Submitting your paper to a journal sounds intimidating, but it’s really just a seven-step process:
- Pick the right journal (scope match matters more than impact factor)
- Write the manuscript using the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion)
- Write a cover letter — your paper’s “dating profile” (not a repeat of the abstract)
- Format and prepare files — ORCID IDs are now mandatory; don’t skip them
- Submit through the portal (Editorial Manager, ScholarOne, OJS — they all work the same way)
- Understand peer review — 4-12 weeks, revisions expected for most papers
- Handle revisions — 60-80% of submissions go through revision; it’s not a rejection
Most students waste weeks formatting a paper for a journal whose scope doesn’t match. Pick the journal first. Everything else follows.
Step 1: Choosing the Right Journal
Here’s a truth most students don’t learn until after their first rejection: journal selection is the single most important decision in the submission process. Pick poorly, and your paper will likely be desk-rejected regardless of how well-written it is.
The “Scope-Match Rule”
Before you even look at impact factors or acceptance rates, ask one question: does this journal’s scope match my research? Most journals have a detailed “Aims and Scope” page. Read it. Scan recent issues. If your paper doesn’t fit the topics they publish, no amount of formatting or clever cover letter will save it.
A 2025 analysis of Editorial Manager data showed that 42% of desk rejections occur within the first 24 hours — triggered by automated scope-matching algorithms, not human editor review. If your keywords, abstract, and cover letter don’t include field-specific terms that match the journal’s scope, the algorithm flags your paper before a human ever sees it [Elsevier Researcher Academy].
What to Check Before Submitting
| Criteria |
Why It Matters |
How to Verify |
| Scope alignment |
Prevents desk rejection (the #1 cause) |
Read “Aims and Scope” + scan recent issues |
| Impact factor |
Signals quality; matters for tenure/CV |
Check Journal Citation Reports (Web of Science) |
| Acceptance rate |
Realistic expectation of odds |
Often listed on journal website; some hide it |
| Review time |
Plan your timeline |
4-12 weeks typical; check publisher’s stated average |
| Fees (APC) |
Budget planning; free vs. paid OA |
“Open Access Policy” or “Author Services” page |
| Indexing |
Visibility and legitimacy |
Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, DOAJ |
Scope Match vs. Speed: The Tradeoff
You can submit quickly to a loosely-matching journal and get a fast decision (probably rejection), or take two weeks to carefully match scopes and dramatically increase your odds. The tradeoff is real — but here’s the thing: a month wasted on a poorly-matched journal is a month you could use to revise and resubmit to the right journal. Most journals accept resubmissions if the scope match is strong.
If you’re unsure whether your journal is legitimate, run it through our journal legitimacy checklist — it covers the five verification steps (indexing, publisher, fees, editorial board, ISSN) before you invest time in submission.
Step 2: Writing the Manuscript (IMRaD Structure)
Most empirical research papers follow the IMRaD structure: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. It’s not arbitrary — it’s how scientists communicate. Every journal editor and reviewer expects this format, and deviations signal that you don’t understand academic conventions.
Introduction: Set the Stage
Your introduction should do three things:
- Establish the context — What do we already know about this topic?
- Identify the gap — What’s missing or unknown?
- State your contribution — What does this paper add?
Think of it like building a funnel: start broad (the field), narrow to your specific topic, then land on your research question. Most students write introductions that are too brief or too broad. Aim for 1.5-2 pages, with clear signposting: “In this paper, we…”
Methods: Explain How You Did It
This section should be detailed enough that another researcher could replicate your study. Include:
- Study design (experimental, observational, mixed methods?)
- Participants/samples (who, how many, how selected?)
- Materials (surveys, instruments, software)
- Procedure (step-by-step, what happened first?)
- Analysis methods (statistical tests, software used)
Common mistake (from Cureus research): Students often write methods sections that are too brief — assuming the editor and reviewers know what they did. They don’t. If a reviewer can’t replicate your study from this section, you’ve failed [Cureus Common Mistakes].
Results: Report, Don’t Interpret
Here’s where most students mix up their sections. The Results section is for reporting findings — not explaining them. Save the “why” and “what it means” for the Discussion.
