Submission Process

1. Overview of the Submission Process

1.1 The Journey from Manuscript to Publication

Submitting research for publication is a multi-stage process that requires careful preparation, attention to detail, and patience. Understanding each stage helps researchers navigate the process more effectively.

STAGE 1 — PREPARATION: Manuscript writing, formatting, and journal selection
STAGE 2 — SUBMISSION: Online submission, cover letter, required documents
STAGE 3 — EDITORIAL SCREENING: Initial check, scope assessment, desk rejection
STAGE 4 — PEER REVIEW: Reviewer assignment, review cycle, revision request
STAGE 5 — DECISION: Accept, revise, or reject
STAGE 6 — POST-ACCEPTANCE: Proofreading, copyright, publication, promotion

1.2 Typical Timeline

Stage	Typical Duration	Notes
Manuscript preparation	2-8 weeks	Depends on complexity and field
Journal selection	1-2 weeks	Research and evaluation
Editorial screening	1-4 weeks	Desk rejection if out of scope
Peer review	4-16 weeks	Varies widely by field and journal
Revision	2-12 weeks	Depends on revision type
Production	2-8 weeks	Proofing, typesetting, final approval
Total	4-12 months	From submission to publication

PLAN AHEAD: Begin the submission process well before any deadlines (tenure review, grant reporting, graduation requirements). Factor in time for potential major revisions or rejections requiring resubmission.

2. Preparing Your Manuscript

2.1 Writing a Strong Manuscript

A well-written manuscript is the foundation of a successful submission. Key principles include:

Clarity: Write in clear, concise language. Avoid unnecessary jargon.
Structure: Follow the standard IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) unless the journal specifies otherwise.
Originality: Ensure the work is original and not under consideration elsewhere.
Evidence-based: Support all claims with appropriate evidence and citations.
Logical flow: Ensure each section transitions smoothly to the next.
Accuracy: Verify all data, calculations, and references.

2.2 The IMRaD Structure

Section	Purpose	Key Content
Abstract	Provide a brief overview	Background, methods, key results, conclusion (150-300 words)
Keywords	Facilitate discovery	5-8 relevant terms for indexing
Introduction	Establish context and rationale	Research problem, literature review, gap, objectives, hypotheses
Methods	Describe methodology	Study design, participants, materials, procedures, analysis methods
Results	Present findings	Data, statistics, tables, figures (no interpretation)
Discussion	Interpret results	Implications, comparison with literature, limitations, conclusions
Conclusion	Summarize main points	Key findings, contributions, future research directions
References	Cite sources	Complete list in required citation style
Acknowledgments	Recognize contributors	Funding, technical assistance, reviewers

2.3 Title Page Elements

Title of the manuscript (clear, concise, informative)
Full names and affiliations of all authors
Author contributions statement
Corresponding author contact information (email, phone, address)
ORCID iDs for all authors (increasingly required)
Disclosure statement (conflicts of interest)
Funding sources and grant numbers

TITLE BEST PRACTICE: Include key variables, population, and methodology in the title. Avoid unnecessary words like "A Study of" or "An Investigation into." Aim for 10-15 words.

3. Formatting and Structure

3.1 General Formatting Guidelines

Element	Common Requirement
Font	Times New Roman, 12pt (or as specified by journal)
Line spacing	Double-spaced
Margin	1 inch (2.54 cm) on all sides
Page limit	Varies: 6-30 pages (depending on journal)
Word count	Varies: 3,000-10,000 words
Abstract limit	150-300 words
Number of figures/tables	Varies; check journal guidelines
File format	DOCX or PDF (some journals require both)

3.2 Citation Styles

Style	Commonly Used In	Example (In-text)
APA (7th edition)	Psychology, Education, Social Sciences	(Smith, 2023)
MLA (9th edition)	Humanities, Literature	(Smith 42)
Chicago (Notes-Bibliography)	History, Some Social Sciences	Footnote with full citation
IEEE	Engineering, Computer Science	[1]
Vancouver / NLM	Medicine, Health Sciences	(1) or ¹
HARVARD	General academic, Economics	(Smith, 2023)
AMA	Medicine, Health	¹

USE REFERENCE MANAGER: Use citation management tools like Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote, or Citavi to format references automatically in the required citation style.

