how submit research paper in journal

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal

• 4 minute read
• 98.2K views

Table of Contents

Whether you’ve done it before, or not, submitting a paper for publication in a journal is, to say the least, a process that brings great anxiety and stress. After all your hard work for many months, or even years, recognition is finally at your grasp. That is why there no room for mistakes.

What to Expect of the Scientific Publishing Process

If you are a beginner, you might be struggling to know exactly what to do. After all, it is a step-by-step process, sometimes with a lot of players and paperwork involved; it’s not always evident what to do next. An excellent, high-quality manuscript is the best way to give a good impression from the beginning, putting your paper on the right track for a successful submission. At Elsevier, with our Language Editing services , we not only revise your manuscript, but guarantee there are no text errors.

If, on the other hand, you have already published articles, you might have enough experience to know that each paper submission in a journal is different. Either the journal is different, or the context has changed, or the peers are new. You never know what can go right or wrong, other than the variable that lies under your control – that the manuscript is error-free and spot-on for successful acceptance. In this case, you might consider Elsevier’s professional Language Editing services to amend your text to the target journal’s requirements, helping you focus on other projects.

Scientific Paper Submission. Are you ready? Let’s go!

For many researchers, putting their paper through the professional journal submission process is stressful. Here is a simple to-do list which might help you go through all of it with some peace of mind:

• Use an external editing service, such as Elsevier’s Author Services if you need assistance with language.
• Free e-learning modules on preparing your manuscript can be found on Researcher Academy.
• Mendeley makes your life easier by helping you organize your papers, citations and references, accessing them in the cloud on any device, wherever you are.
• Do not rush submitting your article for publication Carefully re-read and revise your manuscript. Re-reading is essential in the research field and helps identify the most common problems and shortcomings in the manuscript, which might otherwise be overlooked. Often, reading your text out loud will uncover more errors than reading silently to yourself. If you are doubtful about the quality of your text, consider Elsevier’s Professional Language Editing services . Our professional team is trained to provide you with an optimal text for successful submission.
• Read the journal’s aims and scope to make sure they match your paper.
• Check whether you can submit – some journals are invitation only.
• Use the journal’s metrics to measure its impact. In fact, you can also check other additional info – like speed and reach to understand if it’s the right one for you.
• If you’re a post doc, check out our free access program.
• Read the aims and scope and author guidelines of your target journal carefully Once you think your manuscript is ready for submission, the next important step is to read the aims and scope of the journals in your target research area. Doing so will improve the chances of having your manuscript accepted for publishing.
• Submit a cover letter with the manuscript Never underestimate the importance of a cover letter addressed to the editor or editor-in-chief of the target journal. A good cover letter should underline 3 main aspects: the main theme of the paper, its originality/novelty and the relevance of the manuscript to the target journal.
• Make a good first impression with your title and abstract The title and abstract are incredibly important components of a manuscript as they are the first elements a journal editor sees. They create interest and curiosity about the whole work.

Now, what happens if your paper gets rejected by the journal ? It is, by no means, the end of the world. There are very real steps you can take to ultimately get published in a reputable journal.

The Science of Article Publishing

Article publishing is every researcher’s aim. It brings visibility and recognition, essential factors for those who intend to build a full career in research. However, most scientists feel handicapped or lost when it comes to conveying their findings or ideas to others. For many, it can be difficult to re-format a certain type of text to another, be aware of formatting requirements and translate their work into visually appealing outcomes. Additionally, keeping track of all the steps needed to submit an article for publication can be overwhelming and take too much time that could be spent doing new research.

At Elsevier, we believe everyone should be doing what they do best: in this case, leave research for scientists and leave the science of turning the best ideas into excellent quality text to our professionals.

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

Find more about How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal on Pinterest:

How to Write a Journal Article from a Thesis

Looking for Medical Editing Services

You may also like.

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

What is a Good H-index?

What is a Corresponding Author?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Clara busse.

1 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599 Chapel Hill, NC USA

Ella August

2 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029 USA

Associated Data

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig.  1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table ​ Table1 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table ​ Table2 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common methods section pitfalls and recommendations

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table ​ Table3 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common results section pitfalls and recommendations

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig.  2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table ​ Table4 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. ​ (Fig.3) 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

(PDF 362 kb)

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Data Availability

Compliance with ethical standards.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Manuscript preparation and submission

Learn how to prepare your manuscript for submission to an APA journal.

From following the latest APA Publication Manual to using the Editorial Manager peer review system, here is the most important information that you will need to successfully prepare and submit your manuscript.

Journal manuscript preparation guidelines

Guidance on preparing your manuscript for submission to an APA journal, including the information on APA open access policies and APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (APA Style JARS).

Using Editorial Manager

Videos illustrating commonly used features for authors in Editorial Manager, our online manuscript submission and peer review system.

What is peer review?

An overview of what to expect from peer review.

Academic writing and English language editing services

Resources for additional academic writing or language editing support.

Maximize the impact of your published work

Was your manuscript accepted for publication? Congratulations! Explore our resources on maximizing the impact of your published work.

• APA publishing resources
• Reviewer Resource Center
• Editor resource center
• Why publish with APA Journals™
• Equity, diversity, and inclusion in APA Journals™

APA Publishing Insider

APA Publishing Insider is a free monthly newsletter with tips on APA Style, open science initiatives, active calls for papers, research summaries, and more.

Visit the APA Style website for style and grammar guidelines, free instructional aids, reference examples, the APA Style blog, APA Style products, and more.

Contact Journals

Guide to Getting Published in Journals

• Why publish in journals?
• Identifying potential journals
• Creating a journal comparison spreadsheet
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• How different journals approach peer review
• Different open access models
• Interpreting traditional metrics like the Impact Factor
• Alternative metrics
• Ethics and malpractice statements
• Recognising and avoiding predatory journals
• Instructions for authors
• Submitting your paper

Introduction

You have worked through your list of journals, investigating all your criteria and found the journal that is best suited to your paper and the goals you have for it. It is now time for you to submit!

In this section, we will prepare you for what to expect when submitting to a journal, give some insights into the peer review process, how to respond to requests for revisions and resubmit a paper, and what steps to take should you receive a rejection decision.

Submitting a paper

Make sure you have prepared your paper according to the instructions for authors . Double-check the journal’s requirements with your article to be certain.

If you need to include a cover letter with your submission, you should address the editor by formal name (e.g. Dear Professor Name---) and include the name of the journal but make sure you use the correct one (especially if this is your second-choice journal)!

In the letter, explain why your article is suitable for that journal and how your paper will contribute to furthering its aims & scope. Pitch the value of your article, describing the main theme, the contribution your paper makes to existing knowledge, and its relationship to any relevant articles published in the journal. You should not repeat the abstract in the letter. Include information not typically mentioned in a manuscript.

You may also be requested by the journal to suggest some reviewers for your paper. Good sources for these include authors cited in your references and editorial board members from the journal, or from other journals in the field. You should not suggest anyone that you would have a conflict of interest with, such as co-workers.

You should also make some formal declarations regarding the originality of your work, that you have no conflicts of interest, and that all co-authors (if you have any) agree to the submission.

The review process

As we discussed in the earlier module on peer review , there are a wide range of timeframes over which your review process may be conducted.

It may take several months for the journal to complete the review process, which typically involves:

• Reading the article and deciding whether to send it for review.
• Acquiring sufficient reviewers and receiving all feedback.
• Assessing the reviews and rendering a decision on the paper.

Acquiring reviewers and then receiving those reviews back is the longest part of the process. It is very much dependent on the availability of academics, and is not an especially predictable process.

Journals which use web-based reviewing platforms often feature a status for each submission that authors can check. If this status has not changed for some time, in most cases, you will be able to send the journal administrator or editor an email. Some journals make their review times publicly available, giving you a good idea of how long their process might take, and when it may be appropriate to ask for an update. If you do not know what to expect, we suggest waiting around 2 months before asking for an update.

Desk reject

Hopefully you will have submitted your article to the perfect journal, exactly as they have requested, and your article will be sent for reviewing. However, some papers are rejected without being sent for peer review – this is commonly known as a desk reject – and of course, you want to avoid this happening to your paper.

To help you understand and minimise the risk, here are some of the most common reasons for desk rejection:

TECHNICAL SCREENING

• Language or writing issues which make it too hard for the editor to understand the paper.
• Similarity checking revealing a large amount of exact matching or plagiarised content.
• Formatting is not in the journal style
• Word count is too high
• Figures & Tables are incomplete or difficult to read
• References are incomplete

AIMS & SCOPE AND CONTENT

• Outside Aims & Scope.
• Hypothesis or purpose is not sufficiently clear.
• Methods are unclear or flawed.
• Results do not support conclusions.
• Incremental addition to knowledge.
• References miss key or recent literature.

Similarity (plagarism) checking

Many journals conduct some form of checking of article text to go alongside the reviewing of papers. Software such as iThenticate, Turnitin, PlagScan, among many others, are used either to look for similarities in text between the submitted article and published material available online.

These platforms cannot, by themselves, determine whether text has been plagiarised, only provide a score of how similar passages of text are to existing material. For this reason, these programs tend to be referred to as ‘similarity checker’, not ‘plagiarism checker’.

Papers which are processed and return high scores are likely to be investigated to determine whether the similarity does appear to be deliberate plagiarism. How a journal deals with such a paper depends on their own policies and procedures, and the extent of the plagiarism detected.

Many journals will refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines and Flowchart for dealing with “Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript”. See our module on Ethics and Malpractice Statements for more detail on COPE and journal ethics.

These similarity checking programs may be used at different stages of the process, depending on journal policy and situation. Some journals may screen all papers on submission, some only when some concerns are raised by the editor on first read or by referees during review.

Receiving a decision after peer review

Once the editor has received all comments, feedback and recommendations from the reviewers, they will make a decision on the paper. These decisions may be called by different terms, but will usually fit into one of four categories:

• Accept – it is very rare than a first submission will be accepted outright, without any changes being requested.
• Revisions likely to result in acceptance – This can be a ‘minor revisions’ decision, or a more major revision, but in both cases the editor shows positivity towards a final acceptance.
• Revisions with an uncertain outcome – Often referred to as ‘major revisions’, or ‘reject, revise and resubmit’, these decisions request extensive revisions, reinterpretations of information, or deeper, more thorough explanations of details, which ultimately may not be acceptable for the journal even when responses to all reviewer comments have been provided.
• Reject – The paper is unsuitable and/or unacceptable for the journal in this form, or any alternate version. With a reject decision, a revision is not invited, and should an author resubmit the paper as a new version, it may be immediately rejected.

If you are invited to revise your paper, make sure you are methodical in your approach to tackling the revisions requested by the editor.

• Read the letter and put it aside for a day or two. However well-framed the reviewer’s comments and criticisms of your paper, there is always a chance you may feel protective over the original paper you spent so much time writing. It is not always easy to receive criticism, so don’t rush to take action immediately.   Give yourself a few days to digest the reviewer comments before taking the next steps with your revision.
• In most cases, it is likely that you will be able to follow the recommendations of the reviewers.
• Organising the reviewer comments by ease of response or your ability to complete. For example, on a spectrum of requested revisions, spelling and grammar corrections would be at the easiest end, through to conducting extra experiments at the more difficult (or impossible) end.
• Numbering each of the comments from each reviewer.
• Taking a structured approach to revisions will also make it easier to respond. You will need to include a point-by-point response letter, detailing how you have addressed each reviewer point.   You do not need to perform every change requested of the reviewers, but you should provide a response as to why you have not done so. It may be that reviewers request conflicting things, or the additional experiments they suggest are not possible.
• If you disagree with a comment made by one of the reviewers, try to provide an evidence-based explanation in your response.
• Try to complete your revisions by the requested deadline. If you think you will need longer, let the journal know. They will probably be happy to grant you the extension, and it is courteous to keep them updated. In addition, some online review platforms may prevent you from submitting your revision once the due date expires, so asking for an extension will avoid this problem too.
• Once your revisions are complete and you have detailed all your responses in your letter, check with any co-authors that they are all happy with the final versions before re-submitting to the journal.
• For journals with online submission forms, be sure to submit as the revision of your original article so that it is easy for the editorial office and Editor to follow. Amend any relevant fields (such as title, abstract) that have changed during your revision process, provide related cover letters, revised manuscript files and reviewer response letter in the appropriate places in the forms.
• Revisions may be sent to the previous reviewers to re-assess, or the Editor may make a decision independently. In some cases, new reviewers may be sought. As with the first submission, once all reviews have been submitted, the Editor will make a decision from the same set of categories and hopefully your paper will be accepted in just one or two rounds of resubmission. Some very strict journals will not invite a second speculative revision, but others may be more lenient and continue to invite revisions until the editor is satisfied of a decision to either Accept or Reject.

Having a submission rejected from your first-choice journal is something of an inevitability - every researcher has been rejected at some point in their careers. Even some of what we now consider ground-breaking and foundational studies were rejected from their first-choice journals. Hans Krebs' paper on citric acid cycle - the Krebs cycle – was rejected from Nature in 1937, and Kary Mullis’ first paper on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was rejected from Science in 1993, before going on to win the Nobel Prize. Rejection happens, quite literally, to the best of us.

If this should happen to you, try not be too disappointed. It does not mean there is no future for your paper. As with our revision recommendation, set aside the letter once you have read it and give yourself some time before tackling it.

