review also needs to connect to the rest of the article. The articles cited in a literature review and the discussion of these articles should further the arguments presented in the submission, take as much space as needed to do so but not more, and demonstrate that the author(s) of the article understand the context in which their new research is situated. RUSQ encourages authors to look beyond the LIS field for pertinent items to include in literature reviews, particularly in the areas of instruction, literacy, and technology.

When evaluating the quality of the research and scholarship in an RUSQ submission, the referees are looking to see if the author has demonstrated an understanding of the research process and correctly applied it, and if the research study has been properly designed and executed. One problem frequently seen in submitted articles is small sample size. Authors often try to extrapolate from very short studies, covering a single class or semester, or from a very new project. While these initial studies sometimes provide interesting information, the paper would be stronger if the research was carried out over a longer period or with a larger sample size, allowing the author to apply more rigorous statistical analysis. If your study has a small sample size, or is more of a preliminary study, be sure to discuss that in the method and results sections of the paper. Do not draw conclusions that are not justified by the research.

In this section of the review, the referees consider several questions: (1) Are the findings relevant? (2) Has the author explained them in a manner that can be understood by the nonspecialist? and (3) If there are graphic presentations, do they clarify and summarize findings for the reader? Often, the analysis of statistical data is one of the weaker part of submitted pieces. An RUSQ board member noted that when planning a paper, authors should include a plan for statistical analysis in the research design. When writing up the results, be sure to go beyond simply reporting quantitative data, and use appropriate statistical tests to measure the significance of the results. Authors should consider carefully the best way to present their findings. Graphs, charts, and tables are useful ways to quickly give the reader an overview of the findings. However, not all results merit a separate table or chart. Sometimes it is clearer to simply use the body of the article to relate the findings. One great advantage to having RUSQ in digital form is that we have the opportunity to incorporate digital files of supporting material that might not be appropriate to include in the main article. These could include sound files as well as documents and charts, and authors should be aware of these options. While the primary audience for RUSQ is reference librarians, articles submitted should be free of library jargon that would make them less clear to other readers.

Finally, RUSQ referees, and journal editors in general, are looking for clearly written, readable articles. The tone of feature articles in RUSQ should be scholarly, but scholarly writing does not need to be impenetrable and obscure. Active voice, declarative sentences, and attention to language are all important. Editors will work with authors to improve the writing and make a piece stronger, but it is incumbent on the author to make his or her article as clear as possible from the beginning. One suggestion here is to have a colleague review your piece before submitting it; a second set of eyes will usually catch some errors that need correcting.