Journal submission checklist: preparing a manuscript and vetting the journal

Read the author instructions as a specification

Every journal publishes an instructions-for-authors page, and desk rejections are frequently administrative rather than scientific. Treat that page as a specification and work through it line by line against your manuscript.

• Article type selected — original research, review, short communication or case report
• Word limits for the abstract, main text and individual sections
• Required section order and headings
• Abstract format: structured or unstructured, and the required subheadings
• Keyword count and any controlled vocabulary the journal asks for
• Reference style and maximum number of references
• Manuscript file format, line numbering and spacing requirements
• Required statements: ethics approval, consent, funding, conflict of interest, data availability, author contributions
• Reporting guideline required for your study type, and its completed checklist if requested

Prepare figures, tables and supplementary files

Figure preparation is where most authors lose time at the upload stage, because submission systems reject files silently or convert them badly. Prepare figures against the journal's stated requirements rather than against how they look in your draft.

• Export figures at the resolution and file format the journal specifies, not as screenshots.
• Make every figure readable in greyscale and avoid relying on colour alone to distinguish categories.
• Keep axis labels, units and sample sizes on the figure itself.
• Number figures and tables in the order they are first mentioned in the text.
• Write captions that can be understood without reading the main text.
• Supply tables as editable text, not as images.
• Obtain and document written permission for any figure reproduced from another source.

If the journal uses double-anonymous review, prepare a separate title page and strip author names, affiliations, acknowledgements and identifying file metadata from the main manuscript. Self-citations written as "in our previous study" also break anonymity and should be rephrased.

Check references before the system does

Reference errors are easy to fix before submission and embarrassing afterwards. Run a check with your reference manager, then verify a sample by hand, because managers reproduce whatever was imported.

• Every in-text citation appears in the reference list, and every list entry is cited in the text
• The style matches the journal's requirement exactly, including punctuation and author-name format
• DOIs are present where available and resolve correctly
• Journal names are abbreviated or written in full as the style requires
• Preprints, retracted articles and secondary citations are identified as such
• Page ranges, volumes, issues and years match the original articles

Vet the journal before you submit

Choosing the journal deserves as much attention as writing the paper. Start with scope: read the aims and scope statement, then read the titles of the last two issues. If nothing resembles your study in topic, method or scale, the paper will most likely be rejected without review however good it is.

Then check the journal itself. The independent Think. Check. Submit. initiative publishes a widely used checklist for this: the Think. Check. Submit. checklist for journals. Working through it is a sensible step before any first submission, particularly for a journal that approached you by email. Its questions cover whether you or your colleagues have heard of the journal, whether you can easily identify and contact the publisher, whether the editorial board is real and verifiable, whether the peer review process is clearly described, and whether any charges are stated openly before submission.

• Scope and recent article topics genuinely match your study
• Indexing claims verified in the databases themselves, not on the journal's own website
• Publisher identifiable, contactable, and with a real registered address
• Editorial board members are real researchers whose affiliation you can confirm
• The peer review model and expected timelines are described
• All charges — submission fees, article processing charges, page or colour charges — disclosed clearly before you submit
• Copyright, licensing and self-archiving terms acceptable to you and your funder
• Your institution's or funder's own list of approved or excluded journals checked

Be cautious with unsolicited invitations promising very fast publication or guaranteed acceptance, with journals whose titles closely imitate an established one, and with charges that were never disclosed on the journal website or that appear unexpectedly during the process. A stated submission fee is not by itself a warning sign — some legitimate journals charge one — but an undisclosed or surprise fee is. If several of the checklist questions are difficult to answer, choose a different journal.

Write a short, specific cover letter

A cover letter should take an editor under a minute to read. State the title and article type, say in two or three sentences what the study found and why it fits this journal's scope and readership, and confirm that the work is original, not under consideration elsewhere, and approved by all authors.

Add anything the journal asks for — suggested or excluded reviewers, prior presentation of the work, or a related submission. Avoid overstating the contribution; editors read a great many letters claiming a breakthrough, and specific findings are more persuasive than adjectives.

A final pass before you upload

• Corresponding author details, ORCID iDs and affiliations correct for every author
• All co-authors have read and approved the final version
• Ethics approval number and consent statement included where applicable
• Funding and conflict-of-interest statements complete
• Data availability statement matches what you can actually share
• A similarity check run and any unintended overlap addressed
• Filenames and file types match what the submission system expects
• A complete copy of the submitted package saved for your records

Finally, plan for revision rather than acceptance. Revision requests are a normal part of peer review rather than a verdict on the work, so keep your files, data and analysis organised so you can respond point by point. Acceptance is always the decision of the journal and its reviewers.