When you are ready to proceed with your paper, consider the following steps:

• From your shortlist of suitable journals for your paper, you might now consider your second-choice journal.
• Another option to consider may be ‘Cascade Journals’. Some publishers now offer a chance to publish in a ‘Cascade journal’. These are usually open access titles, published by the same organisation. Some Cascade journals will require payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC). You may or may not be offered a reduced rate as part of the transfer to the related title. It is likely that the journal will transfer the reviews received at your first-choice journal to the ‘cascade journal’. This is intended to speed up the review process, or may mean the editor does not have to conduct any reviewing at all, but it does not guarantee acceptance at this journal. The editor will still need to make a decision as to whether your paper is suitable for the journal.
• Firstly, it is likely that the comments the reviewers provided will help you improve aspects of your paper such as focusing the aims and purpose of your paper, sharpening the inferences made from your results, fine tuning the message you wish to convey, or improving the readability among many other positive edits.
• Secondly, even in reasonably large research fields, there is a chance that the same reviewers who saw your paper at the first journal will be asked to review it at the new journal. It will not reflect favourably on you if you have not acknowledged or considered any of their comments from the first round of reviews.

When submitting the new version of your paper to your second journal, there is no need to include a letter responding to the original reviewers’ comments.

• Check that the format of your paper meets the submission criteria of the new journal and make the appropriate amendments (remember, failure to comply with a journals Instructions For Authors is one of the most common causes of immediate rejection).
• If you wish, write a cover letter to the new journal, explaining the relevance of your paper to the journal, and be sure to address the correct journal editor and journal name.
• Complete your new submission to the journal.

After acceptance, you will usually be required to sign copyright or licensing documents, to give the publisher the rights to publish your article. Be sure to read these documents thoroughly to understand what you are signing.

If you would like to publish your article Open Access, Article Processing Charges are usually requested at this stage, and go hand-in-hand with the license you select, if such options are available.

Accepted papers are usually sent to a production team to format into journal style. Some have dedicated professional typesetters, copyeditors and proof-readers. For some journals, the Editors may contribute to these roles.

Some journals publish the Accepted version online within just a few days, to make it officially available before the final ‘Version of Record’ journal-styled PDF is made available.

Some journals publish articles online as soon as they are ready, into a queue of early publication manuscripts. Other journals hold all articles offline until each issue is full and publish each issue according to a defined schedule (for example, 4 times per year).

There are many different ways in which publishers and journals manage their post-acceptance stages and publication schedules. If the information about your article is not provided to you, you may contact the journal office for an update.

These are some of the more common processes and procedures that you will encounter and come to rely on throughout your research publishing career, but there may be many more variations to deal with. The submission process can be a time-consuming, frustrating experience, but with these tips, and building up your own repertoire of tools, resources and techniques, you will soon master the arts of submission and peer review.

Good luck with all your future submissions!

Further resources

Hervé Stolowy (2017) Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk Rejected at European Accounting Review? , European Accounting Review, 26:3, 411-418

• << Previous: Instructions for authors
• Last Updated: Sep 18, 2023 1:28 PM
• URL: https://ifis.libguides.com/journal-publishing-guide

• Privacy Policy

Home » How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

Table of Contents

Publishing a research paper is an important step for researchers to disseminate their findings to a wider audience and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. Whether you are a graduate student, a postdoctoral fellow, or an established researcher, publishing a paper requires careful planning, rigorous research, and clear writing. In this process, you will need to identify a research question , conduct a thorough literature review , design a methodology, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Additionally, you will need to consider the appropriate journals or conferences to submit your work to and adhere to their guidelines for formatting and submission. In this article, we will discuss some ways to publish your Research Paper.

How to Publish a Research Paper

To Publish a Research Paper follow the guide below:

• Conduct original research : Conduct thorough research on a specific topic or problem. Collect data, analyze it, and draw conclusions based on your findings.
• Write the paper : Write a detailed paper describing your research. It should include an abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Choose a suitable journal or conference : Look for a journal or conference that specializes in your research area. You can check their submission guidelines to ensure your paper meets their requirements.
• Prepare your submission: Follow the guidelines and prepare your submission, including the paper, abstract, cover letter, and any other required documents.
• Submit the paper: Submit your paper online through the journal or conference website. Make sure you meet the submission deadline.
• Peer-review process : Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field who will provide feedback on the quality of your research, methodology, and conclusions.
• Revisions : Based on the feedback you receive, revise your paper and resubmit it.
• Acceptance : Once your paper is accepted, you will receive a notification from the journal or conference. You may need to make final revisions before the paper is published.
• Publication : Your paper will be published online or in print. You can also promote your work through social media or other channels to increase its visibility.

How to Choose Journal for Research Paper Publication

Here are some steps to follow to help you select an appropriate journal:

• Identify your research topic and audience : Your research topic and intended audience should guide your choice of journal. Identify the key journals in your field of research and read the scope and aim of the journal to determine if your paper is a good fit.
• Analyze the journal’s impact and reputation : Check the impact factor and ranking of the journal, as well as its acceptance rate and citation frequency. A high-impact journal can give your paper more visibility and credibility.
• Consider the journal’s publication policies : Look for the journal’s publication policies such as the word count limit, formatting requirements, open access options, and submission fees. Make sure that you can comply with the requirements and that the journal is in line with your publication goals.
• Look at recent publications : Review recent issues of the journal to evaluate whether your paper would fit in with the journal’s current content and style.
• Seek advice from colleagues and mentors: Ask for recommendations and suggestions from your colleagues and mentors in your field, especially those who have experience publishing in the same or similar journals.
• Be prepared to make changes : Be prepared to revise your paper according to the requirements and guidelines of the chosen journal. It is also important to be open to feedback from the editor and reviewers.

List of Journals for Research Paper Publications

There are thousands of academic journals covering various fields of research. Here are some of the most popular ones, categorized by field:

General/Multidisciplinary

• Nature: https://www.nature.com/
• Science: https://www.sciencemag.org/
• PLOS ONE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): https://www.pnas.org/
• The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/
• JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama

Social Sciences/Humanities

• Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp
• Journal of Consumer Research: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/jcr
• Journal of Educational Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/edu
• Journal of Applied Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl
• Journal of Communication: https://academic.oup.com/joc
• American Journal of Political Science: https://ajps.org/
• Journal of International Business Studies: https://www.jibs.net/
• Journal of Marketing Research: https://www.ama.org/journal-of-marketing-research/

Natural Sciences

• Journal of Biological Chemistry: https://www.jbc.org/
• Cell: https://www.cell.com/
• Science Advances: https://advances.sciencemag.org/
• Chemical Reviews: https://pubs.acs.org/journal/chreay
• Angewandte Chemie: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15213765
• Physical Review Letters: https://journals.aps.org/prl/
• Journal of Geophysical Research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2156531X
• Journal of High Energy Physics: https://link.springer.com/journal/13130

Engineering/Technology

• IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=5962385
• IEEE Transactions on Power Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=59
• IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=42
• IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=87
• Journal of Engineering Mechanics: https://ascelibrary.org/journal/jenmdt
• Journal of Materials Science: https://www.springer.com/journal/10853
• Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jcej
• Journal of Mechanical Design: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign

Medical/Health Sciences

• New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/
• The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal): https://www.bmj.com/
• Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama
• Annals of Internal Medicine: https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim
• American Journal of Epidemiology: https://academic.oup.com/aje
• Journal of Clinical Oncology: https://ascopubs.org/journal/jco
• Journal of Infectious Diseases: https://academic.oup.com/jid

List of Conferences for Research Paper Publications

There are many conferences that accept research papers for publication. The specific conferences you should consider will depend on your field of research. Here are some suggestions for conferences in a few different fields:

Computer Science and Information Technology:

• IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM): https://www.ieee-infocom.org/
• ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
• IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP): https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP/
• ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS): https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/
• ACM Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (CHI): https://chi2022.acm.org/

Engineering:

• IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA): https://www.ieee-icra.org/
• International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAE): http://www.icmae.org/
• International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering (ICCEE): http://www.iccee.org/
• International Conference on Materials Science and Engineering (ICMSE): http://www.icmse.org/
• International Conference on Energy and Power Engineering (ICEPE): http://www.icepe.org/

Natural Sciences:

• American Chemical Society National Meeting & Exposition: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/meetings/national-meeting.html
• American Physical Society March Meeting: https://www.aps.org/meetings/march/
• International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (ICEST): http://www.icest.org/
• International Conference on Natural Science and Environment (ICNSE): http://www.icnse.org/
• International Conference on Life Science and Biological Engineering (LSBE): http://www.lsbe.org/

Social Sciences:

• Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA): https://www.asanet.org/annual-meeting-2022
• International Conference on Social Science and Humanities (ICSSH): http://www.icssh.org/
• International Conference on Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (ICPBS): http://www.icpbs.org/
• International Conference on Education and Social Science (ICESS): http://www.icess.org/
• International Conference on Management and Information Science (ICMIS): http://www.icmis.org/

How to Publish a Research Paper in Journal

Publishing a research paper in a journal is a crucial step in disseminating scientific knowledge and contributing to the field. Here are the general steps to follow:

• Choose a research topic : Select a topic of your interest and identify a research question or problem that you want to investigate. Conduct a literature review to identify the gaps in the existing knowledge that your research will address.
• Conduct research : Develop a research plan and methodology to collect data and conduct experiments. Collect and analyze data to draw conclusions that address the research question.
• Write a paper: Organize your findings into a well-structured paper with clear and concise language. Your paper should include an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use academic language and provide references for your sources.
• Choose a journal: Choose a journal that is relevant to your research topic and audience. Consider factors such as impact factor, acceptance rate, and the reputation of the journal.
• Follow journal guidelines : Review the submission guidelines and formatting requirements of the journal. Follow the guidelines carefully to ensure that your paper meets the journal’s requirements.
• Submit your paper : Submit your paper to the journal through the online submission system or by email. Include a cover letter that briefly explains the significance of your research and why it is suitable for the journal.
• Wait for reviews: Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field. Be prepared to address their comments and make revisions to your paper.
• Revise and resubmit: Make revisions to your paper based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it to the journal. If your paper is accepted, congratulations! If not, consider revising and submitting it to another journal.
• Address reviewer comments : Reviewers may provide comments and suggestions for revisions to your paper. Address these comments carefully and thoughtfully to improve the quality of your paper.
• Submit the final version: Once your revisions are complete, submit the final version of your paper to the journal. Be sure to follow any additional formatting guidelines and requirements provided by the journal.
• Publication : If your paper is accepted, it will be published in the journal. Some journals provide online publication while others may publish a print version. Be sure to cite your published paper in future research and communicate your findings to the scientific community.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Students

Here are some steps you can follow to publish a research paper as an Under Graduate or a High School Student:

• Select a topic: Choose a topic that is relevant and interesting to you, and that you have a good understanding of.
• Conduct research : Gather information and data on your chosen topic through research, experiments, surveys, or other means.
• Write the paper : Start with an outline, then write the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion sections of the paper. Be sure to follow any guidelines provided by your instructor or the journal you plan to submit to.
• Edit and revise: Review your paper for errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Ask a peer or mentor to review your paper and provide feedback for improvement.
• Choose a journal : Look for journals that publish papers in your field of study and that are appropriate for your level of research. Some popular journals for students include PLOS ONE, Nature, and Science.
• Submit the paper: Follow the submission guidelines for the journal you choose, which typically include a cover letter, abstract, and formatting requirements. Be prepared to wait several weeks to months for a response.
• Address feedback : If your paper is accepted with revisions, address the feedback from the reviewers and resubmit your paper. If your paper is rejected, review the feedback and consider revising and resubmitting to a different journal.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Free

Publishing a research paper for free can be challenging, but it is possible. Here are some steps you can take to publish your research paper for free:

• Choose a suitable open-access journal: Look for open-access journals that are relevant to your research area. Open-access journals allow readers to access your paper without charge, so your work will be more widely available.
• Check the journal’s reputation : Before submitting your paper, ensure that the journal is reputable by checking its impact factor, publication history, and editorial board.
• Follow the submission guidelines : Every journal has specific guidelines for submitting papers. Make sure to follow these guidelines carefully to increase the chances of acceptance.
• Submit your paper : Once you have completed your research paper, submit it to the journal following their submission guidelines.
• Wait for the review process: Your paper will undergo a peer-review process, where experts in your field will evaluate your work. Be patient during this process, as it can take several weeks or even months.
• Revise your paper : If your paper is rejected, don’t be discouraged. Revise your paper based on the feedback you receive from the reviewers and submit it to another open-access journal.
• Promote your research: Once your paper is published, promote it on social media and other online platforms. This will increase the visibility of your work and help it reach a wider audience.

Journals and Conferences for Free Research Paper publications

Here are the websites of the open-access journals and conferences mentioned:

Open-Access Journals:

• PLOS ONE – https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
• BMC Research Notes – https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/
• Frontiers in… – https://www.frontiersin.org/
• Journal of Open Research Software – https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/
• PeerJ – https://peerj.com/

Conferences:

• IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) – https://globecom2022.ieee-globecom.org/
• IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) – https://infocom2022.ieee-infocom.org/
• IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) – https://www.ieee-icdm.org/
• ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication (SIGCOMM) – https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
• ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) – https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/CCS2022/

Importance of Research Paper Publication

Research paper publication is important for several reasons, both for individual researchers and for the scientific community as a whole. Here are some reasons why:

• Advancing scientific knowledge : Research papers provide a platform for researchers to present their findings and contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. These papers often contain novel ideas, experimental data, and analyses that can help to advance scientific understanding.
• Building a research career : Publishing research papers is an essential component of building a successful research career. Researchers are often evaluated based on the number and quality of their publications, and having a strong publication record can increase one’s chances of securing funding, tenure, or a promotion.
• Peer review and quality control: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal means that the research has been scrutinized by other experts in the field. This peer review process helps to ensure the quality and validity of the research findings.
• Recognition and visibility : Publishing a research paper can bring recognition and visibility to the researchers and their work. It can lead to invitations to speak at conferences, collaborations with other researchers, and media coverage.
• Impact on society : Research papers can have a significant impact on society by informing policy decisions, guiding clinical practice, and advancing technological innovation.

