The aim of this editorial is to provide a brief overview of advice when preparing manuscripts for publication in peer reviewed nursing journals. In particular, I would like to highlight the need for authors to write for a global audience. Writing for publication can be challenging and rejection is common. As a great majority of scientific publication is through the medium of English, this creates a difficulty for those for whom this is a second language1. People also struggle with academic writing skills. However, it is my view that the greatest omission is that authors often fail to consider the requirements of writing for a global audience. The aims and scope of most Journals will address the need for novelty and internationality. As such careful preparation is needed to ensure that the manuscript meets these key criteria. This preparation involves an up-to-date search of the topic within the literature generally, but also specifically within the target Journal. By exploring the literature anew, you can begin to re-examine the unique contribution of your study and consider a strong argument that you can build into the paper that identifies its unique contribution to knowledge. It is important to remember here that you are aiming to contribute to knowledge globally. If your study has had a local, regional, or even national contribution, this may not be sufficient. You will need to consider this contribution and how it now further contributes to the global agenda in the field. As Thistlethwaite & Anderson2 point out: “work should not be country-centric without reference to a global perspective”. Moreover, it will be very important to explain and outline the context within which your research took place. This will be important to inform readers of why the research had such fundamental importance. Nursing research is evolving at a different pace across the globe. What might seem quite novel in one domain may not be in another. As such explaining the context importance and relevance of the study in the host area can provide important insights that make your work more likely to be published. It is also important to remember the structure of the manuscript beyond the basic formatting. One common error is that the study is presented in the manuscript in its most basic form. That is, a short background (often with out-of-date literature because the work began some time back), a basic outline of the study and a repeat of the findings in the discussion, with little evidence of novelty or contribution to the body of knowledge. Rather than this, the manuscript ought to be considered as an argument. At the outset what is known about a topic is presented, leading to what is unknown and important to find out, and leading to a clear justification for your research. The findings out to comprise key and important findings, and the most important of these are drawn out in the discussion. At that point of the argument (the discussion), it is important not to simply repeat the findings, but to identify how the selected important findings contribute to the body of knowledge in the field globally. This may translate into implications for research, education, and practice, with a clear indication of where the limitations lie. How you approach the discussion is vital. Those reading your manuscript, who in the first instance will be the Editor or reviewer, will be interested to know the main contribution of your manuscript, particularly in relation to novelty. They will be concerned with what key message are you trying to convey to a global audience and will likely ask the “so what”? question2. Indeed, some of the key reasons why manuscripts are rejected relate to out-of-date literature, lack of novelty and failure to make a point3. Editors are looking for meaningful and impactful research, therefore it is important to express the key novel findings and their implications globally. In short, while your work has already had clear success in its original context and for its original purpose, it now needs to be extensively reworked, beyond simply formatting, to fit with the target journal. This preparation takes quite a considerable amount of time and be prepared to set aside at least 60- 80 hours for this task. Updating your literature and considering anew the contribution to knowledge of the work and preparing a clear argument within the manuscript will help you towards success. Remember that “manuscripts that repeat old studies without producing any reasonable new information and have been replicated without justification really don’t appeal to us (Editors)”4. The most important parts of the paper are the background/introduction and discussion, wherein the key arguments, related to the study’s novelty and contribution can be articulated. This ‘new’ manuscript needs to clearly meet the aims and scope of the target journal, provide a novel perspective on the topic, and speak to a global audience. Spending time on this preparation, rather than simply a rushed edit will reap rewards in terms of your success in publishing for the future.

Objective: to relate Frailty Syndrome and sarcopenia in older adults with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus and identify potential risk factors for frailty and sarcopenia. Method: this descriptive epidemiological study was conducted with 140 older adults in the municipality of Sinop, Mato Grosso, Brazil. The frailty phenotype was used for the assessment of Frailty Syndrome, and a physical assessment questionnaire with calf circumference measurement was used for the assessment of sarcopenia. Results: regarding Frailty Syndrome, a higher percentage was observed in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to those without the disease (p = 0.00). Concerning the presence of sarcopenia, older adults with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus showed similar values, with no statistical significance (p = .74). Frailty Syndrome was associated with physical inactivity (95%CI: 3.29-56.55), age over 75 years (95%CI: 3.30- 27.82), low family income (95%CI: 1.80-50.98), and comorbidities (95%CI: 4.90-5.40). However, sarcopenia was associated with the presence of physical inactivity (95%CI: 1.26-10.44), low weight/ eutrophic (95%CI: 3.32-26.76), and malnutrition/nutritional risk (95%CI: 1.30-7.70) for older adults with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus. Conclusion: older adults with diabetes have a higher vulnerability to develop Frailty Syndrome, necessitating the adoption of preventive measures in primary healthcare.

Objective: to evaluate the waste generated from processing surgical instruments consigned in elective orthopedic surgeries and propose a model for calculating waste associated with processing consigned surgical instruments. Method: a quantitative, descriptive-exploratory case study carried out in a large university hospital in two phases: (1) retrospective by consulting administrative records of canceled elective orthopedic surgeries, with provision for the use of consigned materials for identification of the sub-specializations with the greatest demand; and (2) prospective through direct, non-participant observations of processing consigned surgical instruments prepared for the identified surgeries and proposition of a model for calculating waste associated with processing these materials. Results: hip arthroplasty, spine arthrodesis and knee arthroplasty surgeries were identified as presenting the greatest demand, resulting in 854 boxes of consigned surgical instruments processed and unused. Processing waste was estimated at R$34,340.18 (US$6,359.30). Conclusion: the proposed equation made it possible to calculate the waste related to the production and non-use of boxes of surgical instruments consigned for orthopedic procedures and can equip nurses for planning based on institutional, care and financial data, aiming to make better use of resources through waste identification.

Objective: to analyze the temporal pattern and estimate mortality rates in the first 24 hours of life and from preventable causes in the state of Pernambuco from 2000 to 2021. Method: an ecological study, using the quarter as the unit of analysis. The data source was made up of the Mortality Information System and the Live Birth Information System. The time series modeling was conducted according to the Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average Model. Results: 14,462 deaths were recorded in the first 24 hours of life, 11,110 (76.8%) of which being preventable. It is observed from the forecasts that the mortality rate in the first 24 hours of life ranged from 3.3 to 2.4 per 1,000 live births, and the mortality rate from preventable causes ranged from 2.3 to 1.8 per 1,000 live births. Conclusion: the prediction suggested progress in reducing mortality in the first 24 hours of life in the state and from preventable causes. The ARIMA models presented satisfactory estimates for mortality rates and preventable causes in the first 24 hours of life.