Your results should include:
- Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, sample sizes)
- Inferential statistics (t-tests, ANOVA, regression coefficients)
- Tables and figures that summarize key findings
- Non-significant results too (negative findings matter)
Discussion: Make the Case
Now you can interpret. The Discussion section should:
- Restate your main finding in 1-2 sentences (no new data)
- Compare with prior research (“Unlike X (2023), we found…”)
- Explain limitations honestly (this boosts credibility)
- Suggest practical implications
- End with what’s next (“Future research should…”)
Most reviewers spend the most time on your Discussion because it’s where you prove you understand your own work in context.
Step 3: Writing the Cover Letter
Your cover letter is the most persuasive document in your submission package. It’s not a summary — it’s a pitch. Think of it like a dating profile for your paper: you’re trying to convince the editor (the “matchmaker”) that your work belongs in their journal.
For a full cover letter template with discipline-specific examples and common pitfalls, see our guide to Cover Letters to Journal Editors: Template and Tips.
The 250-Word Cover Letter That Works
A strong cover letter follows a simple structure:
Opening (1 sentence)
“Dear Dr. [Editor’s Name], We are pleased to submit our manuscript entitled ‘[Title]’ for consideration as a Research Article in [Journal Name].”
The Pitch (2-3 paragraphs)
- What did you study and why does it matter?
- What’s novel about your approach or findings?
- Why does this journal’s audience care?
Ethical Statements (1 paragraph)
- Originality (not published, not under consideration elsewhere)
- Authorship approval
- Conflict of interest disclosure
- Suggested reviewers (if journal requires them)
Closing (1 sentence)
“Thank you for your time and consideration.”
Why the Cover Letter Matters More Than You Think
A 2020 survey of journal editors found that 73% read the cover letter before the manuscript, and 68% have desk-rejected papers based solely on a weak cover letter. Here’s what’s happening: editors receive dozens of submissions weekly. They make an initial triage decision in minutes based on the cover letter, abstract, and conclusions. Your cover letter is your first impression — and first impressions are sticky.
The cover letter also needs to work with the automated algorithms. If your cover letter includes field-specific keywords that match the journal’s scope, the automated matching system is more likely to flag your paper as relevant — and get it past the 24-hour desk-rejection window.
Cover Letter Mistakes to Avoid
| Mistake |
Why It’s Bad |
The Fix |
| Repeating the abstract |
Editors see it as lazy |
Write entirely new content focusing on significance |
| Generic one-size-fits-all letter |
Signals mass-submission |
Research each journal’s aims and scope specifically |
| Too long (2-3 pages) |
Wastes editor’s time |
Stick to one page, 250-400 words |
| Missing journal fit explanation |
Editor can’t assess relevance |
Cite recent articles from the journal if possible |
| Ignoring guidelines |
Suggests you’ll ignore everything else |
Create a checklist against the journal’s instructions |
Step 4: Formatting and Preparing Files
This is where most students discover that the submission process has changed dramatically — and compliance requirements are stricter than ever. Skipping this step won’t just delay your submission; it can trigger immediate rejection.
ORCID iD: Now Mandatory
Since 2024, Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley require ORCID iD linkage for all authors on every submission. Missing ORCID IDs cause submission system errors and delay processing. It’s not optional anymore — it’s like forgetting your passport at the airport [Taylor & Francis Author Services].
If you don’t have an ORCID iD, create one at orcid.org. It’s free, and it links all your publications to a unique identifier. Journals use it to disambiguate you from other researchers with similar names.
Preprint Posting Disclosure
Over 70% of STEM journals now require authors to disclose preprint posting (bioRxiv, arXiv, SSRN) in the submission letter. This is a compliance requirement, not optional [PLOS Author Resources]. If your paper was posted as a preprint, include it explicitly:
“This manuscript was previously posted on [preprint server] (DOI: 10.xxxxx) on [date].”
Omitting this disclosure can be grounds for rejection — it’s about transparency and intellectual property.
Suggested Reviewers
Taylor & Francis now requires 3-5 suggested reviewers with ORCID iDs for 80% of submissions. Failing to provide them delays the editorial screening phase. Choose genuine experts — not close colleagues. Provide names, affiliations, emails, and ORCID iDs. You can also request exclusions (e.g., “Please exclude Dr. X due to recent collaboration on a competing project”) [Taylor & Francis Author Services].
