




































Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

What Should a First-Time and Emerging Researcher Know
About Publishing Ethics?

Margaret A. Hoogland, MLS, AHIPa

aAssociate Professor and Clinical Medical Librarian, University Libraries, The University of
Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, https://www.orcid.org/0000-0002-9932-3605 ,
margaret.hoogland@utoledo.edu

Cite as: Hoogland MA. What Should a First-Time and Emerging Researcher Know About
Publishing Ethics?. Hypothesis. 2025;37(1). doi:10.18060/28783.

Hoogland. All works in Hypothesis are licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0
DEED Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International. Authors own copyright of their articles
appearing in Hypothesis. Readers may copy articles without permission of the copyright
owner(s), as long as the author(s) are acknowledged in the copy, and the copy is used for
educational, not-for-profit purposes. For any other use of articles, please contact the copyright
owner(s).

1

https://www.orcid.org/0000-0002-9932-3605
https://orcid.org/
mailto:margaret.hoogland@utoledo.edu
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/


Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

As Hypothesis begins recruiting first-time and emerging researcher submissions, I recalled my
early publication experiences starting with an MLANews publication1 up through my first peer
reviewed publication four years later in the Journal of Hospital Librarianship2. When I read
those early articles and conference abstracts, I can see how much my writing has changed and
– I hope – improved over the years. Back in 2014-2018, I wish I had known to ask the
following questions:

Question: What does “a submission can only be considered by one journal at a time
mean?” Does this apply just to a manuscript? Or does it apply to conference
submissions as well?

The submission checklist and author guidelines cover the main points a journal expects to see
from its authors3. The acceptance rate can provide an idea of whether or not a journal gives
any room for error (or misinterpretations) by an author. Due to poor planning, for one
submission I completed major revisions and response to reviewers the week of Thanksgiving.

As the Hypothesis Editor, I have chosen to communicate with author(s) about delays and
inquire about sending notifications during a holiday. For the peer reviewers, I provide extra
time from November 15-December 31st. If it becomes clear that we must push a submission
to a future issue, then the author(s) will have extra time to make revisions. Usually the delays
are not the fault of the author(s) but rather recognizing and adjusting schedules to
accommodate time needed by the Editorial Team.

Conferences are great opportunities to present ideas and to receive feedback from others.
Some conferences allow author(s) to submit conference abstracts, which have been submitted
and even presented at a previous conference. On one occasion, I submitted an adjusted
abstract to a conference and due to scheduling gave two different but very similar
presentations back-to-back. Some might have questioned if I was salami slicing, which is
when you slice and dice content to make it “different enough” to justify giving multiple
presentations4! As the presenter, you are at the mercy of the conference schedule – but I now
limit the number of things I do at any given conference. Unless each submission is on a
separate topic or focuses on something introduced or referenced in passing in a previous
presentation or poster, I will not submit a conference abstract.

Hypothesis states in many places the need for author(s) to confirm that the conference abstract
has not been published elsewhere. If the conference abstract was presented but not published
in any other journal or conference proceeding publication, this is an acceptable submission. If
the conference abstract is stored in an institutional repository, authors should share this
information at time of submission.

To minimize the chance of duplicate publications, Hypothesis will review publicly available
conference proceedings from the Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association,
European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, and LISTA. We might also do a cursory search of Google Scholar.

Questions: My promotion and tenure application requires x presentations and y peer
reviewed publications. I really need to get something published soon. What suggestions
do you have for me?

2



Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

As I was heading into my second year review for promotion with tenure, I had a rejected
manuscript, a poster and panel presentation at a national conference, a state conference
presentation, and an in-progress book chapter on my list of accomplishments. I was on the
verge of panicking. During the holiday season, my parents and experienced researchers said,
“You have sulked enough – get back on the horse!” Then, in attempt to get me moving, they
asked, “Are you looking for a journal that works with newer authors?” These two questions
led me to discovering the Journal of Hospital Librarianship policy, which encourages
submissions by newer authors, who could receive mentorship from Editorial Board members.

Question: I want to get experience as an author and researcher. What suggestions do
you have for me?

This is a tough one, because each person brings different experiences with them. I will tackle
this by outlining my self-identified weak spots and steps I took to improve.

Writing

When it came to scientific writing and learning to write in past-present tense, present tense,
and active voice; I had a lot to learn. After conversing with tenured colleagues, I wrote book
reviews, which allowed me to keep-up with trends and also add content to the existing library
collections. Writing a book chapter refined these skills even more as in one week I found and
read materials, wrote, and revised about 3000 words.

