How to submit academic articles
In order to get your academic article published, ensure that you have meticulously crafted your work in strict adherence to the guidelines provided for writers. Verify the journal’s criteria by cross-checking them with your work to ensure accuracy.
When submitting your academic article, it is important to include a cover letter. In the cover letter, address the editor using their professional name (e.g. Dear Professor Name—) and include the name of the journal. Be careful to use the right journal name, particularly if it is not your first-choice journal.
Within the letter, elucidate the reasons why your academic article aligns with the requirements of the publication and delineate how your piece will enhance its objectives and scope. Present the significance of your academic article by outlining its core subject, elucidating the novel insights it brings to the existing body of knowledge, and establishing its connection to any pertinent studies already published in the journal. Avoid duplicating the abstract throughout the letter. Incorporate details that are usually omitted in a written academic article.
The journal may also need you to propose potential reviewers for your manuscript. Reliable sources for this information may be found in the works of authors mentioned in your references, as well as the editorial board members of the journal you are referring to, or other journals in the same area. It is advisable to refrain from recommending individuals with whom you have a conflict of interest, such as colleagues.
It is advisable to include official statements affirming the originality of your work, the absence of any conflicts of interest, and the agreement of all co-authors (if applicable) to the submission.
The peer-review procedure
When you want to get your journal academic article published, the review procedure of the journal usually entails several days to weeks for completion and often includes:
Perusing the article and determining whether to submit it for review.
Obtaining an adequate number of reviewers and collecting all input.
Evaluating the academic article and making a judgment on the manuscript.
The most time-consuming aspect of the procedure is obtaining reviewers and then getting their feedback. The procedure is highly reliant on the availability of academics and is not very predictable.
Many journals use online reviewing tools that provide authors with a status for each submission, which they may easily monitor. If the status has remained unchanged for a significant period, you may often contact the journal administrator or editor via email. Certain journals provide public access to their review timeframes, which might provide you a clear indication of the expected duration of their review process and when it would be suitable to request an update. If you are uncertain about what to anticipate, we recommend waiting around 2 weeks before requesting an update.
Rejection at the desk
Provided that you follow the guidelines specified by the journals, you will get your academic articles published easily. Nevertheless, many academic articles are rejected without undergoing the process of peer review, a practice usually referred to as a desk rejection. Naturally, it is desirable to prevent this occurrence for your work.
Plagiarism detection
Several publications do a type of textual originality verification in addition to paper review. Software applications like Turnitin and PlagScan, and others are used to detect textual similarities between submitted articles and existing online published content.
These systems lack the ability to independently ascertain whether a text has been plagiarized. They can only provide a score indicating the degree of similarity between certain text sections and pre-existing information. Due to this rationale, these tools are often labeled as ‘similarity checker’ rather than ‘plagiarism checker’.
Processed papers that have high scores are likely to undergo investigation to see if the resemblance is really intentional plagiarism. The manner in which a journal handles a manuscript of this kind is contingent upon their internal rules and processes, as well as the magnitude of the found plagiarism.
These plagiarism detection tools may be used at various phases of the process, contingent upon the journal’s policy and the circumstances. Certain journals use a screening process for all submitted articles, while others only do so when issues are flagged by the editor during the first reading or by referees throughout the review process.
Obtaining a verdict after a process of peer-review
After receiving all comments, suggestions, and recommendations from the reviewers, the editor will render a verdict on the manuscript. These choices may be referred to by many words, but often fall into one of four categories:
It is quite uncommon for a first submission to be approved without any required revisions.
adjustments that are likely to lead to approval – These adjustments may either be modest or more significant, but in both situations, the editor expresses a positive attitude towards ultimately accepting the submission.
Revisions with an uncertain outcome, commonly known as ‘major revisions’ or ‘reject, revise and resubmit’, involve requesting substantial changes, reevaluations of information, or more comprehensive explanations of details. However, even after addressing all reviewer comments, these revisions may still not meet the journal’s acceptance criteria.
Decline – The work is not appropriate or acceptable for the journal in its current form or any other version. When a decision to reject is made, the author is not given the opportunity to revise the manuscript. If the author decides to submit the article again as a new version, it may be rejected without further consideration.
Modifications
When you get the reviewer’s comments to revise your work, it is important to tackle the required adjustments from the editor in a systematic and organized manner in order to get your academic article published.
Peruse the comments and set it away for a period of one or two days. No matter how well-articulated the reviewer’s remarks and critiques of your work may be, there is always a possibility that you may develop a sense of defensiveness towards the original paper that you dedicated a significant amount of time to write. Receiving criticism may be challenging, therefore it is advisable to refrain from hastily taking action. Allocate a few days to assimilate the remarks provided by the reviewer before proceeding with the following actions for your revision.
Typically, it is probable that you will be able to adhere to the suggestions provided by the reviewers.
Individuals have the freedom to cultivate their own preferences and approaches when it comes to making modifications. However, there are some widely used techniques that you may experiment with, either separately or in combination, to discover the format that fits you best:
Arranging the reviewer comments based on the level of difficulty in responding or your capacity to address them. As an example, while considering a range of needed modifications, making spelling and grammatical fixes would fall on the simpler side, while carrying out further tests would be situated on the more challenging (or perhaps unattainable) side.
Assigning a numerical value to each remark provided by each reviewer.