3.3 Figures and Tables

Figures should be high-resolution (300+ DPI for images, 600+ DPI for line art)
Tables should be created using Word's table feature (not as images)
Each figure needs a caption and legend explaining symbols and abbreviations
Each table needs a title and notes explaining abbreviations and data sources
Number figures and tables consecutively as they appear in the text
Ensure all figures and tables are cited in the manuscript text
Use color-blind-friendly palettes for figures
File formats: TIFF, EPS, or PNG for figures; DOCX or XLSX for tables

3.4 Supplementary Materials

Supplementary/Additional files can include:

Large datasets that cannot fit in the main article
Additional tables, figures, or appendices
Methods details, protocols, or questionnaires
Code, software, or algorithms
Video or audio files

ORGANIZE FILES: Name supplementary files clearly (e.g., "Supplementary_Table_S1.xlsx") and reference them in the main text. Ensure each file has a title and brief description.

4. Selecting the Right Journal

4.1 Key Criteria for Journal Selection

Criterion	Why It Matters
Scope and focus	Must align with your research topic and contributions
Audience	Ensure your work reaches the right readership
Impact factor / ranking	Reflects the journal's influence in the field
Peer review quality	Rigorous review improves manuscript quality
Turnaround time	Important for meeting deadlines
Acceptance rate	Indicates selectivity; lower rates mean more competition
Publication model	OA vs. subscription; APC costs
Indexing status	Affects visibility and academic credit
Reputation	Established journals carry more weight

4.2 Tools for Finding the Right Journal

Tool	Purpose	URL
Merian Journal Finder	Match manuscript to journals using title/abstract	meridian-atlas.com/journal-finder
JANE (Journal/Author Name Estimator)	Find journals publishing similar work	jane.nlm.nih.gov
Elsevier Journal Finder	Match abstract to Elsevier journals	journalfinder.elsevier.com
Springer Journal Suggester	Suggest Springer journals for your manuscript	journalsuggester.springer.com
Wiley Journal Finder	Match manuscript to Wiley journals	journalfinder.wiley.com
DOAJ	Find quality OA journals	doaj.org
Scopus Source List	Find Scopus-indexed journals by subject	scopus.com/sources

4.3 Questions to Ask Before Choosing

Does the journal's scope match my research topic?
Have I read recent articles in this journal to understand its style?
What is the journal's current acceptance rate?
What is the average time from submission to first decision?
Is the journal indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, or DOAJ?
What are the APCs, and are waivers available?
Does the journal allow preprint submission?
What is the journal's rejection rate for desk rejection?
Are there any concerns about the journal's reputation?

CONSULT YOUR LIBRARY: Your institution's library can help evaluate journals, check subscription access, and advise on transformative agreements that may cover APCs.

5. Gathering Required Materials

5.1 Common Required Documents

Document	Purpose
Manuscript file	The main research article (formatted per guidelines)
Title page	Contains author details, affiliations, corresponding author info
Cover letter	Introduces the manuscript, highlights significance
Highlight / Graphical Abstract	Visual or bullet-point summary of key findings
Author contribution statement	Describes each author's role (CRediT taxonomy)
Conflict of interest statement	Discloses any potential conflicts
Funding statement	Identifies funding sources and grant numbers
Data availability statement	Describes how data can be accessed
Ethics approval documentation	For studies involving humans or animals
Suggested reviewers	Optional: suggest qualified reviewers (or request exclusions)
Supplementary files	Additional data, figures, or methods

5.2 Author Contribution Statement (CRediT)

The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system provides standardized roles:

Role	Description
Conceptualization	Ideas; formulation of original research goals
Methodology	Development/design of methodology; creation of models
Software	Programming; software development; coding
Validation	Verification (reproduction) of results
Formal analysis	Application of statistical, mathematical, computational techniques
Investigation	Conducting the research; data gathering
Resources	Providing materials, reagents, samples, instruments
Data Curation	Management of data; metadata
Writing — Original Draft	Initial writing (including abstract)
Writing — Review & Editing	Revision/editing of manuscript
Visualization	Preparation of figures, tables, visualizations
Supervision	Leadership responsibility for research
Project administration	Management and coordination of research activities
Funding acquisition	Securing financial support

                                 Example CRediT statement:
Alice Smith: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing — Original Draft. Bob Johnson: Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing — Review & Editing. Carol Lee: Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
                                 

5.3 Ethics and Compliance Documents

Study Type	Required Documentation
Human subjects	IRB approval, informed consent forms
Animal subjects	IACUC approval, animal care protocol
Clinical trials	Registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP)
Confidential data	Data use agreement, privacy impact assessment
Genetic/biological samples	Material transfer agreement, consent documentation

RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL: If you did not obtain ethics approval before conducting research, contact your IRB/IACUC immediately. Some institutions allow retrospective review, but it must be disclosed in the manuscript.

6. The Online Submission System

6.1 Common Submission Systems

System	Publisher/Platform
Editorial Manager	Elsevier, many societies
ScholarOne Manuscripts	Wiley, Taylor & Francis, AIP
Open Journal Systems (OJS)	Scholarly publishing platform
Manuscript Central	Alternative name for ScholarOne
Springer Nature Submission Portal	Springer Nature journals
PLOS Submission System	PLOS journals
MDPI Submissions	MDPI journals

6.2 Step-by-Step Submission Process

STEP 1: Create an account on the journal's submission system (or log in)

STEP 2: Click "Submit New Manuscript" or equivalent

STEP 3: Enter manuscript title, abstract, keywords, and subject categories

STEP 4: Add all authors in the correct order (confirm with each author)

STEP 5: Upload manuscript files (main text, figures, tables, supplementary)

STEP 6: Upload required files (cover letter, ethics documents, etc.)

STEP 7: Suggest reviewers (if requested) and provide exclusion reasons (if applicable)

STEP 8: Review and confirm all metadata is accurate

STEP 9: Generate and sign the submission form (PDF)

STEP 10: Final approval and submission confirmation

6.3 Suggesting Reviewers

Many journals ask authors to suggest potential reviewers:

Choose researchers who are experts in your specific topic
Include at least 3-5 suggestions with email addresses and affiliations
Avoid collaborators, close colleagues, or anyone with conflicts of interest
Check the journal's guidelines for reviewer requirements
Include reviewers from diverse geographic regions

REQUESTING EXCLUSIONS: You may request that specific individuals be excluded as reviewers (e.g., competitors). Provide a legitimate, professional reason — do not make it personal.

6.4 Final Checklist Before Clicking Submit

All author names and affiliations are correct
The corresponding author email is valid and current
The manuscript file is properly formatted per journal guidelines
All figures and tables are included and properly labeled
The cover letter is tailored to this specific journal
Required statements (funding, conflicts, data availability) are included
Ethics documents are attached (if applicable)
ORCID iDs are linked for all authors
The submission PDF is reviewed and signed by the corresponding author

7. Writing the Cover Letter

7.1 Purpose of the Cover Letter

The cover letter introduces your manuscript to the editor and makes a case for why the journal should consider it. It is NOT a repetition of the abstract — it is a persuasive argument for publication.

7.2 Essential Elements

Address the editor by name (find it on the journal's editorial board page)
State the manuscript title and article type
Summarize the main findings and their significance
Explain why the work is a good fit for this specific journal
Highlight the novelty and contribution to the field
Confirm the work is original and not under consideration elsewhere
Confirm all authors have read and approved the manuscript
Suggest potential reviewers (if requested)
Disclose any conflicts of interest
Mention any related papers you have published in the journal (if applicable)

7.3 Cover Letter Template

                                 Dear Dr. [Editor's Last Name],

                                 I am pleased to submit our manuscript entitled "[Full Manuscript Title]" for consideration
                                 as a [Article Type, e.g., Research Article] in [Journal Name].