Research Study Design and Methods

Recognizing that I lack a basic knowledge of research design and methods, I looked for
opportunities to collaborate with experienced researchers. At the end of a project, I have a
pretty good idea of areas, which would benefit from further training. Completing the Critical
Appraisal Institute for Librarians enhanced my ability to analyze an article.

Reading the Hypothesis Research Mentor article on statistical analyses and the more recent
Data Bytes articles further improved my knowledge on the topic. They also made me realize
that one of my studies will not be revised and submitted to a different journal, because the
statistical analysis is wrong. Of similar importance (and far easier to acknowledge), though, is
that the project data is no longer current or of use to the University Libraries, at the University
of Toledo.

Every researcher, director, project manager, and individual must develop the ability to
recognize and to say, “this project, program, service, etc. no longer serves the purpose for
which we designed it.” Last Fall, after being upset and discussing things with my Dad about a
situation, he said, “You have given this your best shot – it’s time to move on and to explore
other options.” I hope, readers, you can find a person or people, who will be able to cut
through the muddle, know you well, and say this to you. For me, giving up is something I
avoid at all costs – I always end up feel defeated and fight the sense that I have let down the
other team members. If it’s a solo endeavor, then I have to battle the feeling of failure. I am
still – in many ways – working through the emotions from that decision, but the relief I felt
was immediate. This confirmed to me that it was the right decision.

3

https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/whos20/about-this-journal#aims-and-scope


Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

Join or form a research, writing, etc. group

I now get satisfaction from encouraging others to team up for research projects or to be a team
member/facilitator, when I find a group with similar interests and availability. Yes, it took me
a while to figure out what I can bring to a team. It also took awhile for me to realize that my
self-identification is usually on target. At the University of Toledo, my collaborators are
usually better than I am at knowing what skills I bring to a project. Joining a group could
assist in kickstarting a project or serve as a way to keep up momentum on a stalled project.

Tracking and Productivity

In Fall 2019, I reconfigured my office white board to list all my ongoing research projects and
things I needed to do. For a number of reasons (Hello, Covid!), this got out of date and I was
just not using it effectively. I tried everything from to-do lists, writing a journal of what I did
on a certain project (sometimes with hours spent on a task), and so forth. None of the above
worked. On 02 January 2025, I cleaned off the white board and wrote the first five months of
the year. Then, I listed only the hard deadlines. Instead of being discouraged or dreading
what’s on the whiteboard, it’s now fun and satisfying to erase items on a semi-regular basis.
Tracking and productivity tools are lovely – but for me to use them, they have to demonstrate
an easy way to track forward momentum.

What’s Hypothesis got for a new, emerging, or experienced author or researcher?

Read the update from the Emerging Researchers Subcommittee report for more information
about the upcoming special issue opportunity. For those interested in all things evidence
syntheses, read the Evidence Syntheses Subcommittee report. Additional submission
categories, which we think will capture the interest of all authors, will be available in the
upcoming months and could be featured in the September Issue.

Hypothesis welcomes submissions from new, experienced, or emerging researchers and
authors. Provided the content will be of use to the field of library and information science, our
Editorial Team will support, mentor, and guide you every step of the way pre-submission to
publication!

Be sure to browse the September editorial for topics more pertinent to mid-career and
experienced researchers and authors.

Acknowledgments

I thank and acknowledge Alexandria Q. Wilson, Lisa Ennis, Jennifer (Jenn) Monnin, Terri
Gottschall, whose comments improved the design and content of this editorial. I cannot
understate the importance and value I attribute to the many conversations with my parents,
John L. and Judy G. Hoogland, who trained me to think scientifically, view red ink and
comments and ways to improve my writing, and write.

4



Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

References
1. Hoogland MA. Using iBooks author to improve learning and interactivity. MLA News.
2014;54(3):15.

2. Hoogland MA. Point of Care Products in Health Science Classes. Journal of Hospital
Librarianship [Internet]. 2018 Oct 2 [cited 2025 Jan 22];18(4):306–14. Available from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15323269.2018.1509191

3. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Preparing a a submission [Internet].
Available from: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-
preparation/preparing-for-submission.html

4. Brice J, Bligh J, Bordage G, Colliver J, Cook D, Eva KW, et al. Publishing ethics in
medical education journals. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2009 Oct;84(10
Suppl):S132-134.

5

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15323269.2018.1509191
https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html
https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html