Advantages of Research Paper Publication

There are several advantages to publishing a research paper, including:

• Recognition: Publishing a research paper allows researchers to gain recognition for their work, both within their field and in the academic community as a whole. This can lead to new collaborations, invitations to conferences, and other opportunities to share their research with a wider audience.
• Career advancement : A strong publication record can be an important factor in career advancement, particularly in academia. Publishing research papers can help researchers secure funding, grants, and promotions.
• Dissemination of knowledge : Research papers are an important way to share new findings and ideas with the broader scientific community. By publishing their research, scientists can contribute to the collective body of knowledge in their field and help advance scientific understanding.
• Feedback and peer review : Publishing a research paper allows other experts in the field to provide feedback on the research, which can help improve the quality of the work and identify potential flaws or limitations. Peer review also helps ensure that research is accurate and reliable.
• Citation and impact : Published research papers can be cited by other researchers, which can help increase the impact and visibility of the research. High citation rates can also help establish a researcher’s reputation and credibility within their field.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Objectives – Types, Examples and...

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Research Paper Title Page – Example and Making...

• SpringerLink shop

How to publish an article? – Step by step

If you plan to submit an article to one of our journals, or have any questions during the publication process, this helpdesk will guide you through manuscript submission, production and the services you can expect after your article’s publication.

1. Before you start

The following topics will be important during the early stages of writing your article.

• Publishing Ethics
• Open Access
• Impact Factor
• Rights, permissions and licensing
• Copyright and plagiarism

2. Turning your manuscript into an article

Preparation, publication.

- Find the right journal for your manuscript

- The Springer Journal Selector

- Manuscript preparation (reference styles, artwork guidelines, etc.)

Read more about Preparation

- Electronic submission

- Reviewing and acceptance

- Managing copyright  – The "MyPublication" process

Read more about Submission

- Copy editing and language polishing

- Data processing and type setting

- Article Tracking

- Checking your article: proofing procedure

- e.Proofing – Makes editing easy!

Read more about Production

- Publishing your article "Online First"

- Publishing your article in a journal issue

Read more about Publication

3. After publication

If your article has been published, the following topics are important for you:

• Abstracting & Indexing
• Online access to my article
• Citation Alert
• Book discounts
• Marketing to worldwide audiences

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
• 2 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. [email protected].
• 3 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA. [email protected].
• PMID: 32356250
• PMCID: PMC8520870
• DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1, we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Keywords: Manuscripts; Publishing; Scientific writing.

© 2020. The Author(s).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

The main elements of the…

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often,…

Major elements of the discussion…

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the…

Checklist for manuscript quality

Similar articles

• How to write and publish scientific papers: scribing information for pharmacists. Hamilton CW. Hamilton CW. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992 Oct;49(10):2477-84. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992. PMID: 1442826
• Writing biomedical manuscripts part I: fundamentals and general rules. Ohwovoriole AE. Ohwovoriole AE. West Afr J Med. 2011 May-Jun;30(3):151-7. West Afr J Med. 2011. PMID: 22120477 Review.
• Publishing particulars: Part 1. The big picture. Seals DR. Seals DR. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023 Mar 1;324(3):R381-R392. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00265.2022. Epub 2023 Feb 7. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023. PMID: 36749295
• Strategies to successfully publish your first manuscript. Veness M. Veness M. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010 Aug;54(4):395-400. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02186.x. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010. PMID: 20718922
• [Preparing a manuscript for publication in a scientific journal]. Claes L, Rosenbaum D. Claes L, et al. Unfallchirurg. 1999 May;102(5):377-83. doi: 10.1007/s001130050421. Unfallchirurg. 1999. PMID: 10409911 Review. German.
• Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy. Wirth F, Cadogan CA, Fialová D, Hazen A, Lutters M, Paudyal V, Weidmann AE, Okuyan B, Henman MC. Wirth F, et al. Int J Clin Pharm. 2024 Apr;46(2):548-554. doi: 10.1007/s11096-023-01695-6. Epub 2024 Feb 8. Int J Clin Pharm. 2024. PMID: 38332208 Free PMC article.
• Lessons learnt from a scientific peer-review training programme designed to support research capacity and professional development in a global community. Buser JM, Morris KL, Millicent Dzomeku V, Endale T, Smith YR, August E. Buser JM, et al. BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Apr;8(4):e012224. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012224. BMJ Glob Health. 2023. PMID: 37185299 Free PMC article.
• A guide to backward paper writing for the data sciences. Zelner J, Broen K, August E. Zelner J, et al. Patterns (N Y). 2022 Jan 3;3(3):100423. doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2021.100423. eCollection 2022 Mar 11. Patterns (N Y). 2022. PMID: 35510182 Free PMC article. Review.
• Practical guide for the use of medical evidence in scientific publication: Recommendations for the medical student: Narrative review. Lozada-Martínez ID, Acevedo-Aguilar LM, Mass-Hernández LM, Matta-Rodríguez D, Jiménez-Filigrana JA, Garzón-Gutiérrez KE, Barahona-Botache SA, Vásquez-Castañeda DL, Caicedo-Giraldo SDR, Rahman S. Lozada-Martínez ID, et al. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Oct 9;71:102932. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102932. eCollection 2021 Nov. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021. PMID: 34659747 Free PMC article. Review.
• Michalek AM. Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29:4–5. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0602-x. - DOI - PubMed
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/d... . Accessed 15 January, 2020
• Vetto JT. Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29(1):194–195. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0584-8. - DOI - PubMed
• Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619 - PMC - PubMed
• Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. 10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Submit your paper

Publishing with Elsevier: step-by-step

Learn about the publication process and how to submit your manuscript. This tutorial will help you find the right journal and maximize the chance to be published.

1. Find a journal

Find out the journals that could be best suited for publishing your research. Match your manuscript using the JournalFinder tool, then learn more about each journal.

JournalFinder

Powered by the Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™, Elsevier JournalFinder uses smart search technology and field-of-research-specific vocabularies to match your article to Elsevier journals.

Find out more about a journal

Learn about each journal's topics, impact and submission policies.

Find a journal by name

• Read the journal's aims and scope to make sure it is a match
• Check whether you can submit – some journals are invitation only
• Use journal metrics to understand the impact of a journal
• If available, check the journal at Journal Insights for additional info about impact, speed and reach
• If you're a postdoc, check out our postdoc free access program

2. Prepare your paper for submission

Download our get published quick guide , which outlines the essential steps in preparing a paper. (This is also available in Chinese ). It is very important that you stick to the specific "guide for authors" of the journal to which you are submitting. This can be found on the journal's home page.

You can find information about the publishing process in the understanding the publishing process guide. It covers topics such as authors' rights, ethics and plagiarism, and journal and article metrics.

If you have research data to share, make sure you read the guide for authors to find out which options the journal offers to share research data with your article.

Read more on preparing your paper

Read about publishing in a special issue

• Use an external editing service, such as Elsevier’s Author Services if you need assistance with language
• Free e-learning modules on preparing your manuscript can be found on Researcher Academy
• Mendeley makes your life easier by helping you organize your papers, citations and references, accessing them in the cloud on any device, wherever you are

3. Submit and revise

You can submit to most Elsevier journals using our online systems.  The system you use will depend on the journal to which you submit. You can access the relevant submission system via the "submit your paper" link on the Elsevier.com journal homepage of your chosen journal.

Alternatively, if you have been invited to submit to a journal, follow the instructions provided to you.

Once submitted, your paper will be considered by the editor and if it passes initial screening, it will be sent for peer review by experts in your field. If deemed unsuitable for publication in your chosen journal, the editor may suggest you transfer your submission to a more suitable journal, via an article transfer service.

Read more on how to submit and revise

• Check the  open access options on the journal's home page
• Consider the options for sharing your research data
• Be accurate and clear when checking your proofs
• Inform yourself about copyright and licensing

4. Track your paper

Track your submitted paper.

You can track the status of your submitted paper online. The system you use to track your submission will be the same system to which you submitted. Use the reference number you received after submission to track your submission.

Unsure about what the submission status means? Check out this video .

In case of any problems contact the Support Center

Track your accepted paper

Once your paper is accepted for publication, you will receive a reference number and a direct link that lets you follow its publication status via Elsevier’s "Track Your Accepted Article" service.

However, even without a notification you can track the status of your article by entering your article reference number and corresponding author surname in Track Your Accepted Article .

Read more about the article tracking service

5. Share and promote

Now that your article is published, you can promote it to achieve a bigger impact for your research. Sharing research, accomplishments and ambitions with a wider audience makes you more visible in your field. This helps you get cited more, enabling you to cultivate a stronger reputation, promote your research and move forward in your career.

Read more on sharing your research After publication, celebrate and get noticed!

Elsevier.com visitor survey

We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier.com. We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit . If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website. Thanks in advance for your time.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing
• Research Papers

How to Write and Publish Your Research in a Journal

Last Updated: May 26, 2024 Fact Checked

Choosing a Journal

Writing the research paper, editing & revising your paper, submitting your paper, navigating the peer review process, research paper help.

This article was co-authored by Matthew Snipp, PhD and by wikiHow staff writer, Cheyenne Main . C. Matthew Snipp is the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor of Humanities and Sciences in the Department of Sociology at Stanford University. He is also the Director for the Institute for Research in the Social Science’s Secure Data Center. He has been a Research Fellow at the U.S. Bureau of the Census and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He has published 3 books and over 70 articles and book chapters on demography, economic development, poverty and unemployment. He is also currently serving on the National Institute of Child Health and Development’s Population Science Subcommittee. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin—Madison. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 706,822 times.

Publishing a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal allows you to network with other scholars, get your name and work into circulation, and further refine your ideas and research. Before submitting your paper, make sure it reflects all the work you’ve done and have several people read over it and make comments. Keep reading to learn how you can choose a journal, prepare your work for publication, submit it, and revise it after you get a response back.

Things You Should Know

• Create a list of journals you’d like to publish your work in and choose one that best aligns with your topic and your desired audience.
• Prepare your manuscript using the journal’s requirements and ask at least 2 professors or supervisors to review your paper.
• Write a cover letter that “sells” your manuscript, says how your research adds to your field and explains why you chose the specific journal you’re submitting to.

• Ask your professors or supervisors for well-respected journals that they’ve had good experiences publishing with and that they read regularly.
• Many journals also only accept specific formats, so by choosing a journal before you start, you can write your article to their specifications and increase your chances of being accepted.
• If you’ve already written a paper you’d like to publish, consider whether your research directly relates to a hot topic or area of research in the journals you’re looking into.

• Review the journal’s peer review policies and submission process to see if you’re comfortable creating or adjusting your work according to their standards.
• Open-access journals can increase your readership because anyone can access them.

• Scientific research papers: Instead of a “thesis,” you might write a “research objective” instead. This is where you state the purpose of your research.
• “This paper explores how George Washington’s experiences as a young officer may have shaped his views during difficult circumstances as a commanding officer.”
• “This paper contends that George Washington’s experiences as a young officer on the 1750s Pennsylvania frontier directly impacted his relationship with his Continental Army troops during the harsh winter at Valley Forge.”

• Scientific research papers: Include a “materials and methods” section with the step-by-step process you followed and the materials you used. [5] X Research source
• Read other research papers in your field to see how they’re written. Their format, writing style, subject matter, and vocabulary can help guide your own paper. [6] X Research source

• If you’re writing about George Washington’s experiences as a young officer, you might emphasize how this research changes our perspective of the first president of the U.S.
• Link this section to your thesis or research objective.
• If you’re writing a paper about ADHD, you might discuss other applications for your research.

• Scientific research papers: You might include your research and/or analytical methods, your main findings or results, and the significance or implications of your research.
• Try to get as many people as you can to read over your abstract and provide feedback before you submit your paper to a journal.

• They might also provide templates to help you structure your manuscript according to their specific guidelines. [11] X Research source

• Not all journal reviewers will be experts on your specific topic, so a non-expert “outsider’s perspective” can be valuable.

• If you have a paper on the purification of wastewater with fungi, you might use both the words “fungi” and “mushrooms.”
• Use software like iThenticate, Turnitin, or PlagScan to check for similarities between the submitted article and published material available online. [15] X Research source

• Header: Address the editor who will be reviewing your manuscript by their name, include the date of submission, and the journal you are submitting to.
• First paragraph: Include the title of your manuscript, the type of paper it is (like review, research, or case study), and the research question you wanted to answer and why.
• Second paragraph: Explain what was done in your research, your main findings, and why they are significant to your field.
• Third paragraph: Explain why the journal’s readers would be interested in your work and why your results are important to your field.
• Conclusion: State the author(s) and any journal requirements that your work complies with (like ethical standards”).
• “We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.”
• “All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the name of the target journal].”

• Submit your article to only one journal at a time.
• When submitting online, use your university email account. This connects you with a scholarly institution, which can add credibility to your work.

• Accept: Only minor adjustments are needed, based on the provided feedback by the reviewers. A first submission will rarely be accepted without any changes needed.
• Revise and Resubmit: Changes are needed before publication can be considered, but the journal is still very interested in your work.
• Reject and Resubmit: Extensive revisions are needed. Your work may not be acceptable for this journal, but they might also accept it if significant changes are made.
• Reject: The paper isn’t and won’t be suitable for this publication, but that doesn’t mean it might not work for another journal.