File Formatting Checklist
| Requirement |
Details |
| Manuscript format |
Usually Word (.docx) or LaTeX (.tex) |
| Cover letter |
PDF preferred; one page, 250-400 words |
| Figures |
High resolution (300+ DPI), separate files |
| Supplementary materials |
Data files, appendices, additional figures |
| ORCID for all authors |
Mandatory at major publishers |
| Conflict of interest |
Required statement for every submission |
| Data availability |
Required by most journals (repository or statement) |
Step 5: Submitting Through the Portal
Every major journal uses one of three online submission systems: Editorial Manager (Elsevier), ScholarOne (Macmillani/Thomson Reuters), or Open Journal Systems (OJS). Don’t let the platform intimidate you — they all follow the same logic.
What to Expect
When you log into the submission portal, you’ll see a multi-step form:
- Manuscript upload — Attach your manuscript file, cover letter, figures, and supplementary materials
- Author information — Enter all author names, affiliations, ORCID iDs, and roles
- Abstract and keywords — Paste or enter; keywords matter for the automated matching
- Journal selection — Confirm the target journal; sometimes auto-filled from the manuscript submission URL
- Compliance statements — Copyright, ethics, conflicts, data availability
- Suggested reviewers — Enter names, emails, affiliations, ORCIDs
- Final review — Preview everything before submission
Practical Tips
- Read the portal instructions — Each system has a “Help” or “Author Instructions” section that explains what fields are required. Don’t skip it.
- Double-check author order — Many journals won’t let you change author order after submission. Verify it with all co-authors.
- Include suggested reviewers — Even if not explicitly required, providing 3-5 suggests you’re engaged in the process. Editors appreciate it.
- Save your submission confirmation — You’ll receive an email with a submission ID. Reference this in all future correspondence.
Common Pitfalls (From IJHSS Writer’s Perspective)
Writer’s perspective analysis of real submission failures reveals that most errors are procedural, not substantive [IJHSS Writer’s Perspective]. The most common mistakes:
| Pitfall |
Consequence |
Fix |
| Missing author ORCID IDs |
Submission system error; processing delayed |
Create ORCIDs for all authors before submitting |
| Uploading manuscript as PDF when Word required |
Cannot track changes; often rejected |
Check journal’s preferred format |
| Forgetting the cover letter |
Immediate desk rejection |
Always attach it; never skip |
| Wrong journal from submission portal |
May require resubmission; wastes time |
Verify journal name matches your target |
| Incomplete compliance statements |
Delayed processing; editor may reject |
Read “Author Guidelines” carefully |
Step 6: Understanding the Peer Review Process
Now that you’ve submitted, the real question is: what happens next? And here’s where students get confused — because the term “peer review” means two very different things depending on context.
Journal Peer Review vs. Student Peer Review Analysis
A journal peer review is written by professional researchers who evaluate manuscripts for editors making publication decisions. It’s part of academic publishing’s quality control system.
A student peer review analysis (like the one covered in our separate guide) is an educational assignment where you practice critical reading and constructive feedback skills.
Key difference: In journal submission, you’re submitting to peer review. In a student assignment, you write a peer review of someone else’s work. If you need help writing a peer review analysis as a student assignment, see our Peer Review Analysis Guide.
| Feature |
Journal Peer Review |
Student Peer Review |
| Reviewer |
Professional researcher or academic expert |
Peer or classmate |
| Audience |
Editor + author |
Professor + author |
| Purpose |
Gatekeeping for publication |
Learning critical reading |
| Tone |
Highly technical, concise |
Instructional, developmental |
| Format |
Standardized journal templates |
Variable (per professor guidelines) |
The Timeline You Can Expect
Peer review typically takes 4-12 weeks for a first decision, depending on the field and journal [Editage Stages in Research Publishing]. Here’s what happens:
- Editorial screening (1-2 weeks): Editor checks scope, quality, and compliance. This is where the 42% desk-rejection statistic matters — if you’re in this 24-hour window and your cover letter/abstract keywords don’t match, you’re gone.
- Reviewer assignment (1-2 weeks): Editor sends the manuscript to 2-3 experts. If they decline or can’t be reached, the editor waits (and you wait).
- Review period (2-8 weeks): Reviewers read and write their reports. Double-anonymization means they don’t know your identity — 65%+ of journals use double-blind peer review where both author and reviewer identities are hidden.
- Editorial decision (1-2 weeks): Editor synthesizes reviews and makes a decision.