                                 In this study, we [brief summary of what was done and key finding]. Our results demonstrate
                                 [key contribution/novelty]. We believe this work is particularly appropriate for [Journal
                                 Name] because [reason — e.g., it aligns with the journal's focus on X, it addresses
                                 an important gap in the field, it will interest the journal's readership because...].

                                 This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication
                                 elsewhere. All authors have read and approved the manuscript and agree with its submission
                                 to [Journal Name].

                                 We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. [Or: We disclose the following conflict:
                                 ...]

                                 Thank you for considering our manuscript. We look forward to your response.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 [Name]

                                 [Affiliation]

                                 [Email]

PERSONALIZE: A generic cover letter that could be sent to any journal is a missed opportunity. Reference specific articles from the journal, align your contribution with the journal's aims and scope, and show you've done your homework.

8. After Submission: The Review Process

8.1 The Editorial Workflow

1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT: You will receive an email confirming receipt of your submission (usually within 1-2 days)

2. EDITORIAL ASSIGNMENT: The editor-in-chief assigns the manuscript to an handling editor (usually within 1-2 weeks)

3. INITIAL SCREENING: The handling editor checks scope, quality, and formatting (desk rejection or proceed to review)

4. REVIEWER INVITATION: The editor invites peer reviewers (usually 2-4 reviewers)

5. PEER REVIEW: Reviewers submit their reports (typically 4-12 weeks)

6. EDITORIAL DECISION: The editor makes a decision based on reviews (accept, minor revise, major revise, reject)

7. DECISION LETTER: You receive the decision and reviewer comments via email and submission system

8.2 Possible Outcomes After Peer Review

Decision	Meaning	Next Steps
Accept	Very rare; minor formatting issues only	Proceed to production
Minor Revisions	Acceptable with small corrections	Revise and resubmit (usually 2-4 weeks)
Major Revisions	Substantial changes needed; may require re-review	Revise and resubmit (usually 4-12 weeks)
Reject and Resubmit	Reject in current form but welcome resubmission	Significant revision; treat as new submission
Reject	Not suitable for this journal	Consider other journals

8.3 Desk Rejection

A desk rejection occurs when the editor rejects the manuscript without sending it for peer review. Common reasons include:

Out of the journal's scope
Insufficient novelty or significance
Poor writing quality or formatting issues
Previous publication or plagiarism concerns
Insufficient methodological rigor

DON'T BE DISCOURAGED: Desk rejection rates are often 30-50% even for reputable journals. It does not mean the research is bad — it may not be the right fit. Revise your cover letter and target a more appropriate journal.

8.4 Monitoring Your Submission

You can track your manuscript's status through the submission system:

Status	Meaning
Submitted to Journal	Manuscript received; awaiting editor assignment
With Editor	Editor is evaluating the manuscript
Under Review	Reviewers are evaluating the manuscript
Reviewers Assigned	Reviewers invited; awaiting reports
Required Reviews Complete	Reviews received; editor making decision
Decision in Process	Editor is finalizing the decision
Revision Submitted	Revised manuscript submitted (for major revision)
Acceptance/Rejection	Final decision made

BE PATIENT: Do not contact the editor prematurely. Wait at least 2-3 months before sending a polite inquiry about the status. Respect the timeline stated in the journal's Aims & Scope.