• Try organizing the reviewer comments by how easy it is to address them. That way, you can break your revisions down into more manageable parts.
• If you disagree with a comment made by a reviewer, try to provide an evidence-based explanation when you resubmit your paper.

• If you’re resubmitting your paper to the same journal, include a point-by-point response paper that talks about how you addressed all of the reviewers’ comments in your revision. [22] X Research source
• If you’re not sure which journal to submit to next, you might be able to ask the journal editor which publications they recommend.

Expert Q&A

You might also like.

• If reviewers suspect that your submitted manuscript plagiarizes another work, they may refer to a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowchart to see how to move forward. [23] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• ↑ https://www.wiley.com/en-us/network/publishing/research-publishing/choosing-a-journal/6-steps-to-choosing-the-right-journal-for-your-research-infographic
• ↑ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z
• ↑ https://libguides.unomaha.edu/c.php?g=100510&p=651627
• ↑ https://www.canberra.edu.au/library/start-your-research/research_help/publishing-research
• ↑ https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/conclusions
• ↑ https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/writing-an-abstract-for-your-research-paper/
• ↑ https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/book-authors-editors/your-publication-journey/manuscript-preparation
• ↑ https://apus.libanswers.com/writing/faq/2391
• ↑ https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/search-strategy
• ↑ https://ifis.libguides.com/journal-publishing-guide/submitting-your-paper
• ↑ https://www.springer.com/kr/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/submitting-to-a-journal-and-peer-review/cover-letters/10285574
• ↑ https://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/publish.aspx
• ↑ Matthew Snipp, PhD. Research Fellow, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Expert Interview. 26 March 2020.

About This Article

To publish a research paper, ask a colleague or professor to review your paper and give you feedback. Once you've revised your work, familiarize yourself with different academic journals so that you can choose the publication that best suits your paper. Make sure to look at the "Author's Guide" so you can format your paper according to the guidelines for that publication. Then, submit your paper and don't get discouraged if it is not accepted right away. You may need to revise your paper and try again. To learn about the different responses you might get from journals, see our reviewer's explanation below. Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

RAMDEV GOHIL

Oct 16, 2017

Did this article help you?

David Okandeji

Oct 23, 2019

Revati Joshi

Feb 13, 2017

Shahzad Khan

Jul 1, 2017

Apr 7, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think!   opens in new tab/window

3. Submit and Revise

How to submit.

You can submit to most Elsevier journals using an online system. The system you use will depend on the journal.

Follow the "Submit Your Paper" link on your journal's homepage. You’ll be taken to the relevant system and will be prompted to log in.

If you’re using the system for the first time, follow the instructions to register. If you’re returning, log in.

Once you’re in the system, you will be guided through the submission process.

When you have completed your submission, you’ll receive an email with a reference number you can use to check the status of your submission.

If you need to submit a revised paper as a result of the peer review process, you will also do this in the submission system.

Peer review

The journal editor will make a first decision about your submission. If it’s suitable for the journal, the editor will send your manuscript to one or more reviewers – experts in your field. The peer review process acts as a filter to ensure only good research is published, and improves the quality of research submitted for publication by giving reviewers the opportunity to suggest improvements. To learn more about peer review, visit the  Elsevier Researcher Academy topic on "Navigating peer review"   opens in new tab/window .

It is highly likely that, if your paper is not rejected, you will be asked to revise it. You will have the opportunity to improve your paper taking into account the expert insights of the reviewers and the editor. This is an opportunity to distil an even better version of your paper so  make the most of the invitation.  You will also be able to respond to reviewer comments and signal where you have made changes or where you disagree with the advice. Remember to  do this calmly  and be prepared to justify your comments.

Open access: your choice

Choosing an open access journal is simple : with more than 270 gold open access journals, Elsevier has a broad choice of titles, including journals publishing dedicated data, software, hardware and methods articles, alternative article formats (such as videos) and specialty and broad scope journals. If there’s a particular journal you read that isn’t fully open access, you still have options: more than 1,950 of our journals are hybrid, so you can choose to publish gold open access in them.

If you choose to publish a subscription article, we can still help you meet your grant’s open access requirements. All our journals offer a green open access option, meaning you can post a version of your article in a repository after an embargo, so people can access it freely. See our  sharing policy  for more information.

Article Transfer Service

The Article Transfer Service is designed to make the editorial process smoother and more efficient. By creating families of linked journals within various academic fields, Elsevier facilitates the seamless transfer of articles between journals. This enables editors to identify and suggest a more suitable home for a manuscript and means that authors don’t have to go through the process of manually resubmitting, saving time and effort. If the transfer takes place post-review, previous input from referees can travel with the manuscript, ensuring the contributions of reviewers are used to maximum effect, so all parties benefit from the insights already shared.

Share research data

When submitting your article or your article revisions to an Elsevier journal, you'll find solutions to share your research data with your article directly within the submission system. For example, you can upload your research data to  Mendeley Data   opens in new tab/window , link to research data hosted in repositories, or co-submit a data or methods article. You can also include interactive data visualizations with your article. Check the guide for authors of the journal of your choice to see what solutions they support.

• Insights blog

How to publish your research

A step-by-step guide to getting published.

Publishing your research is an important step in your academic career. While there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach, this guide is designed to take you through the typical steps in publishing a research paper.

Discover how to get your paper published, from choosing the right journal and understanding what a peer reviewed article is, to responding to reviewers and navigating the production process.

Step 1: Choosing a journal

Choosing which journal to publish your research paper in is one of the most significant decisions you have to make as a researcher. Where you decide to submit your work can make a big difference to the reach and impact your research has.

It’s important to take your time to consider your options carefully and analyze each aspect of journal submission – from shortlisting titles to your preferred method of publication, for example open access .

Don’t forget to think about publishing options beyond the traditional journals format – for example, open research platform F1000Research , which offers rapid, open publication for a wide range of outputs.

Why choose your target journal before you start writing?

The first step in publishing a research paper should always be selecting the journal you want to publish in. Choosing your target journal before you start writing means you can tailor your work to build on research that’s already been published in that journal. This can help editors to see how a paper adds to the ‘conversation’ in their journal.

In addition, many journals only accept specific manuscript formats of article. So, by choosing a journal before you start, you can write your article to their specifications and audience, and ultimately improve your chances of acceptance.

To save time and for peace of mind, you can consider using manuscript formatting experts while you focus on your research.

How to select the journal to publish your research in

Choosing which journal to publish your research in can seem like an overwhelming task. So, for all the details of how to navigate this important step in publishing your research paper, take a look at our choosing a journal guide . This will take you through the selection process, from understanding the aims and scope of the journals you’re interested in to making sure you choose a trustworthy journal.

Don’t forget to explore our Journal Suggester to see which Taylor & Francis journals could be right for your research.

Go to guidance on choosing a journal

Step 2: Writing your paper

Writing an effective, compelling research paper  is vital to getting your research published. But if you’re new to putting together academic papers, it can feel daunting to start from scratch.

The good news is that if you’ve chosen the journal you want to publish in, you’ll have lots of examples already published in that journal to base your own paper on. We’ve gathered advice on every aspect of writing your paper, to make sure you get off to a great start.

How to write your paper

How you write your paper will depend on your chosen journal, your subject area, and the type of paper you’re writing. Everything from the style and structure you choose to the audience you should have in mind while writing will differ, so it’s important to think about these things before you get stuck in.

Our  writing your paper guidance  will take you through everything you need to know to put together your research article and prepare it for submission. This includes getting to know your target journal, understanding your audiences, and how to choose appropriate keywords.

You can also use this guide to take you through your research publication journey .

You should also make sure you’re aware of all the Editorial Policies  for the journal you plan to submit to. Don’t forget that you can contact our  editing services  to help you refine your manuscript.

Discover advice and guidance for writing your paper

Step 3: Making your submission

Once you’ve chosen the right journal and written your manuscript, the next step in publishing your research paper is  to make your submission .

Each journal will have specific submission requirements, so make sure you visit  Taylor & Francis Online  and carefully check through the  instructions for authors  for your chosen journal.

How to submit your manuscript

To submit your manuscript you’ll need to ensure that you’ve gone through all the steps in our  making your submission  guide. This includes thoroughly understanding your chosen journal’s instructions for authors, writing an effective cover letter, navigating the journal’s submission system, and making sure your research data is prepared as required.

You can also  improve your submission experience  with our guide to avoid obstacles and complete a seamless submission.

To make sure you’ve covered everything before you hit ‘submit’ you can also take a look at our  ‘ready to submit’ checklist  (don’t forget, you should only submit to one journal at a time).

Understand the process of making your submission

Step 4: Navigating the peer review process

Now you’ve submitted your manuscript, you need to get to grips with one of the most important parts of publishing your research paper –  the peer review process .

What is peer review?

Peer review is the independent assessment of your research article by independent experts in your field. Reviewers, also sometimes called ‘referees’, are asked to judge the validity, significance, and originality of your work.

This process ensures that a peer-reviewed article has been through a rigorous process to make sure the methodology is sound, the work can be replicated, and it fits with the aims and scope of the journal that is considering it for publication. It acts as an important form of quality control for research papers.

Peer review is also a very useful source of feedback, helping you to improve your paper before it’s published. It is intended to be a collaborative process, where authors engage in a dialogue with their peers and receive constructive feedback and support to advance their work.

Almost all research articles go through peer review, although in some cases the journal may operate post-publication peer review, which means that reviews and reader comments are invited after the paper is published.

If you’ll like to feel more confident before getting your work peer reviewed by the journal, you may want to consider using an  in-depth technical review service from experts.

Understanding peer review

Peer review can be a complex process to get your head around. That’s why we’ve put together a  comprehensive guide to understanding peer review . This explains everything from the many different types of peer review to the step-by-step peer review process and how to revise your manuscript. It also has helpful advice on what to do if your manuscript is rejected.

Visit our peer review guide for authors

Step 5: The production process

If your paper is accepted for publication, it will then head into  production . At this stage of the process, the paper will be prepared for publishing in your chosen journal.

A lot of the work to produce the final version of your paper will be done by the journal production team, but your input will be required at various stages of the process.

What do you need to do during production?

During production, you’ll have a variety of tasks to complete and decisions to make. For example, you’ll need to check and correct proofs of your article and consider whether or not you want to  produce a video abstract  to accompany it.

Take a look at  our guide to the production process  to find out what you’ll need to do in this final step to getting your research published.

Your research is published – now what?

You’ve successfully navigated publishing a research paper – congratulations! But the process doesn’t stop there. Now your research is published in a journal for the world to see, you’ll need to know  how to access your article  and  make sure it has an impact .

Here’s a  quick tip on how to boost your research impact  by investing in making your accomplishments stand out.

Below you’ll find helpful tips and post-publication support. From how to communicate about your research to how to request corrections or translations.

How to access your published article

When you publish with Taylor & Francis, you’ll have access to a new section on Taylor & Francis Online called  Authored Works . This will give you and all other named authors perpetual access to your article, regardless of whether or not you have a subscription to the journal you have published in.

You can also  order print copies of your article .

How to make sure your research has an impact

Taking the time to make sure your research has an impact can help drive your career progression, build your networks, and secure funding for new research. So, it’s worth investing in.

Creating a real impact with your work can be a challenging and time-consuming task, which can feel difficult to fit into an already demanding academic career.

To help you understand what impact means for you and your work, take a look at  our guide to research impact . It covers why impact is important, the different types of impact you can have, how to achieve impact – including tips on communicating with a variety of audiences – and how to measure your success.

Keeping track of your article’s progress

Through your  Authored Works access , you’ll be able to get real-time insights about your article, such as views, downloads and citation numbers.

In addition, when you publish an article with us, you’ll be offered the option to sign up for email updates. These emails will be sent to you three, six and twelve months after your article is published to let you know how many views and citations the article has had.

Corrections and translations of published articles

Sometimes after an article has been published it may be necessary to make a change to the  Version of Record . Take a look at our dedicated  guide to corrections, expressions of concern, retractions and removals  to find out more.

You may also be interested in translating your article into another language. If that’s the case, take a look at our  information on article translations .

Go to your guide on moving through production

Explore related posts

Insights topic: Get published

Use a trusted editing service to help you get published

5 practical tips for writing an academic article 

5 ways to avoid the wrong journal and find the right one

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in 7 Steps

What comes next after you're done with your research? Publishing the results in a journal of course! We tell you how to present your work in the best way possible.

This post is part of a series, which serves to provide hands-on information and resources for authors and editors.

Things have gotten busy in scholarly publishing: These days, a new article gets published in the 50,000 most important peer-reviewed journals every few seconds, while each one takes on average 40 minutes to read. Hundreds of thousands of papers reach the desks of editors and reviewers worldwide each year and 50% of all submissions end up rejected at some stage.

In a nutshell: there is a lot of competition, and the people who decide upon the fate of your manuscript are short on time and overworked. But there are ways to make their lives a little easier and improve your own chances of getting your work published!

Well, it may seem obvious, but before submitting an academic paper, always make sure that it is an excellent reflection of the research you have done and that you present it in the most professional way possible. Incomplete or poorly presented manuscripts can create a great deal of frustration and annoyance for editors who probably won’t even bother wasting the time of the reviewers!

This post will discuss 7 steps to the successful publication of your research paper:

• Check whether your research is publication-ready
• Choose an article type
• Choose a journal
• Construct your paper
• Decide the order of authors
• Check and double-check
• Submit your paper

1. Check Whether Your Research Is Publication-Ready

Should you publish your research at all?

