The good news is that the bad news could be worse. Our study was again rejected, but would be reconsidered if we made revisions.
The Journal of Reading and Writing gave us a lot of pointers on how we could strengthen the manuscript as per their specifications. They wanted more information on why handwriting is important in the 21st century. A comparison of the Size Matters Handwriting Program to other existing programs was also felt to be needed to further substantiate why ours is different.
It was also interesting to read how one man’s APA standards are different from another’s. All of us were baffled by those critiques, but since we aim to please (and to get published), we’ll make those changes, too.
Tables needed an accompanying narrative. More statistical calculations were requested. I can’t even tell you which ones they preferred, but out statistician is already hot on the trail. If there was ever a man who could argue his ANCOVA over his ANOVA, it’s Eugene.
So, we’re still at it. This doesn’t dilute the merit or validity of the study. It just delays the public from knowing how effective the Size Matters Handwriting Program is.
Guess you’ll have to tell them yourselves.