The Most Likely Outcome: Revisions
Here’s the good news: revisions are expected for 60-80% of submissions, and revisions are not rejections. They’re invitations to improve your paper. If your manuscript gets a “Revise and Resubmit” decision, celebrate — it means editors see potential.
Double-anonymization means the reviewers you’re responding to don’t know who you are. This is actually good for students: your work will be evaluated on substance, not reputation.
Step 7: Handling Revisions and Responding to Feedback
Revisions are where most submissions succeed or fail. How you respond matters just as much as the changes you make.
Major vs. Minor Revisions
Minor revisions typically require addressing reviewer comments about clarity, additional references, or small methodological clarifications. You might be able to handle these in a few days.
Major revisions require substantial changes — new analyses, restructured arguments, additional data, or rewritten sections. Expect 30-90 days for major revisions.
How to Respond to Reviewers
Your response letter is a separate document from the revised manuscript. Structure it like this:
- Thank the editor and reviewers — Always start with gratitude.
- Provide a brief overview — Summarize the major changes you made.
- Include a point-by-point response table: Reviewer comment → Author response → Manuscript location (page/line numbers).
- Highlight improvements — Show how the revisions strengthened the paper.
Example: “We thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback. We have substantially revised the manuscript to address all points raised. Major changes include: (1) expanded the literature review (pp. 4-6), (2) added sensitivity analyses (pp. 12-13), and (3) clarified the statistical methods (pp. 8-9). A point-by-point response is provided below.”
Common Revision Mistakes
| Mistake |
Consequence |
The Fix |
| Ignoring reviewer comments |
Suggests arrogance; can trigger rejection |
Address every point, even if you disagree |
| Rebutting without revising |
Reviewers spot defensive responses |
Make the changes they asked for |
| Being too brief in responses |
Seems dismissive; unclear |
Explain your reasoning thoroughly |
| Not updating the manuscript |
Reviewers see no changes; confused |
Every response should reference a page/line in the revised manuscript |
Your Submission Checklist
Before you click “Submit,” run through this final list:
- [ ] Journal scope matches your research (Scope-Match Rule)
- [ ] Journal is legitimate (check our journal legitimacy checklist)
- [ ] Manuscript follows IMRaD structure
- [ ] Cover letter is 250-400 words, addresses editor by name, explains journal fit
- [ ] All author ORCID iDs included
- [ ] Preprint posting disclosed (if applicable)
- [ ] 3-5 suggested reviewers provided with ORCID
- [ ] Compliance statements complete (ethics, conflicts, data availability)
- [ ] Figures are high-resolution and in correct format
- [ ] File types match journal requirements
- [ ] Co-authors have reviewed and approved
What Students Should Do First (Our Recommendation)
Here’s what most students get backward: they spend weeks formatting, writing cover letters, and preparing files before choosing the right journal. The journal selection should always come first.
Think of it this way: formatting a manuscript for a journal that doesn’t match your scope is like packing for a trip to a country you don’t actually plan to visit. You’re working hard, but the effort is wasted.
Take two weeks to identify your top three journal options. Read their aims and scopes. Scan three recent issues of each. Check their acceptance rates and review times. Then — and only then — focus your energy on formatting and submission.
Final Summary
The journal article submission process breaks down into seven clear steps:
- Choose the right journal (scope match matters most)
- Write using IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion)
- Write a cover letter (your paper’s pitch — not a repeat of the abstract)
- Format files and prepare compliance docs (ORCID mandatory; preprint disclosure required)
- Submit through the portal (Editorial Manager, ScholarOne, or OJS)
- Understand peer review (4-12 weeks; revisions expected for 60-80%)
- Handle revisions professionally (address every reviewer comment)
The most common mistake students make is rushing to submit without verifying scope match. The most common compliance error is forgetting ORCID IDs — mandatory since 2024 at major publishers.
Take your time. Check every box. And remember: revisions aren’t rejections — they’re the normal path to publication.
Need help polishing your manuscript after submission? Our team of academic editors can revise your writing for clarity, ensure journal formatting compliance, and check for ethical compliance. Get professional editing assistance here.
Need a fully written manuscript or a polished final draft? Our experienced academic writers can help with every stage — from structuring the IMRaD sections to formatting the submission files. Explore our writing services and get started with a free quote.
What’s the one step in the journal submission process you found most confusing? Drop a comment below — we read every one.