9. Dealing with Revisions

9.1 Responding to Reviewer Comments

A revision letter (point-by-point response) is essential. It should address every comment from the editor and reviewers:

Thank the editor and reviewers for their time and constructive feedback
Address each comment individually, in the order presented
State clearly what changes were made (or why you disagree, politely)
Provide line numbers or page references for the changes
Highlight changes in the revised manuscript (e.g., using tracked changes or highlight color)
Be respectful and professional — even if you disagree with a reviewer

9.2 Revision Response Letter Template

                                 Dear Dr. [Editor's Last Name] and Reviewers,


                                 Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript "[Title]" (Manuscript ID: XXX).
                                 We appreciate the constructive feedback from the editor and reviewers, which has helped
                                 us improve the quality of our work. Below we provide a point-by-point response to
                                 each comment.

Reviewer 1:
Comment 1: [Quote the reviewer's comment]
Response: [Your response and explanation of changes]
Changes made: [Line numbers/pages where changes appear]

Reviewer 2:
Comment 1: [Quote the reviewer's comment]
Response: [Your response and explanation of changes]
Changes made: [Line numbers/pages where changes appear]


                                 We believe the revisions have significantly improved the manuscript. We hope the revised
                                 version is now suitable for publication in [Journal Name].


                                 Sincerely,

                                 [Corresponding Author]
                                 

9.3 Common Revision Types

Type	Expectations	Time Allowed
Minor revisions	Clarifications, typos, additional references, small methodological clarifications	2-4 weeks
Major revisions	New analyses, additional experiments, substantial rewriting, additional data	4-12 weeks (sometimes extendable)
Resubmission	Major overhaul; treated as a new manuscript with priority review	As specified (often 3-6 months)

9.4 Requesting an Extension

If you need more time to revise, request an extension BEFORE the deadline:

                                 Dear Dr. [Editor's Last Name],

                                 I am writing to request a brief extension for the revision of our manuscript [ID].
                                 We are making substantial progress on the revisions; however, [brief reason: additional
                                 experiments are taking longer than expected / etc.]. Would it be possible to extend
                                 the deadline to [proposed date]?

                                 Thank you for your consideration.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 [Corresponding Author]

EXTENSION POLICY: Most editors are willing to grant a reasonable extension (typically 2-4 weeks). Always request it in writing before the deadline.

9.5 When You Disagree with a Reviewer

It is acceptable to respectfully disagree with a reviewer, but you must:

Thank the reviewer for the comment
Explain your reasoning clearly and respectfully
Cite relevant literature to support your position
Be specific about what you changed (if any) and what you did not
Avoid dismissive or confrontational language

Reviewer's comment: "The sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions."

Your response: "We thank the reviewer for this important observation. While we agree that a larger
                                 sample would strengthen the study, our sample size is consistent with similar studies
                                 in this field (Smith et al., 2023; Jones et al., 2024). We have added a limitation
                                 statement in the Discussion (page X, lines Y-Z) acknowledging this constraint and
                                 recommending larger-scale validation studies. We hope this addresses the concern."
                                 

10. Post-Acceptance Procedures

10.1 What Happens After Acceptance

1. PROOF NOTIFICATION: The publisher sends galley proofs for final review (usually 1-2 weeks)

2. PROOF REVIEW: Check for errors in text, figures, tables, author names, affiliations

3. COPYRIGHT TRANSFER / LICENSE: Sign copyright form or select open license

4. APC INVOICING: Receive invoice for APC (if applicable); payment processing

5. ONLINE FIRST: Article is published online with DOI before print assignment

6. ISSUE ASSIGNMENT: Article is assigned to a specific issue and volume

7. PROMOTION: Share the published article with your network

10.2 Reviewing Proofs

Proof review is your final chance to catch errors. Check:

Author names and affiliations are correct
Abstract matches the final version
Figures and tables are clear and accurate
References are complete and correct
Mathematical equations and formulas are correct
Supplementary materials are included
Grammar and formatting are consistent
Corresponding author contact information is correct

LIMITED CHANGES: Proofs are for typos and formatting only — do not make substantial changes to content at this stage. Any major changes may delay publication and could incur fees.