Adopting a methodical approach to modifications will facilitate the process of providing a response. To effectively respond to the reviewers, it is necessary to provide a comprehensive letter that addresses each issue raised by them in a systematic manner. While it is not necessary to implement every suggested modification made by the reviewers, it is important to provide a clear explanation for any changes that have not been made. Reviewers may make contradictory requests or recommend new tests that are not feasible.
When responding to a remark from a reviewer that you disagree with, it is advisable to provide a well-founded answer supported by evidence.
Please endeavor to finish your edits by the specified date. If you anticipate need more time, please inform the journal. It is likely that they will be pleased to give you the extension, and it is kind to keep them informed. Furthermore, several online review sites may restrict your ability to make revisions after the deadline has passed, hence requesting an extension will circumvent this issue as well.
After finishing your edits and thoroughly documenting all your comments in your letter, ensure that you consult with any co-authors to confirm their satisfaction with the final versions before resubmitting the manuscript to the journal.
When submitting to journals using online submission forms, be sure to submit your revised article as a revision of the original one. This will facilitate the work of the editorial office and the Editor in tracking the changes. Revise any relevant areas (such as title, abstract) that have been modified throughout your revision process. Place the corresponding cover letters, amended manuscript files, and reviewer response letter in the appropriate sections of the forms.
Revisions may be sent to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, or the Editor can make a judgment autonomously. Occasionally, there is a need to find fresh reviewers. Similar to the first submission, after receiving all the evaluations, the Editor will evaluate your work based on the same set of criteria. It is expected that your article will be approved after only one or two rounds of resubmission. Certain more stringent journals may not extend an invitation for a second speculative revision, while others may be more flexible and allow for several changes until the editor is sufficiently convinced to make a final judgment of either accepting or rejecting the submission.
Rejection
It is almost certain that your first-choice publication will reject your manuscript – every researcher has experienced rejection at some stage in their professional lives. Even several research that are today regarded as groundbreaking and fundamental were first rejected by the journals they were submitted to as the authors’ first choice. Hans Krebs’ study on the citric acid cycle, often known as the Krebs cycle, was not accepted by the scientific journal Nature in 1937. Similarly, Kary Mullis’ first publication on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was rejected by the journal Science in 1993, although it later received the prestigious Nobel Prize. Rejection is a common occurrence, even for the most exceptional individuals.
If this circumstance should occur, try to not get excessively disheartened. The absence of a future for your academic article is not always implied. Following our suggestion for rewriting, after reading the letter, put it away and allow yourself some time before addressing it.
Once you are prepared to continue with your paper, take into account the below actions:
Now, you should contemplate selecting your second-choice journal from the list of appropriate journals for your article.
An alternative worth considering is ‘Cascade Journals’. Several publishers now provide an opportunity to publish in a ‘Cascade journal’. Typically, these titles are freely available and produced by the same organization. Payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC) is mandatory for some Cascade journals. As part of the transfer to the associated title, you may or may not be provided a discounted fee. The journal is likely to move the reviews obtained at your first-choice publication to the ‘cascade journal’. This is designed to expedite the review process, or maybe eliminate the need for the editor to do any review, while it does not ensure approval at this particular journal. The editor will need to determine if your work is appropriate for the journal.
When submitting to a new journal, it is advisable to make revisions to your article based on the comments provided by the reviewers. It is recommended to make these revisions in a manner consistent with how you would edit the manuscript if resubmitting to the same journal. Do not make the assumption that the criticisms obtained from reviewers of one publication are exclusively applicable to that specific journal.
The reviewers’ comments are likely to assist you in enhancing various aspects of your paper, including refining the objectives and purpose, strengthening the inferences drawn from the results, polishing the message you intend to convey, and improving the overall readability. These comments offer numerous valuable suggestions for positive revisions.
Furthermore, even inside somewhat extensive study domains, there exists a possibility that the same reviewers who evaluated your manuscript at the first publication will be requested to assess it at the subsequent magazine. Your failure to recognize or heed any of their remarks from the first round of evaluations will have a negative impact on how you are seen.
When submitting the revised edition of your manuscript to a different publication, it is unnecessary to include a note addressing the feedback provided by the first reviewers.
Ensure that the structure and layout of your manuscript adhere to the submission requirements of the new journal and make any necessary revisions. It is important to note that not following the Instructions For Authors of a journal is a frequent reason for prompt rejection.
If desired, compose a cover letter sent to the newly established academic publication, elucidating the pertinence of your manuscript to the journal. Ensure to accurately address the journal editor by name and correctly include the magazine’s title.
Finalize your latest manuscript for submission to the journal.
Approval
Upon approval, it is customary for you to sign copyright or license agreements, granting the publication the necessary rights to publish your academic paper. Ensure that you carefully peruse these papers in order to comprehend the contents before affixing your signature.
If you choose to make your article accessible as Open Access, you will often be required to pay Article Processing Charges. These charges are associated with the license you choose, if such alternatives are offered.
Typically, accepted articles are sent to a production team for the purpose of formatting them in accordance with journal style. Some individuals use specialized professionals such as typesetters, copyeditors, and proof-readers. In some journals, the Editors may participate in these responsibilities. Certain academic journals promptly post the Accepted version online shortly after it is approved, in order to make it officially accessible prior to the release of the final ‘Version of Record’ journal-formatted PDF.