| Course | NU806 DNP Project III |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Journal selection and cover letter |
| Length | About 840 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU806 Unit 9
Three Journals Compared, One Chosen, One Letter: A Unit 9 Journal Selection and Cover Letter for an Insulin Discharge Manuscript
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU806: DNP Project III
Unit 9 Journal Selection and Cover Letter
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The project, manuscript and author are composite; the journals named are real, and their scope is described in general terms that should be checked against current author guidelines.
What the Manuscript Is
The manuscript is a quality improvement report of about 3,500 words written to SQUIRE 2.0, which most quality journals ask authors of improvement reports to follow (Ogrinc et al., 2016). Its main contributions are a low-cost delivery model, a dated record of eleven adaptations and an unexpected finding about correction scales. Its main outcome, a fall in 30-day returns from 14.3 to 9.0 percent, is not statistically significant. A journal that values implementation detail and honest reporting of uncertain outcomes is the best fit.
The Three Candidates
Journal of Nursing Care Quality. A peer-reviewed journal for nurses working in quality and safety, publishing improvement projects and quality studies across settings. Its readers are the people most likely to adopt the delivery model. It fits the manuscript's design and its focus on implementation.
Clinical Diabetes. The American Diabetes Association's journal for clinicians, which publishes practical articles, including reports of quality improvement in diabetes care. Its readers would value the correction-scale finding. It reaches physicians and educators more than nurse leaders, and the bundle's nursing structure might interest them less.
MEDSURG Nursing. The journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses, read by bedside and unit nurses. The bundle was delivered by medical-surgical nurses, and its practical changes would interest them. Its readers are less likely to lead hospital-wide spread.
The right journal is the one whose readers would change something on Monday after reading the paper.
Checking Legitimacy
Oermann et al. (2018) examined a random sample of 358 papers from predatory nursing outlets; the papers looked like proper research reports on the surface, yet errors and off-topic studies were common, the mark of review that barely happened. All three candidates were checked against signs of legitimacy: publication by an established professional association or publisher, a named editorial board of recognized experts, indexing in major databases such as CINAHL and MEDLINE where applicable, clear peer review and transparent fees. All three passed. Unsolicited invitations received after the poster was accepted came from two journals that failed these checks and were declined.
The Choice
The Journal of Nursing Care Quality is the first choice, because its readers are the nurse leaders and quality staff who would spread a bundle like this one, and because it publishes improvement reports in which the implementation is the contribution. Clinical Diabetes is the second choice if the manuscript is declined. Before submission, the manuscript will be checked against the journal's current author guidelines for length, abstract format, reference style and required reporting checklists, since these change and are not repeated here.
Authorship and Disclosure
The authors were chosen against the four ICMJE tests, a real contribution to the work, a hand in writing or revising it, approval of the final text and a readiness to be accountable for every part of it (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [ICMJE], 2024). The student, the director of nursing quality and the diabetes educator meet these criteria. The resource nurses and analyst are thanked in the acknowledgments. No author has a financial conflict.
Cover Letter
Dear Editor,
I am submitting the enclosed manuscript, a quality improvement report on taking an insulin readiness bundle from two pilot wards to every adult unit of one hospital, for consideration by the Journal of Nursing Care Quality.
A first prescription of insulin written in the hospital is a common prelude to an early return with a glucose that has gone too high or too low. Over about a year we carried a five-part bundle to eight adult units of a regional hospital, with a resource nurse on each: a watched dose on the patient's own pen, a plain plan, the pen on the first insulin day, early two-way texts and a class. All five parts reached 81 percent of patients without slowing discharges. Within a month of discharge, 9.0 percent came back against 14.3 percent before; the fall matches earlier studies, falls short of significance and is reported with its whole interval.
Three parts of the paper may serve your readers best: a way to deliver the bundle without new positions, a dated log of eleven adaptations made as it met very different units and an observation that patients given correction scales were often unsure of their dose.
The manuscript follows SQUIRE 2.0. It is not under consideration elsewhere and has not been published, apart from a poster abstract. The chair of the hospital's research review board classified the work as quality improvement. All authors meet ICMJE criteria and report no conflicts of interest.
Thank you for considering our work.
