Introduction
In scholarly communication, the act of authors submitting articles to journals, conferences, or other publication venues is a fundamental component of the research lifecycle. Submissions represent the point at which research findings transition from the laboratory or office into the broader academic discourse. This process involves a series of structured steps designed to ensure that the work meets the standards of rigor, originality, and ethical conduct expected by the scientific community.
The submission process is governed by a set of conventions that have evolved over time. These conventions cover aspects such as manuscript formatting, authorship attribution, conflict‑of‑interest disclosure, and the peer‑review workflow. While the core principles remain consistent across disciplines, variations exist depending on the type of publication, the target audience, and the policies of individual journals or publishers.
History and Background
Early Publication Practices
Prior to the digital age, the dissemination of research findings largely relied on print journals and conference proceedings. Authors would prepare manuscript copies, usually in manuscript form or as typed manuscripts, and physically mail them to publishers or conference secretariats. The process was time‑consuming and required careful attention to printing conventions, such as page layout and typeface. Correspondence between authors and editors was conducted via postal mail, adding further delays.
Emergence of Electronic Submission Systems
With the advent of the World Wide Web and electronic communications in the late 1990s, many journals began to adopt online submission platforms. These systems automated routine tasks such as file uploads, metadata entry, and communication with reviewers. Editorial Manager, ScholarOne Manuscripts, and Editorial Express are among the most widely used platforms that have become standards in many publishing houses.
Open Access and the Digital Revolution
The open access movement, which gained momentum in the early 2000s, introduced new submission modalities. Authors could now choose between subscription‑based journals and open‑access venues, sometimes requiring the payment of article processing charges (APCs). This shift led to changes in submission guidelines, particularly regarding data availability statements, licensing (e.g., Creative Commons), and compliance with funder mandates.
Standardization of Reporting Guidelines
Throughout the 2000s, several reporting standards were developed to improve the transparency and reproducibility of research. Examples include CONSORT for randomized trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, and ARRIVE for animal research. Many journals now require authors to adhere to these guidelines, which are explicitly referenced in the submission instructions.
Key Concepts in Author Submissions
Authorship and Corresponding Author Responsibilities
Authorship criteria, as outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), typically require substantial contributions to the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation, drafting or critically revising the manuscript, and final approval of the version to be published. The corresponding author acts as the primary point of contact for the editorial office, handles the submission process, and often coordinates communication among co‑authors. Correspondence responsibilities also include ensuring that all authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript and that any conflicts of interest are disclosed.
Manuscript Structure and Formatting
Standard scholarly manuscripts generally follow a structured format: Title page, abstract, keywords, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest, funding statement, references, and, where appropriate, supplementary material. The exact structure may vary by discipline or journal style guide. Manuscripts must adhere to specific formatting rules concerning font size, line spacing, margin widths, heading styles, and citation style (e.g., APA, Vancouver, Chicago).
Metadata and Indexing
Accurate metadata - including article title, author names, affiliations, abstract, keywords, and subject terms - facilitates indexing in databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Authors should use standardized institutional names and ORCID identifiers to ensure proper attribution. Proper metadata also enhances discoverability through search engines and academic search portals.
Ethical Considerations
Authors are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines concerning human and animal subjects, data integrity, plagiarism, and authorship integrity. Institutional review board (IRB) approval statements, informed consent, and animal care statements are typically required for research involving human or animal subjects. Data availability statements are increasingly mandatory, providing information on how readers can access the underlying data or code.
Copyright and Licensing
Upon acceptance, many journals require authors to transfer copyright to the publisher. However, open‑access venues often allow authors to retain copyright and license their work under Creative Commons terms. Authors must read and understand the licensing options, as they affect how the work can be reused by others.
Submission Workflow
Pre‑Submission Preparation
Before initiating the submission, authors should: 1) conduct a thorough literature review to ensure novelty; 2) verify that the manuscript complies with the target journal’s scope; 3) confirm that all co‑authors have approved the manuscript; 4) prepare a cover letter that succinctly summarizes the contribution and its relevance to the journal; 5) assemble supplementary files (figures, tables, datasets, code, ethics documents); and 6) ensure that all figures and tables meet resolution and formatting requirements.
Online Submission Platforms
Most journals now use web‑based submission systems. The general steps include:
- Registration or login to the author account.
- Selection of manuscript type (original research, review, case report, etc.).
- Uploading the manuscript file and any supplementary files.
- Entering manuscript metadata (title, abstract, keywords, author information).
- Declaring compliance with ethical standards, conflicts of interest, and data availability.
- Submitting the cover letter.
- Reviewing the submission for completeness and accuracy.
- Confirming submission.
These steps are often guided by prompts and checklists embedded in the platform, reducing the likelihood of errors.
Initial Editorial Screening
Upon receipt, the editor or editorial office conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s scope and meets basic quality standards. Manuscripts that fail this screening are returned to authors with brief comments. Those that pass proceed to peer review.
Peer Review Process
Peer review typically follows one of several models:
- Single‑blind review – reviewers know the authors’ identities, but authors do not know the reviewers.
- Double‑blind review – both authors and reviewers are anonymized.
- Open review – identities of both parties are disclosed, and reviews may be published alongside the article.
Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodology, data analysis, interpretation, and overall contribution. They provide comments and recommend one of the following decisions: accept, revise (major or minor), or reject. Authors receive reviewer reports and must respond with a detailed rebuttal and revised manuscript if required.