If your work holds academic value – of course – a well-written scholarly article could open doors to your research community. However, if you are not yet sure, whether your research is ready for publication, here are some key questions to ask yourself depending on your field of expertise:

• Have you done or found something new and interesting? Something unique?
• Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
• Have you checked the latest results or research in the field?
• Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
• Have the findings been verified?
• Have the appropriate controls been performed if required?
• Are your findings comprehensive?

If the answers to all relevant questions are “yes”, you need to prepare a good, strong manuscript. Remember, a research paper is only useful if it is clearly understood, reproducible and if it is read and used .

2. Choose An Article Type

The first step is to determine which type of paper is most appropriate for your work and what you want to achieve. The following list contains the most important, usually peer-reviewed article types in the natural sciences:

Full original research papers disseminate completed research findings. On average this type of paper is 8-10 pages long, contains five figures, and 25-30 references. Full original research papers are an important part of the process when developing your career.

Review papers present a critical synthesis of a specific research topic. These papers are usually much longer than original papers and will contain numerous references. More often than not, they will be commissioned by journal editors. Reviews present an excellent way to solidify your research career.

Letters, Rapid or Short Communications are often published for the quick and early communication of significant and original advances. They are much shorter than full articles and usually limited in length by the journal. Journals specifically dedicated to short communications or letters are also published in some fields. In these the authors can present short preliminary findings before developing a full-length paper.

3. Choose a Journal

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Submit to journals that you already read, that you have a good feel for. If you do so, you will have a better appreciation of both its culture and the requirements of the editors and reviewers.

Other factors to consider are:

• The specific subject area
• The aims and scope of the journal
• The type of manuscript you have written
• The significance of your work
• The reputation of the journal
• The reputation of the editors within the community
• The editorial/review and production speeds of the journal
• The community served by the journal
• The coverage and distribution
• The accessibility ( open access vs. closed access)

4. Construct Your Paper

Each element of a paper has its purpose, so you should make these sections easy to index and search.

Don’t forget that requirements can differ highly per publication, so always make sure to apply a journal’s specific instructions – or guide – for authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc.) It will save you time, and the editor’s.

Also, even in these days of Internet-based publishing, space is still at a premium, so be as concise as possible. As a good journalist would say: “Never use three words when one will do!”

Let’s look at the typical structure of a full research paper, but bear in mind certain subject disciplines may have their own specific requirements so check the instructions for authors on the journal’s home page.

4.1 The Title

It’s important to use the title to tell the reader what your paper is all about! You want to attract their attention, a bit like a newspaper headline does. Be specific and to the point. Keep it informative and concise, and avoid jargon and abbreviations (unless they are universally recognized like DNA, for example).

4.2 The Abstract

This could be termed as the “advertisement” for your article. Make it interesting and easily understood without the reader having to read the whole article. Be accurate and specific, and keep it as brief and concise as possible. Some journals (particularly in the medical fields) will ask you to structure the abstract in distinct, labeled sections, which makes it even more accessible.

A clear abstract will influence whether or not your work is considered and whether an editor should invest more time on it or send it for review.

4.3 Keywords

Keywords are used by abstracting and indexing services, such as PubMed and Web of Science. They are the labels of your manuscript, which make it “searchable” online by other researchers.

Include words or phrases (usually 4-8) that are closely related to your topic but not “too niche” for anyone to find them. Make sure to only use established abbreviations. Think about what scientific terms and its variations your potential readers are likely to use and search for. You can also do a test run of your selected keywords in one of the common academic search engines. Do similar articles to your own appear? Yes? Then that’s a good sign.

4.4 Introduction

This first part of the main text should introduce the problem, as well as any existing solutions you are aware of and the main limitations. Also, state what you hope to achieve with your research.

Do not confuse the introduction with the results, discussion or conclusion.

4.5 Methods

Every research article should include a detailed Methods section (also referred to as “Materials and Methods”) to provide the reader with enough information to be able to judge whether the study is valid and reproducible.

Include detailed information so that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment. However, use references and supplementary materials to indicate previously published procedures.

4.6 Results

In this section, you will present the essential or primary results of your study. To display them in a comprehensible way, you should use subheadings as well as illustrations such as figures, graphs, tables and photos, as appropriate.

4.7 Discussion

Here you should tell your readers what the results mean .

Do state how the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses and how the findings relate to those of other studies. Explain all possible interpretations of your findings and the study’s limitations.

Do not make “grand statements” that are not supported by the data. Also, do not introduce any new results or terms. Moreover, do not ignore work that conflicts or disagrees with your findings. Instead …

Be brave! Address conflicting study results and convince the reader you are the one who is correct.

4.8 Conclusion

Your conclusion isn’t just a summary of what you’ve already written. It should take your paper one step further and answer any unresolved questions.

Sum up what you have shown in your study and indicate possible applications and extensions. The main question your conclusion should answer is: What do my results mean for the research field and my community?

4.9 Acknowledgments and Ethical Statements

It is extremely important to acknowledge anyone who has helped you with your paper, including researchers who supplied materials or reagents (e.g. vectors or antibodies); and anyone who helped with the writing or English, or offered critical comments about the content.

Learn more about academic integrity in our blog post “Scholarly Publication Ethics: 4 Common Mistakes You Want To Avoid” .

Remember to state why people have been acknowledged and ask their permission . Ensure that you acknowledge sources of funding, including any grant or reference numbers.

Furthermore, if you have worked with animals or humans, you need to include information about the ethical approval of your study and, if applicable, whether informed consent was given. Also, state whether you have any competing interests regarding the study (e.g. because of financial or personal relationships.)

4.10 References

The end is in sight, but don’t relax just yet!

De facto, there are often more mistakes in the references than in any other part of the manuscript. It is also one of the most annoying and time-consuming problems for editors.

Remember to cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based. But do not inflate the manuscript with too many references. Avoid excessive – and especially unnecessary – self-citations. Also, avoid excessive citations of publications from the same institute or region.

5. Decide the Order of Authors

In the sciences, the most common way to order the names of the authors is by relative contribution.

Generally, the first author conducts and/or supervises the data analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results. They put the paper together and usually submit the paper to the journal.

Co-authors make intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contribute to data interpretation. They review each paper draft. All of them must be able to present the paper and its results, as well as to defend the implications and discuss study limitations.

Do not leave out authors who should be included or add “gift authors”, i.e. authors who did not contribute significantly.

6. Check and Double-Check

As a final step before submission, ask colleagues to read your work and be constructively critical .

Make sure that the paper is appropriate for the journal – take a last look at their aims and scope. Check if all of the requirements in the instructions for authors are met.

Ensure that the cited literature is balanced. Are the aims, purpose and significance of the results clear?

Conduct a final check for language, either by a native English speaker or an editing service.

7. Submit Your Paper

When you and your co-authors have double-, triple-, quadruple-checked the manuscript: submit it via e-mail or online submission system. Along with your manuscript, submit a cover letter, which highlights the reasons why your paper would appeal to the journal and which ensures that you have received approval of all authors for submission.

It is up to the editors and the peer-reviewers now to provide you with their (ideally constructive and helpful) comments and feedback. Time to take a breather!

If the paper gets rejected, do not despair – it happens to literally everybody. If the journal suggests major or minor revisions, take the chance to provide a thorough response and make improvements as you see fit. If the paper gets accepted, congrats!

It’s now time to get writing and share your hard work – good luck!

If you are interested, check out this related blog post

[Title Image by Nick Morrison via Unsplash]

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

Taking Libraries into the Future, Part 4: How IFLA Harnesses Social Media

10 summer reads for the intellectually curious, how to maximize your message through social media: a global masterclass from library professionals, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Submission guidelines

Format of articles, cover letter, revised manuscripts, tex/latex files, writing your manuscript, copy editing services, acknowledgements, author contributions, competing interests, data availability, ethics declarations, approval for animal experiments, approval for human experiments, consent to participate/consent to publish.

• Supplementary information

Figure legends

General figure guidelines, figures for peer review, figures for publication, statistical guidelines, chemical and biological nomenclature and abbreviations, gene nomenclature, characterisation of chemical and biomolecular materials, registered reports.

Scientific Reports publishes original research in two formats: Article and Registered Report. For Registered Reports, see section below . In most cases, we do not impose strict limits on word count or page number. However, we strongly recommend that you write concisely and stick to the following guidelines:

• Articles should ideally be no more than 11 typeset pages
• The main text should be no more than 4,500 words (not including Abstract, Methods, References and figure legends)
• The title should be no more than 20 words, should describe the main message of the article using a single scientifically accurate sentence, and should not contain puns or idioms
• The abstract should be no more than 200 words

For a definitive list of which limits are mandatory please visit the submission checklist page .

Please do not include any references in your Abstract. Make sure it serves both as a general introduction to the topic and as a brief, non-technical summary of the main results and their implications. Abstract should be unstructured, i.e. should not contain sections or subheadings.

We allow the use of up to 6 keywords/key phrases that can be used for indexing purposes. These should represent the main content of the submission.

Your manuscript text file should start with a title page that shows author affiliations and contact information, identifying the corresponding author with an asterisk. We recommend that each section includes an introduction of referenced text that expands on the background of the work. Some overlap with the Abstract is acceptable. Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT , do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria . Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript. In response to emerging information, advice, guidance and policy around artificial intelligence (AI), we have created a dedicated AI section in our  Editorial Policy page . Please familiarize yourself with this content and comply with relevant policies.

For the main body of the text, there are no specific requirements. You can organise it in a way that best suits your research. However, the following structure will be suitable in many cases:

• Introduction
• Results (with subheadings)
• Discussion (without subheadings)

You should then follow the main body of text with:

• References (limited to 60 references, though not strictly enforced)
• Acknowledgements (optional)
• Data availability statement (mandatory)
• Additional Information (including a Competing Interests Statement)
• Figure legends (these are limited to 350 words per figure)
• Tables (maximum size of one page)

Please note, footnotes should not be used. 

We do not automatically include page or line numbers in the materials sent to Editorial Board Members and reviewers. Please consider including those in your manuscript; this can help facilitate the evaluation of the paper and makes giving feedback on specific sections easier.

You may include a limited number of uncaptioned molecular structure graphics and numbered mathematical equations if necessary. Display items are limited to 8 ( figures and/or tables ). However, to enable typesetting of papers, we advise making the number of display items commensurate with your overall word length. So, for Articles of 2,000 words or less, we suggest including no more than 4 figures/tables. Please note that schemes should not be used and should be presented as figures instead.

Your submission must also include:

• A cover letter
• Individual figure files and optional supplementary information files

For first submissions (i.e. not revised manuscripts), you may incorporate the manuscript text and figures into a single file up to 3 MB in size. Whilst Microsoft Word is preferred we also accept LaTeX, or PDF format. Figures can be inserted in the text at the appropriate positions, or grouped at the end.

Supplementary information should be combined and supplied as a single separate file, preferably in PDF format.

A submission template is available in the Overleaf template gallery to help you prepare a LaTeX manuscript within the Scientific Reports formatting criteria.

In your cover letter, you should include:

• The affiliation and contact information of your corresponding author
• A brief explanation of why the work is appropriate for Scientific Reports
• The names and contact information of any reviewers you consider suitable
• The names of any referees you would like excluded from reviewing

Finally, you should state whether you have had any prior discussions with a Scientific Reports Editorial Board Member about the work described in your manuscript.

For revised manuscripts, you should provide all textual content in a single file, prepared using either Microsoft Word or LaTeX. Please note, we do not accept PDF files for the article text of revised manuscripts. Make sure you:

• Format the manuscript file as single-column text without justification.
• Number the pages using an Arabic numeral in the footer of each page.
• Use the default Computer Modern fonts for your text, and the 'symbols' font for any Greek characters.
• Supply any figures as individual files.
• Combine and supply any Supplementary Information as a separate file, preferably in PDF format.
• Include the title of the manuscript and author list in the first page of the Supplementary Information file.

If you do not wish to incorporate the manuscript text and figures into a single file, please provide all textual content in a separate single file, prepared using either Microsoft Word or LaTeX.

If you’re submitting LaTeX files, you can either use the standard ‘Article’ document class (or similar) or the wlscirep.cls file and template provided by Overleaf . For graphics, we recommend your use graphicx.sty. Use numerical references only for citations.

Our system cannot accept .bib files. If you prepare references using BibTeX (which is optional), please include the .bbl file with your submission (as a ‘LaTeX supplementary file’) in order for it to be processed correctly; this file is included automatically in the zip file generated by Overleaf for submissions. Please see this help article on Overleaf for more details.

Alternatively, you can make sure that the references (source code) are included within the manuscript file itself. As a final precaution, you should ensure that the complete .tex file compiles successfully on its own system with no errors or warnings, before submission.

Scientific Reports is read by a truly diverse range of scientists. Please therefore give careful thought to communicating your findings as clearly as possible.

Although you can assume a shared basic knowledge of science, please don’t expect that everyone will be familiar with the specialist language or concepts of your particular field. Therefore:

• Avoid technical jargon wherever possible, explaining it clearly when it is unavoidable.
• Keep abbreviations to a minimum, particularly when they are not standard.
• If you must use an abbreviation, make sure you spell it out fully in the text or legend the first time it appears.
• Clearly explain the background, rationale and main conclusions of your study.
• Write titles and abstracts in language that will be readily understood by any scientist.

We strongly recommend that you ask a colleague with different expertise to review your manuscript before you submit it. This will help you to identify concepts and terminology that non-specialist readers may find hard to grasp.