10.3 Copyright and License Selection

Option	When to Choose
CC BY 4.0 (Open Access)	Gold OA journal; funder requires CC BY
CC BY-NC 4.0	OA with non-commercial restriction
Copyright Transfer	Traditional subscription journal
Exclusive License to Publisher	Subscription journal with license model
Author Retains Copyright	Diamond OA or society journals

10.4 Paying the APC

Verify the invoice details (journal name, article title, amount)
Confirm the payment method accepted by the publisher
Submit payment within the deadline (typically 30 days)
Request an official receipt for reimbursement
If using a waiver, confirm it has been applied
Keep records for institutional and funder reporting

10.5 Promoting Your Published Work

Share on academic profiles (ResearchGate, Academia.edu, ORCID, Google Scholar)
Post on social media (Twitter/X, LinkedIn) with a lay summary
Tell your institution's press office (for newsworthy research)
Present at conferences and seminars
Share the published PDF on your institutional repository (if permitted)
Write a blog post or newsletter article summarizing the findings
Engage with readers who comment on or cite the work

SHARE YOUR LINK: When promoting your work, always include the DOI link (https://doi.org/xxxxx) to ensure readers access the official published version.

11. Common Rejection Reasons

11.1 Desk Rejection Reasons

Out of scope: The topic does not align with the journal's aims and scope
Lack of novelty: The work does not offer significant new insights
Poor writing: Language quality is insufficient for publication
Formatting issues: Failure to follow journal guidelines
Plagiarism: Similarity check reveals substantial overlap with published work
Inappropriate journal choice: The work is not suited to the journal's impact level

11.2 Post-Review Rejection Reasons

Methodological flaws: Problems with study design, analysis, or interpretation
Insufficient novelty: The findings do not advance the field significantly
Contradictory reviewer reports: Reviewers cannot reach consensus
Scope mismatch identified during review: Reviewers question relevance to the journal
Overstated claims: The authors overstate the significance or generalizability of findings

11.3 Handling Rejection

REJECTION IS NORMAL: Even top journals have acceptance rates below 10%. Use rejection as a learning opportunity. Read the reviewer comments carefully, improve the manuscript, and submit to a new journal.

Do not take rejection personally — it is part of the scholarly process
Consider whether the reviewers' feedback is valid and act on it
Disagree with a decision? You may appeal, but only with strong, documented reasons
Check if the journal offers a "transfer" option to a partner journal
Revise and resubmit to a more appropriate journal (do NOT just send as-is)
Update your cover letter for the new target journal

12. Submission Checklist

12.1 Before You Start the Submission

Manuscript is written in clear, professional language
Manuscript follows the journal's formatting guidelines (font, spacing, length)
All figures are high-resolution and properly labeled
All tables are created using Word's table feature
References are complete and formatted in the required citation style
Title page includes all author names, affiliations, and corresponding author details
Author contribution statement (CRediT) is prepared
Conflict of interest statement is prepared
Funding statement with grant numbers is prepared
Data availability statement is prepared
Ethics approval documents are ready (if applicable)
Supplementary files are organized and named clearly

12.2 During Submission

Journal's scope matches the manuscript topic
Cover letter is tailored to the specific journal
All authors have approved the manuscript and the journal choice
ORCID iDs are linked for all authors
Suggested reviewers are provided (if requested)
All required files are uploaded
Metadata (title, abstract, keywords) is entered accurately
Submission PDF is reviewed and signed
Submission confirmation email is received

12.3 After Submission

Submission confirmation and manuscript ID saved
Monitored the submission system for status updates
Responded to revision requests within the deadline
Submitted a detailed point-by-point response letter
Reviewed galley proofs carefully
Completed copyright/license selection
Processed APC payment (if applicable)
Promoted the published article through professional channels
Updated ORCID, Google Scholar, and other academic profiles

STAY ORGANIZED: Keep a spreadsheet tracking all your submissions — journal name, submission date, manuscript ID, status, revision deadlines, and outcomes. This helps manage multiple submissions and follow-ups.