Revisions and Resubmission
When revisions are requested, authors should carefully address each reviewer comment. A point‑by‑point response letter is typically required, detailing how each comment was handled. Minor revisions may lead to a quick acceptance, whereas major revisions can involve multiple cycles of review. Authors should adhere to any specified deadlines and guidelines for resubmission.
Acceptance and Proofing
Once a manuscript is accepted, the production team prepares the proofs. Authors review the galley proofs to check for formatting errors, typographical mistakes, and figure quality. Corrections are communicated to the production editor, who makes the necessary changes before final publication.
Publication and Post‑Publication Updates
Published articles are assigned Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) and are typically made available online and/or in print. Authors may update their articles through the journal’s post‑publication correction or erratum system if errors are discovered after release. Some publishers allow authors to provide updated versions of their data or code repositories.
Journal and Publication Types
Subscription‑Based Journals
These journals rely on subscription revenues for funding. Authors generally do not pay APCs, but the cost of the research may be passed onto readers or institutions. Acceptance rates for subscription journals tend to be lower, and the review process can be more rigorous.
Open‑Access Journals
Open‑access journals provide free, immediate access to published content. They often charge APCs to cover editorial and production costs. Some open‑access publishers employ a tiered APC system based on article length or supplemental material. The open‑access model increases visibility and citation potential but requires authors to secure funding for APCs.
Hybrid Journals
Hybrid journals offer both subscription and open‑access options. Authors can choose to pay an APC to make their article open access while the rest of the journal remains subscription‑based. Hybrid models are common among established publishers.
Conference Proceedings
Academic conferences often publish accepted papers in proceedings. The review process for proceedings may be less extensive than for journals, but the papers are still subject to editorial scrutiny. Proceedings provide a venue for rapid dissemination of preliminary findings.
Preprint Servers
Preprint servers allow authors to deposit manuscripts before formal peer review. This accelerates the sharing of results, facilitates early feedback, and can increase visibility. Many journals allow preprint postings, but policies vary by discipline and publisher.
Common Challenges and Best Practices
Managing Co‑Author Coordination
Effective communication among co‑authors is essential to ensure timely manuscript preparation, ethical compliance, and revision handling. Regular meetings, shared document platforms, and clear role assignments help mitigate delays.
Adhering to Formatting Guidelines
Failure to comply with a journal’s formatting guidelines can lead to desk rejection or additional work. Authors should download and utilize the journal’s template files, often available in Word, LaTeX, or XML formats, and validate the manuscript using checklists or automated tools.
Ethical Oversight and Compliance
Authors must secure IRB or ethics committee approvals when required and include the corresponding statements in the manuscript. Data fabrication, plagiarism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest can result in retraction or institutional penalties.
Managing APCs and Funding
APC budgets should be planned early. Many institutions provide open‑access funds or grant agencies require open‑access publication, influencing author decisions. Negotiating reduced APC rates or waivers may be possible for authors from low‑income countries or early‑career researchers.
Ensuring Data Availability
Data sharing policies are increasingly mandatory. Authors should deposit raw data in reputable repositories (e.g., Dryad, Figshare, Zenodo) and provide persistent identifiers. Providing code and detailed methodological documentation further enhances reproducibility.
Case Studies
Case Study 1: Rapid Publication in a High‑Impact Journal
A research team investigating a novel therapeutic target followed a rigorous pre‑submission checklist, including compliance with the CONSORT statement for a randomized controlled trial. Their manuscript was submitted through an online system, passed initial editorial screening, and was assigned to two experienced reviewers. The authors responded to minor revision requests within the stipulated two‑week deadline and submitted a revised manuscript with a detailed response letter. The journal accepted the manuscript within six weeks of initial submission, highlighting the efficiency of the process when authors adhere to guidelines.
Case Study 2: Open‑Access Publication with APC Waiver
An early‑career researcher from a developing country submitted a manuscript to an open‑access journal that offered APC waivers for authors from low‑income countries. The author provided proof of institutional affiliation and requested a waiver. The editorial office approved the waiver after verifying eligibility. The article was accepted following peer review, and the author later uploaded the supplementary dataset to a public repository. The publication increased the author’s visibility and led to collaboration opportunities.
Case Study 3: Manuscript Rejection due to Formatting Non‑Compliance
A senior scientist submitted a manuscript that satisfied scientific quality but did not follow the target journal’s specified formatting guidelines. The editor performed an initial screening and returned the manuscript with a note about the non‑compliance. The authors revised the formatting but failed to update the metadata and did not re‑upload the manuscript within the required timeframe. Consequently, the manuscript was rejected. This case underscores the importance of meticulous adherence to submission instructions.
Future Trends in Author Submissions
Automated Manuscript Preparation
Natural language processing tools are increasingly being used to assist authors in structuring manuscripts, checking for plagiarism, and ensuring compliance with style guidelines. Some platforms integrate these tools directly into the submission workflow, providing real‑time feedback.
Machine‑Learning‑Based Reviewer Matching
Editorial systems are experimenting with algorithms to match manuscripts with reviewers based on expertise, past review performance, and conflict‑of‑interest considerations. This technology aims to improve reviewer quality and reduce editorial burden.
Pre‑Review Platforms
Initiatives such as PubPeer and PubMed Central's Early View allow authors to share manuscripts with the community for informal feedback before formal peer review, potentially accelerating the refinement process.
Enhanced Data Transparency
Mandates for data deposition are becoming stricter. Future submission systems may require integration with data repositories, ensuring that datasets are automatically linked to the published article via persistent identifiers.
Dynamic Publishing Models
Some publishers are moving towards continuous publishing, where articles are published as soon as they are ready rather than in issues. This model changes the timing and coordination of submission, review, and production workflows.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!