We don’t provide in-depth copy editing as part of the production process. So, if you feel your manuscript would benefit from someone looking at the copy, please consider using a copy editing or language editing service. You can either do this before submission or at the revision stage. You can also get a fast, free grammar check of your manuscript that takes into account all aspects of readability in English.

We have two affiliates who can provide you with these services: Nature Research Editing Service and American Journal Experts . As a Scientific Reports author, you are entitled to a 10% discount on your first submission to either of these.

Claim 10% off English editing from Nature Research Editing Service

Claim 10% off American Journal Experts

Please note that the use of an editing service is at your own expense, and doesn’t ensure that your article will be selected for peer-review or accepted for publication.

We don't impose word limits on the description of methods. Make sure it includes adequate experimental and characterisation data for others to be able to reproduce your work. You should:

• Include descriptions of standard protocols and experimental procedures.
• Only identify commercial suppliers of reagents or instrumentation when the source is critical to the outcome of the experiments.
• Identify sources for any kits you use in your procedures.
• Include any experimental protocols that describe the synthesis of new compounds.
• Use the systematic name of any new compound and put its bold Arabic numeral in the heading for the experimental protocol, indicating it thereafter by its assigned, bold numeral.
• Describe the experimental protocol in detail, referring to amounts of reagents in parentheses, when possible (eg 1.03 g, 0.100 mmol).
• Use standard abbreviations for reagents and solvents.
• Clearly identify safety hazards posed by reagents or protocols.
• Report isolated mass and percent yields at the end of each protocol.

If you’re reporting experiments on live vertebrates (or higher invertebrates), humans or human samples, you must include a statement of ethical approval in the Methods section (see our detailed requirements for further information on preparing these statements).

We don’t copy edit your references. Therefore, it’s essential you format them correctly, as they will be linked electronically to external databases where possible. At Scientific Reports , we use the standard Nature referencing style. So, when formatting your references, make sure they:

• Run sequentially (and are always numerical).
• Sit within square brackets.
• Only have one publication linked to each number.
• Only include papers or datasets that have been published or accepted by a named publication, recognised preprint server or data repository (if you include any preprints of accepted papers in your reference list, make sure you submit them with the manuscript).
• Include published conference abstracts and numbered patents, if you wish.
• Don’t include grant details and acknowledgements.

Sorry, we cannot accept BibTeX (.bib) bibliography files for references. If you are making your submission by LaTeX, it must either contain all references within the manuscript .tex file itself, or (if you’re using the Overleaf template) include the .bbl file generated during the compilation process as a ‘LaTeX supplementary file’ (see the "Manuscripts" section for more details).

In your reference list, you should:

• Include all authors unless there are six or more, in which case only the first author should be given, followed by 'et al.'.
• List authors by last name first, followed by a comma and initials (followed by full stops) of given names.
• Use Roman text for Article and dataset titles, with only the first word of the title having an initial capital and written exactly as it appears in the work cited, ending with a full stop.
• Use italics for book titles, giving all words in the title an initial capital.
• Use italics for journal and data repository names, abbreviating them according to common usage (with full stops).
• Use bold for volume numbers and the subsequent comma.
• Give the full page range (or article number), where appropriate.

Published papers:

Printed journals Schott, D. H., Collins, R. N. & Bretscher, A. Secretory vesicle transport velocity in living cells depends on the myosin V lever arm length. J. Cell Biol . 156 , 35-39 (2002).

Online only Bellin, D. L. et al. Electrochemical camera chip for simultaneous imaging of multiple metabolites in biofilms . Nat. Commun . 7 , 10535; 10.1038/ncomms10535 (2016).

For papers with more than five authors include only the first author’s name followed by ‘et al.’.

Books: Smith, J. Syntax of referencing in How to reference books (ed. Smith, S.) 180-181 (Macmillan, 2013).

Online material:

Babichev, S. A., Ries, J. & Lvovsky, A. I. Quantum scissors: teleportation of single-mode optical states by means of a nonlocal single photon. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0208066 (2002).

Manaster, J. Sloth squeak. Scientific American Blog Network http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psi-vid/2014/04/09/sloth-squeak (2014).

Hao, Z., AghaKouchak, A., Nakhjiri, N. & Farahmand, A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets.  figshare   https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801 (2014).

Please keep any acknowledgements brief, and don’t include thanks to anonymous referees and editors, or any effusive comments. You may acknowledge grant or contribution numbers. You should also acknowledge assistance from medical writers, proof-readers and editors.

You must supply an Author Contribution Statement as described in the Author responsibilities section of our Editorial and Publishing Policies .

Please be aware:

• The author name you give as the corresponding author will be the main contact during the review process and should not change.
• The information you provide in the submission system will be used as the source of truth when your paper is published.

You must supply a competing interests statement . If there is no conflict of interest, you should include a statement declaring this.

Your statement must be explicit and unambiguous, describing any potential competing interest (or lack thereof) for EACH contributing author. The information you provide in the submission system will be used as the source of truth when your paper is published.

Examples of declarations are:

Competing interests The author(s) declare no competing interests.

Competing interests Dr X's work has been funded by A. He has received compensation as a member of the scientific advisory board of B and owns stock in the company. He also has consulted for C and received compensation. Dr Y and Dr Z declare no potential conflict of interest.

You must include a Data Availability Statement in all submitted manuscripts (at the end of the main text, before the References section); see ' Availability of materials and data ' section for more information.

If your research includes human or animal subjects, you will need to include the appropriate ethics declarations in the Methods section of your manuscript.

For experiments involving live vertebrates and/or higher invertebrates, your Methods section must include a statement that:

• Identifies the institutional and/or licensing committee that approved the experiments, including any relevant details.
• Confirms that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant named guidelines and regulations.
• Confirms that the authors complied with the ARRIVE guidelines.

For experiments involving human subjects (or tissue samples), your Methods section must include a statement that:

• Confirms that informed consent was obtained from all participants and/or their legal guardians.

Please note that:

• Study participant names (and other personally identifiable information) must be removed from all text/figures/tables/images.
• The use of coloured bars/shapes or blurring to obscure the eyes/facial region of study participants is not an acceptable means of anonymisation. For manuscripts that include information or images that could lead to identification of a study participant, your Methods section must include a statement that confirms informed consent was obtained to publish the information/image(s) in an online open access publication.

Supplementary Information

You should submit any Supplementary Information together with the manuscript so that we can send it to referees during peer-review. This will be published online with accepted manuscripts.

It’s vital that you carefully check your Supplementary Information before submission as any modification after your paper is published will require a formal correction.

Please avoid including any "data not shown" statements and instead make your data available via deposition in a public repository (see ' Availability of materials and data ' for more information).

If any data that is necessary to evaluate the claims of your paper is not available via a public depository, make sure you provide it as Supplementary Information.

We do not edit, typeset or proof Supplementary Information, so please present it clearly and succinctly at initial submission, making sure it conforms to the style and terminology of the rest of the paper.

To avoid any delays to publication, please follow the guidelines below for creation, citation and submission of your Supplementary Information:

You can combine multiple pieces of Supplementary Information and supply them as a single composite file. If you wish to keep larger information (e.g. supplementary videos, spreadsheets [.csv or .xlsx] or data files) as another separate file you may do so.

Designate each item as Supplementary Table, Figure, Video, Audio, Note, Data, Discussion, Equations or Methods, as appropriate. Number Supplementary Tables and Figures as, for example, "Supplementary Table S1". This numbering should be separate from that used in tables and figures appearing in the main article. Supplementary Note or Methods should not be numbered; titles for these are optional.

Refer to each piece of supplementary material at the appropriate point(s) in the main article. Be sure to include the word "Supplementary" each time one is mentioned. Please do not refer to individual panels of supplementary figures.

Use the following examples as a guide (note: abbreviate "Figure" as "Fig." when in the middle of a sentence): "Table 1 provides a selected subset of the most active compounds. The entire list of 96 compounds can be found as Supplementary Table S1 online." "The biosynthetic pathway of L-ascorbic acid in animals involves intermediates of the D-glucuronic acid pathway (see Supplementary Fig. S2 online). Figure 2 shows...".

Remember to include a brief title and legend (incorporated into the file to appear near the image) as part of every figure submitted, and a title as part of every table.

Keep file sizes as small as possible, with a maximum size of 50 MB, so that they can be downloaded quickly.

Supplementary video files should be provided in the standard video aspects: 4:3, 16:9, 21:9.

If you have any further questions about the submission and preparation of Supplementary Information, please email: [email protected] .

Please begin your figure legends with a brief title sentence for the whole figure and continue with a short description of what is shown in each panel. Use any symbols in sequence and minimise the methodological details as much as possible. Keep each legend total to no more than 350 words. Provide text for figure legends in numerical order after the references.

Please submit any tables in your main article document in an editable format (Word or TeX/LaTeX, as appropriate), and not as images. Tables that include statistical analysis of data should describe their standards of error analysis and ranges in a table legend.

Include any equations and mathematical expressions in the main text of the paper. Identify equations that are referred to in the text by parenthetical numbers, such as (1), and refer to them in the manuscript as "equation (1)" etc.

For submissions in a .doc or .docx format, please make sure that all equations are provided in an editable Word format. You can produce these with the equation editor included in Microsoft Word.

You are responsible for obtaining permission to publish any figures or illustrations that are protected by copyright, including figures published elsewhere and pictures taken by professional photographers. We cannot publish images downloaded from the internet without appropriate permission.

You should state the source of any images used. If you or one of your co-authors has drawn the images, please mention this in your acknowledgements. For software, you should state the name, version number and URL.

Number any figures separately with Arabic numerals in the order they occur in the text of the manuscript. Include error bars when appropriate. Include a description of the statistical treatment of error analysis in the figure legend.

Please do not use schemes. You should submit sequences of chemical reactions or experimental procedures as figures, with appropriate captions. You may include in the manuscript a limited number of uncaptioned graphics depicting chemical structures - each labelled with their name, by a defined abbreviation, or by the bold Arabic numeral.

Use a clear, sans-serif typeface (for example, Helvetica) for figure lettering. Use the same typeface in the same font size for all figures in your paper. For Greek letters, use a 'symbols' font. Put all display items on a white background, and avoid excessive boxing, unnecessary colour, spurious decorative effects (such as three-dimensional 'skyscraper' histograms) and highly pixelated computer drawings. Never truncate the vertical axis of histograms to exaggerate small differences. Ensure any labelling is of sufficient size and contrast to be legible, even after appropriate reduction. The thinnest lines in the final figure should be no smaller than one point wide. You will be sent a proof that will include figures.

• Figures divided into parts should be labelled with a lower-case, bold letter ( a, b, c and so on) in the same type size as used elsewhere in the figure.
• Lettering in figures should be in lower-case type, with only the first letter of each label capitalised.
• Units should have a single space between the number and the unit, and follow SI nomenclature (for example, ms rather than msec) or the nomenclature common to a particular field.
• Thousands should be separated by commas (1,000).
• Unusual units or abbreviations should be spelled out in full or defined in the legend.
• Scale bars should be used rather than magnification factors, with the length of the bar defined on the bar itself rather than in the legend.

In legends, please use visual cues rather than verbal explanations such as "open red triangles". Avoid unnecessary figures: data presented in small tables or histograms, for instance, can generally be stated briefly in the text instead. Figures should not contain more than one panel unless the parts are logically connected; each panel of a multipart figure should be sized so that the whole figure can be reduced by the same amount and reproduced at the smallest size at which essential details are visible.

At the initial submission stage, you may choose to upload separate figure files or to incorporate figures into the main article file, ensuring that any figures are of sufficient quality to be clearly legible.

When submitting a revised manuscript, you must upload all figures as separate figure files, ensuring that the image quality and formatting conforms to the specifications below.

You must supply each complete figure as a separate file upload. Multi-part/panel figures must be prepared and arranged as a single image file (including all sub-parts; a, b, c, etc.). Please do not upload each panel individually.

Please read the digital images integrity and standards section of our Editorial and Publishing Policies . When possible, we prefer to use original digital figures to ensure the highest-quality reproduction in the journal. When creating and submitting digital files, please follow the guidelines below. Failure to do so, or to adhere to the following guidelines, can significantly delay publication of your work.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1. Line art, graphs, charts and schematics

For optimal results, you should supply all line art, graphs, charts and schematics in vector format, such as EPS or AI. Please save or export it directly from the application in which it was made, making sure that data points and axis labels are clearly legible.

2. Photographic and bitmap images

Please supply all photographic and bitmap images in a bitmap image format such as tiff, jpg, or psd. If saving tiff files, please ensure that the compression option is selected to avoid very large file sizes. Please do not supply Word or Powerpoint files with placed images. Images can be supplied as RGB or CMYK (note: we will not convert image colour modes).

Figures that do not meet these standards will not reproduce well and may delay publication until we receive high-resolution images.

3. Chemical structures

Please produce Chemical structures using ChemDraw or a similar program. All chemical compounds must be assigned a bold, Arabic numeral in the order in which the compounds are presented in the manuscript text. Structures should then be exported into a 300 dpi RGB tiff file before being submitted.

4. Stereo images

You should present stereo diagrams for divergent 'wall-eyed' viewing, with the two panels separated by 5.5 cm. In the final accepted version of the manuscript, you should submit the stereo images at their final page size.

If your paper contains statistical testing, it should state the name of the statistical test, the n value for each statistical analysis, the comparisons of interest, a justification for the use of that test (including, for example, a discussion of the normality of the data when the test is appropriate only for normal data), the alpha level for all tests, whether the tests were one-tailed or two-tailed, and the actual P value for each test (not merely "significant" or "P < 0.05"). Please make it clear what statistical test was used to generate every P value. Use of the word "significant" should always be accompanied by a P value; otherwise, use "substantial," "considerable," etc.