Sincerely, The corresponding author
References
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2024). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
Oermann, M. H., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L., Ashton, K. S., Conklin, J. L., Edie, A. H., Amarasekara, S., & Williams, B. L. (2018). Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook, 66(1), 4-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005
Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986-992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411
Reading the NU 806 Unit 9 instructions
Unit 9 commonly asks students to choose a journal for a manuscript from their DNP project and to write the cover letter to its editor. Expect to describe the manuscript, compare two or three candidate journals on scope, readers and article types and explain the choice. Most prompts require a check for predatory journals, using recognized signs of legitimacy. Authorship and disclosure are often included, applying a standard such as the ICMJE criteria. The cover letter should state the title or topic, the article type, why the work suits the journal and its readers, that it is not under review elsewhere and any disclosures. Instructors look for a choice driven by fit, not prestige. Current author guidelines must be read before submission, and quoting word limits from memory is risky because journals revise them.
How this NU806 Unit 9 example is built
The paper opens with what the manuscript is, a quality improvement report written to SQUIRE 2.0 with a clear delivery result and an uncertain outcome. Each candidate journal is then described by its readers and fit, beneath a highlighted line that the right journal is the one whose readers would change something on Monday. A legitimacy section summarizes Oermann and colleagues' findings and lists the checks applied, noting two predatory invitations declined. The choice and a second choice follow, with a promise to check current guidelines. An authorship section applies the ICMJE criteria to the actual team. The cover letter closes the paper, introducing the manuscript, summarizing the project and its uncertain result, naming three contributions and giving the standard statements on originality, ethics review and conflicts.
Reading the NU806 Unit 9 grading rubric
Graders of this unit usually weigh fit, legitimacy and professionalism. The comparison of journals earns credit when it addresses readers, scope and article types, and when the choice follows from the manuscript's strengths. A legitimacy check grounded in evidence about predatory publishing shows awareness of a real risk. Authorship decisions should apply a recognized standard to named roles. The cover letter is often graded on its own: concise, addressed to the editor, clear about the article type and contribution and complete in its statements on originality and disclosures. Honesty about results in the letter is expected. Professional tone throughout and correct APA 7 citations for the standards and studies complete the rubric.
Common NU806 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Journal selection papers often choose the most famous journal in the field without asking whether it publishes improvement reports or reaches the right readers. Another frequent problem is skipping the legitimacy check, which can lead to submission to a predatory outlet. Some students quote word limits or fees from memory instead of checking current guidelines. Cover letters slip when they repeat the abstract, oversell the results or forget the statement that the work is not under review elsewhere. Authorship is sometimes given to people who did not meet the criteria, or withheld from those who did. Before drafting, read three recent articles from each candidate journal and ask whether yours would sit comfortably beside them. A custom paper can compare journals for your own manuscript.
Get an NU806 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Send your project, candidate journals and the instructions with the rubric. A custom paper compares journals and drafts the cover letter. It comes back within 24-48h, and the first is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More NU806 papers and DNP samples
- NU806 Unit 1: DNP Dissemination Plan Post
- NU806 Unit 2: DNP Results Section
- NU806 Unit 3: DNP Discussion Section
- NU806 Unit 4: Structured QI Abstract
- NU806 Unit 5: DNP Contribution Seminar Reflection
- NU806 Unit 6: DNP Project Poster
- NU806 Unit 7: DNP Project Executive Summary
- NU806 Unit 8: DNP Final Defense Presentation
- NU806 Unit 10: Program Reflection
- NU813 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- NU804 Unit 9: DNP Leadership Reflection
- NU823 Unit 9: Sustainability Plan
- NU803 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection, A Week-One Spike
NU806 Unit 9 questions, answered
How do I choose a journal?
Match the journal's scope, readers, article types and author guidelines to the project, and check that it is not predatory.
What goes in a cover letter?
The title, the article type, why the work suits the journal, a statement that it is not under review elsewhere and any disclosures.
Should I check author guidelines first?
Yes. Word limits and reporting guidelines decide how the manuscript is written.
Where can I find a free NU806 Unit 9 sample paper?
The complete NU806 Unit 9 journal selection and cover letter is printed on this page, comparing three nursing and diabetes journals and drafting the letter to the editor of the one chosen.
How does the NU806 Unit 9 sample check for predatory journals?
It looks for an established publisher or association, a recognized editorial board, indexing in major databases, clear peer review and transparent fees, guided by research on predatory nursing journals.