Data sets should be summarised with descriptive statistics, which should include the n value for each data set, a clearly labelled measure of centre (such as the mean or the median), and a clearly labelled measure of variability (such as standard deviation or range).

Ranges are more appropriate than standard deviations or standard errors for small data sets. Graphs should include clearly labelled error bars. You must state whether a number that follows the ± sign is a standard error (s.e.m.) or a standard deviation (s.d.).

You must justify the use of a particular test and explain whether the data conforms to the assumptions of the tests. Three errors are particularly common:

• Multiple comparisons: when making multiple statistical comparisons on a single data set, you should explain how you adjusted the alpha level to avoid an inflated Type I error rate, or you should select statistical tests appropriate for multiple groups (such as ANOVA rather than a series of t-tests).
• Normal distribution: many statistical tests require that the data be approximately normally distributed; when using these tests, you should explain how you tested your data for normality. If the data does not meet the assumptions of the test, you should use a non-parametric alternative instead.
• Small sample size: when the sample size is small (less than about 10), you should use tests appropriate to small samples or justify the use of large-sample tests.

You should identify molecular structures by bold, Arabic numerals assigned in order of presentation in the text. Once identified in the main text or a figure, you may refer to compounds by their name, by a defined abbreviation, or by the bold Arabic numeral (as long as the compound is referred to consistently as one of these three).

When possible, you should refer to chemical compounds and biomolecules using systematic nomenclature, preferably using IUPAC . You should use standard chemical and biological abbreviations. Make sure you define unconventional or specialist abbreviations at their first occurrence in the text.

You should use approved nomenclature for gene symbols, and employ symbols rather than italicised full names (for example Ttn, not titin). Please consult the appropriate nomenclature databases for correct gene names and symbols. A useful resource is Entrez Gene .

You can get approved human gene symbols from HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC), e-mail: [email protected] ; see also www.genenames.org .

You can get approved mouse symbols from The Jackson Laboratory, e-mail: [email protected] ; see also www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen .

For proposed gene names that are not already approved, please submit the gene symbols to the appropriate nomenclature committees as soon as possible, as these must be deposited and approved before publication of an article.

Avoid listing multiple names of genes (or proteins) separated by a slash, as in 'Oct4/Pou5f1', as this is ambiguous (it could mean a ratio, a complex, alternative names or different subunits). Use one name throughout and include the other at first mention: 'Oct4 (also known as Pou5f1)'.

Scientific Reports is committed to publishing technically sound research. Manuscripts submitted to the journal will be held to rigorous standards with respect to experimental methods and characterisation of new compounds.

You must provide adequate data to support your assignment of identity and purity for each new compound described in your manuscript. You should provide a statement confirming the source, identity and purity of known compounds that are central to the scientific study, even if they are purchased or resynthesised using published methods.

1. Chemical identity

Chemical identity for organic and organometallic compounds should be established through spectroscopic analysis. Standard peak listings (see formatting guidelines below) for 1H NMR and proton-decoupled 13C NMR should be provided for all new compounds. Other NMR data should be reported (31P NMR, 19F NMR, etc.) when appropriate. For new materials, you should also provide mass spectral data to support molecular weight identity. High-resolution mass spectral (HRMS) data is preferred. You may report UV or IR spectral data for the identification of characteristic functional groups, when appropriate. You should provide melting-point ranges for crystalline materials. You may report specific rotations for chiral compounds. You should provide references, rather than detailed procedures, for known compounds, unless their protocols represent a departure from or improvement on published methods.

2. Combinational compound libraries

When describing the preparation of combinatorial libraries, you should include standard characterisation data for a diverse panel of library components.

3. Biomolecular identity

For new biopolymeric materials (oligosaccharides, peptides, nucleic acids, etc.), direct structural analysis by NMR spectroscopic methods may not be possible. In these cases, you must provide evidence of identity based on sequence (when appropriate) and mass spectral characterisation.

4. Biological constructs

You should provide sequencing or functional data that validates the identity of their biological constructs (plasmids, fusion proteins, site-directed mutants, etc.) either in the manuscript text or the Methods section, as appropriate.

5. Sample purity

We request evidence of sample purity for each new compound. Methods for purity analysis depend on the compound class. For most organic and organometallic compounds, purity may be demonstrated by high-field 1H NMR or 13C NMR data, although elemental analysis (±0.4%) is encouraged for small molecules. You may use quantitative analytical methods including chromatographic (GC, HPLC, etc.) or electrophoretic analyses to demonstrate purity for small molecules and polymeric materials.

6. Spectral data

Please provide detailed spectral data for new compounds in list form (see below) in the Methods section. Figures containing spectra generally will not be published as a manuscript figure unless the data are directly relevant to the central conclusions of the paper. You are encouraged to include high-quality images of spectral data for key compounds in the Supplementary Information. You should list specific NMR assignments after integration values only if they were unambiguously determined by multidimensional NMR or decoupling experiments. You should provide information about how assignments were made in a general Methods section.

Example format for compound characterisation data. mp: 100-102 °C (lit. ref 99-101 °C); TLC (CHCl 3 :MeOH, 98:2 v/v): R f = 0.23; [α] D = -21.5 (0.1 M in n-hexane); 1 H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl 3 ): δ 9.30 (s, 1H), 7.55-7.41 (m, 6H), 5.61 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 1H), 5.40 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 1H), 4.93 (m, 1H), 4.20 (q, J = 8.5 Hz, 2H), 2.11 (s, 3H), 1.25 (t, J = 8.5 Hz, 3H); 13 C NMR (125 MHz, CDCl 3 ): δ 165.4, 165.0, 140.5, 138.7, 131.5, 129.2, 118.6, 84.2, 75.8, 66.7, 37.9, 20.1; IR (Nujol): 1765 cm- 1 ; UV/Vis: λ max 267 nm; HRMS (m/z): [M] + calcd. for C 20 H 15 C l2 NO 5 , 420.0406; found, 420.0412; analysis (calcd., found for C 20 H 15 C l2 NO 5 ): C (57.16, 57.22), H (3.60, 3.61), Cl (16.87, 16.88), N (3.33, 3.33), O (19.04, 19.09).

7. Crystallographic data for small molecules

If your manuscript is reporting new three-dimensional structures of small molecules from crystallographic analysis, you should include a .cif file and a structural figure with probability ellipsoids for publication as Supplementary Information. These must have been checked using the IUCR's CheckCIF routine, and you must include a PDF copy of the output with the submission, together with a justification for any alerts reported. You should submit crystallographic data for small molecules to the Cambridge Structural Database and the deposition number referenced appropriately in the manuscript. Full access must be provided on publication.

8. Macromolecular structural data

If your manuscript is reporting new structures, it should contain a table summarising structural and refinement statistics. Templates are available for such tables describing NMR and X-ray crystallography data. To facilitate assessment of the quality of the structural data, you should submit with the manuscript a stereo image of a portion of the electron density map (for crystallography papers) or of the superimposed lowest energy structures (≳10; for NMR papers). If the reported structure represents a novel overall fold, you should also provide a stereo image of the entire structure (as a backbone trace).

Registered Reports are original research articles which undergo peer-review prior to data collection and analyses. This format is designed to minimize publication bias and research bias in hypothesis-driven research, while also allowing the flexibility to conduct exploratory (unregistered) analyses and report serendipitous findings. If you intend to submit a Registered Report to Scientific Reports , please refer to detailed guidelines here .

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Home → Get Published → How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

Jordan Kruszynski

• January 4, 2024

You’re in academia.

You’re going steady.

Your research is going well and you begin to wonder: ‘ How exactly do I get a research paper published?’

If this is the question on your lips, then this step-by-step guide is the one for you. We’ll be walking you through the whole process of how to publish a research paper.

Publishing a research paper is a significant milestone for researchers and academics, as it allows you to share your findings, contribute to your field of study, and start to gain serious recognition within the wider academic community. So, want to know how to publish a research paper? By following our guide, you’ll get a firm grasp of the steps involved in this process, giving you the best chance of successfully navigating the publishing process and getting your work out there.

Understanding the Publishing Process

To begin, it’s crucial to understand that getting a research paper published is a multi-step process. From beginning to end, it could take as little as 2 months before you see your paper nestled in the pages of your chosen journal. On the other hand, it could take as long as a year .

Below, we set out the steps before going into more detail on each one. Getting a feel for these steps will help you to visualise what lies ahead, and prepare yourself for each of them in turn. It’s important to remember that you won’t actually have control over every step – in fact, some of them will be decided by people you’ll probably never meet. However, knowing which parts of the process are yours to decide will allow you to adjust your approach and attitude accordingly.

Each of the following stages will play a vital role in the eventual publication of your paper:

• Preparing Your Research Paper
• Finding the Right Journal
• Crafting a Strong Manuscript
• Navigating the Peer-Review Process
• Submitting Your Paper
• Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Step 1: Preparing Your Research Paper

It all starts here. The quality and content of your research paper is of fundamental importance if you want to get it published. This step will be different for every researcher depending on the nature of your research, but if you haven’t yet settled on a topic, then consider the following advice:

• Choose an interesting and relevant topic that aligns with current trends in your field. If your research touches on the passions and concerns of your academic peers or wider society, it may be more likely to capture attention and get published successfully.
• Conduct a comprehensive literature review (link to lit. review article once it’s published) to identify the state of existing research and any knowledge gaps within it. Aiming to fill a clear gap in the knowledge of your field is a great way to increase the practicality of your research and improve its chances of getting published.
• Structure your paper in a clear and organised manner, including all the necessary sections such as title, abstract, introduction (link to the ‘how to write a research paper intro’ article once it’s published) , methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Adhere to the formatting guidelines provided by your target journal to ensure that your paper is accepted as viable for publishing. More on this in the next section…

Step 2: Finding the Right Journal

Understanding how to publish a research paper involves selecting the appropriate journal for your work. This step is critical for successful publication, and you should take several factors into account when deciding which journal to apply for:

• Conduct thorough research to identify journals that specialise in your field of study and have published similar research. Naturally, if you submit a piece of research in molecular genetics to a journal that specialises in geology, you won’t be likely to get very far.
• Consider factors such as the journal’s scope, impact factor, and target audience. Today there is a wide array of journals to choose from, including traditional and respected print journals, as well as numerous online, open-access endeavours. Some, like Nature , even straddle both worlds.
• Review the submission guidelines provided by the journal and ensure your paper meets all the formatting requirements and word limits. This step is key. Nature, for example, offers a highly informative series of pages that tells you everything you need to know in order to satisfy their formatting guidelines (plus more on the whole submission process).
• Note that these guidelines can differ dramatically from journal to journal, and details really do matter. You might submit an outstanding piece of research, but if it includes, for example, images in the wrong size or format, this could mean a lengthy delay to getting it published. If you get everything right first time, you’ll save yourself a lot of time and trouble, as well as strengthen your publishing chances in the first place.

Step 3: Crafting a Strong Manuscript

Crafting a strong manuscript is crucial to impress journal editors and reviewers. Look at your paper as a complete package, and ensure that all the sections tie together to deliver your findings with clarity and precision.

• Begin by creating a clear and concise title that accurately reflects the content of your paper.
• Compose an informative abstract that summarises the purpose, methodology, results, and significance of your study.
• Craft an engaging introduction (link to the research paper introduction article) that draws your reader in.
• Develop a well-structured methodology section, presenting your results effectively using tables and figures.
• Write a compelling discussion and conclusion that emphasise the significance of your findings.

Step 4: Navigating the Peer-Review Process

Once you submit your research paper to a journal, it undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure its quality and validity. In peer-review, experts in your field assess your research and provide feedback and suggestions for improvement, ultimately determining whether your paper is eligible for publishing or not. You are likely to encounter several models of peer-review, based on which party – author, reviewer, or both – remains anonymous throughout the process.

When your paper undergoes the peer-review process, be prepared for constructive criticism and address the comments you receive from your reviewer thoughtfully, providing clear and concise responses to their concerns or suggestions. These could make all the difference when it comes to making your next submission.

The peer-review process can seem like a closed book at times. Check out our discussion of the issue with philosopher and academic Amna Whiston in The Research Beat podcast!

Step 5: Submitting Your Paper

As we’ve already pointed out, one of the key elements in how to publish a research paper is ensuring that you meticulously follow the journal’s submission guidelines. Strive to comply with all formatting requirements, including citation styles, font, margins, and reference structure.

Before the final submission, thoroughly proofread your paper for errors, including grammar, spelling, and any inconsistencies in your data or analysis. At this stage, consider seeking feedback from colleagues or mentors to further improve the quality of your paper.

Step 6: Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Rejection is a common part of the publishing process, but it shouldn’t discourage you. Analyse reviewer comments objectively and focus on the constructive feedback provided. Make necessary revisions and improvements to your paper to address the concerns raised by reviewers. If needed, consider submitting your paper to a different journal that is a better fit for your research.

For more tips on how to publish your paper out there, check out this thread by Dr. Asad Naveed ( @dr_asadnaveed ) – and if you need a refresher on the basics of how to publish under the Open Access model, watch this 5-minute video from Audemic Academy !

Final Thoughts

Successfully understanding how to publish a research paper requires dedication, attention to detail, and a systematic approach. By following the advice in our guide, you can increase your chances of navigating the publishing process effectively and achieving your goal of publication.

Remember, the journey may involve revisions, peer feedback, and potential rejections, but each step is an opportunity for growth and improvement. Stay persistent, maintain a positive mindset, and continue to refine your research paper until it reaches the standards of your target journal. Your contribution to your wider discipline through published research will not only advance your career, but also add to the growing body of collective knowledge in your field. Embrace the challenges and rewards that come with the publication process, and may your research paper make a significant impact in your area of study!

Looking for inspiration for your next big paper? Head to Audemic , where you can organise and listen to all the best and latest research in your field!

Keep striving, researchers! ✨

Table of Contents

Related articles.

You’re in academia. You’re going steady. Your research is going well and you begin to wonder: ‘How exactly do I get a

Behind the Scenes: What Does a Research Assistant Do?

Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes in a research lab? Does it involve acting out the whims of

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction: Hook, Line, and Sinker

Want to know how to write a research paper introduction that dazzles? Struggling to hook your reader in with your opening sentences?

Blog Podcast

Privacy policy Terms of service

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Discover more from Audemic: Access any academic research via audio

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Perspectives on Medical Education

• Download PDF (English) XML (English) Supplement 1 (English)
• Alt. Display

Original Research

“the best home for this paper”: a qualitative study of how authors select where to submit manuscripts.

• Lauren A. Maggio
• Natascha Chtena
• Juan Pablo Alperin
• Laura Moorhead
• John M. Willinsky

Introduction: For authors, selecting a target journal to submit a manuscript is a critical decision with career implications. In the discipline of medical education, research conducted in 2016 found that authors were influenced by multiple factors such as a journal’s prestige and its mission. However, since this research was conducted the publishing landscape has shifted to include a broader variety of journals, an increased threat of predatory journals, and new publishing models. This study updates and expands upon how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of describing the motivational factors and journal characteristics that guide authors’ decision making.

Methods: The authors conducted five qualitative focus groups in which twenty-two medical education authors and editors participated. During the focus groups participants were engaged in a discussion about how they select a journal to submit their manuscripts. Audio from all focus groups was transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis.

Results: Participants considered multiple factors when selecting a target journal. Factors included a journal’s impact, the scope of a journal, journal quality, and technical factors (e.g., word limits). Participants also described how social factors influenced their process and that open access plays a role that could both encourage or deter submission.

Discussion: The findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their journal selection decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education and other disciplines. Notably, these findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences, which were absent from previous work. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of open acces and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige.

Introduction

Choosing a journal to which to submit a manuscript is not an easy choice. When considering the common estimate of over 33,000 academic journals available, the choice is not a simple task [ 1 ] and even more difficult if you are persuaded by those who regard this figure as a vast and prejudicial undercount [ 2 ]. Choices only become more challenging as the publishing landscape continues to change with the “publish or perish” culture [ 3 ], the growth of open access [ 4 ], and the rise of publishing models like preprints and post-publication review [ 5 ]. Medical education publishing has not been immune to these changes with the introduction of new journals and publication trends [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ] and the transition of some journals from a subscription model to open access [ 10 ].

The journal to which an author submits their scholarship influences their career trajectory, such that where an article is published factors into academic hiring decisions, promotion and tenure judgments, and the competitiveness of funding applications. For example, selecting one journal over another may result in a lengthier publication timeline than had another been chosen [ 11 ] or a journal’s impact factor (JIF) could determine whether or not an article counts for an author’s promotion [ 12 ]. Additionally, the journal that an author selects for publication has implications for the readers they can ultimately reach and the attention their work can garner, which is critical for building an author’s national reputation, a criteria often used in promotion and tenure decisions [ 12 ]. This reality is underscored by the fact that the majority of medical school promotion guidelines endorse publishing in “prestigious” or “high-impact” journals and stress publication quantity [ 12 ]. Complicating matters, the emphasis on prestige and publication quantity has been linked to publication pressure, which can open the door to so-called “predatory” journals. Predatory journals “prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices” [ 13 p. 211 ]. Researchers have found that physicians and medical trainees struggle to identify predatory journals, which can damage researchers’ credibility and waste resources [ 14 , 15 ]. These high stakes suggest that a better understanding of how authors select journals is warranted.

In 2022, Olle ten Cate, a senior medical education scholar, published a commentary in which he answered the frequently asked question, “Can you recommend a journal for my paper?,” [ 16 ] suggesting that medical educators are interested in further guidance on this important topic. ten Cate’s response draws on personal experience and a recent study that surveyed medical educators about journal choice [ 17 ]. Choosing from fixed responses, study respondents selected fit, impact, and editorial reputation as the top drivers of their decisions. While valuable and more current, and in some cases aligned with earlier qualitative research by Ginsburg et al. [ 18 ], ten Cate’s article provides limited insight into how authors consider the factors that motivate their decision to target a particular journal. Thus, in light of the importance of journal selection and the evolving landscape, our study uses author and editor perspectives to revisit how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of providing the motivational factors and influential signals that guide their decision making. Our aim is that these findings will help new and seasoned researchers navigate the evolving complexities of journal selection and alert editors to those factors and signals, such that they can be highlighted in their journal processes.

We conducted focus groups to understand how health professions educators (HPE) authors and editors select journals to submit articles for publication. The design of our focus groups and interpretation of the data are guided by a constructivist paradigm, through which knowledge is perceived as socially constructed between an individual and society [ 19 ]. Stanford University (Protocol#70447) and Simon Fraser University (Case#30001784) granted ethical approval to conduct this study.

Data Collection

Our study focused on authors and editors who had published in or oversaw medical education journals. We defined medical education journals as those included on the Medical Education Journals List (MEJ-24) [ 20 ].

To identify authors, we searched PubMed for articles published in the MEJ-24 in 2022. Then using a random-number generator, we selected 50 articles and extracted the first author’s name and email. Authors without listed email addresses were excluded. Over the recruitment period, we continued this process until we had recruited enough participants to reach information power based on our research aim [ 21 , 22 ]. We focused on first authors publishing in 2022, as they had recently navigated and likely led the journal selection process.

For the editors, we included the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) for MEJ-24 journals and their deputy editor(s). All editor participants had authored at least one article in an MEJ-24 journal in 2022, and thus, like the author participants, had recently navigated the journal submission process. One journal, BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning , ceased publication in 2023. We excluded this journal’s editors, but included its authors. Between June and November 2023, LAM, a medical education author and Deputy Editor in Chief (EIC) of Perspectives on Medical Education , emailed editors to invite them to participate.

Data was collected using focus groups. Focus groups can engage participants in conversations that explore their understanding of a topic, as well as their views about that topic [ 23 ]. We conducted five focus groups: one included only editors and four included a combination of authors (who were not editors) and editors. Researchers have found that homogeneity of participants within focus groups can provide a safe environment that mitigates a sense of power imbalance [ 24 ]. As such, we initially separated authors and editors into different groups to determine whether a difference in discussion existed. However, we did not observe a difference and conducted the remaining focus groups with a combination of participants.

LAM and NC, a researcher with experience in qualitative research and a background in education, information studies and optometry, moderated the focus groups using a semi-structured guide (see Appendix 1). We piloted the guide with a group of six medical educators, including an editor, and minor modifications were made based on participant feedback. In the focus groups, LAM and NC posed open-ended questions that invited participants to reflect on their journal selection process. Focus groups were 75 minutes on GoogleMeets, with participants logging in from different locations. All focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed using GoogleMeets. LAM and NC checked the transcripts for accuracy.

Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis [ 25 ]. LAM and NC independently coded all five transcripts initially using the themes identified in Ginsburg’s interview study conducted in 2016 [ 18 ] as predetermined codes to guide analysis, while remaining open to additional codes. After initial coding, they met several times to review and discuss the code book with revisions made as necessary. Upon agreement, LAM and NC applied the codes to all transcripts and presented the author team with identified themes and representative quotes for review and refinement until consensus was achieved.

Reflexivity

LAM is a medical education researcher and editor. LAM knew many of the participants as colleagues, which may have influenced results, as respondents may have been inclined to provide responses pleasing to her, or may have withheld information for fear of being judged by “one of their own.” This was reflected upon both during the interview process and during data analysis and interpretation. Fellow author team members with expertise in education and scholarly publishing, but who were unfamiliar with medical education and the participants, provided a counterbalance to potential bias, which was taken into consideration in the analysis and reporting of results.

Multiple factors influenced participants’ journal selection. These focused on impact, fit, journal technical factors, peer review, open access, and social factors/relationships. Overall, factors were similar across the five focus groups, including the group composed solely of editors. However, we did appreciate differences based on participant seniority, which we note in relation to specific factors.

Participants strongly considered a journal’s impact when selecting a journal. Generally, participants described impact as a journal’s ability to reach a broad and desired readership. “When I publish in Academic Medicine , I know the right people are really reading that journal, so it will have impact” (5 A). Another participant described transitioning a qualitative research article to a non-research publication to satisfy the editors of a “highly influential” journal:

Basically, we submitted it as a piece of original research and they wrote back and said, “You’ve called it research, but it’s qualitative.” And we should have said this is terrible. Lots of red flags, but this is a hugely influential journal…in some ways we just held our noses and said, this is going to reach a wide readership. (E2)

Participants also discussed impact in relation to the journal impact factor (JIF), which is a citation-based metric. The role of the JIF in journal selection varied based on career stage, institutional context, and geographical setting. Overall, senior scholars were more likely to report they did not consider JIF as a motivation in their decision-making, though one PhD student and the librarian also mentioned ignoring a journal’s JIF. One full professor noted, “I’m at the stage in my career where I really don’t care about impact factors [laughing]. I’m actually more about getting something read” (1D). Participants who ranked the JIF low in their selection criteria—or who reported not including it at all—made comments about reaching the right readership as outweighing prestige: “[In] my department, we don’t care as much about impact factor or things like that, as much as we care about is it going to get to the right audience” (4A).

However, not everyone downplayed the JIF. A minority of participants acknowledged that publishing in journals with a high JIF improved their work’s reach and impact: “I’ve personally never felt any pressure to publish in a journal because of impact factor…But at the same time, I do feel a little bit of interest in publishing in high impact journals. The only reason is that I know that it’s read” (5A).

Participants seriously considered whether their article was in a given journal’s scope. This consideration was tightly linked to the perceived likelihood of an article being accepted in that journal. Participants mentioned looking at mission statements and objectives to identify “what is going to be attractive to a journal” (2D) and whether “there would be a welcoming audience” (E5). Relatedly, participants mentioned reading the author guidelines, as well as the journal’s content to “see what they’re publishing”(1D) in order to gauge suitability and fit. Participants also used these strategies to identify a journal’s audience. One participant explained, “it’s definitely about who seems to be the dominant readership of that journal. Are they the people that are going to be interested in the conversation I’m trying to advance?” (E3).

Participants also considered the match with their study’s methodology, context and goals when weighing journal options:

So I would think: Where did we do this study? Was it in medicine? Was it post-graduate, undergraduate? So, then, I would think is it a very practical type of study? Or is it really a study or is it guidelines or something? […] And then you could kind of weigh in, what would be journals that you would expect would more easily accept this paper because at the end, you want most papers to really have a home. (5A)

While participants considered their study’s perceived quality and rigor in the selection process, the way that it impacted journal choice was not always straightforward. In discussing how journal choice is negotiated within her author team, one participant noted that clinical journals were sometimes perceived as more welcoming than medical education journals:

I think it’s interesting that sometimes the higher impact journals that people might be aiming for are actually not medical or health professions education journals. They are the clinical journals in their field…They might actually be more inclined to publish really pragmatic pieces of work about, “We did this thing, and you can do it too.” Stuff that some of our more familiar journals would say, “That doesn’t really meet our bar.” …And so, we often talk about, “Who are you hoping to influence here?” If my co-authors want to influence pediatricians, who are trying to teach professionalism, then I’m happy for them to try to put it in a pediatrics journal. That wouldn’t be probably where I would put my work primarily, but it might be the audience they want to talk to. (E2)

Participants considered geographic context often seeking to match studies conducted in a particular country or region with a journal’s scope.

Journal Technical Factors

Participants mentioned multiple journal technical factors, including the journal’s publication timeline, word limits, and where it is indexed. Time to publication was a major factor for many participants. On one hand, a participant noted, “If I know a journal probably will get back to me quickly and it does fit, then maybe I’ll try that even if I think it might be a bit of a reach.” (1B) On the other hand, an editor said:

There’s nothing more damaging to a journal than the interpretation of being very, very slow to get a decision back. And so there are certainly journals I avoid. I avoid them purely because there’s every indication from people in the communities that it’s taking a year to get things turned around and that’s not good for anyone. (E3)

Publication timelines were especially “crucial” (2C) for doctoral students on a graduation timeline. Participants acknowledged that journals had elongated publication timelines for a variety of reasons outside editorial control (e.g., difficulties securing peer reviewers, slow resubmission revisions).

Participants discussed selecting journals based on word limits with an aim of avoiding those they considered too restrictive. One participant described a journal: “It’s got a 1500 word cap, and I don’t know what you can say, in 1500 words that it doesn’t come across like a haiku.” (E4) Some participants also mentioned a journal’s indexation (e.g., included in MEDLINE), which was important for an article’s findability, but also seen as a reflection of a journal’s quality and, therefore, important for promotion.

Peer Review

Participants factored the quality and process of peer review into submission decisions with “knowing that it [a manuscript] gets a real peer review by experts” (4C) being critical. Participants’ perceptions of a journal’s peer review processes, which were likened to a quality assurance process, were shaped by their experiences as peer reviewers and authors.

I’ve had a couple [of experiences] where the papers that were sent to me were ones that I actually think shouldn’t have even made it to review. They were of such poor quality. And then another instance is when you get back the copy of what all the reviewers said. Sometimes my review will be the most detailed one there. There’s sometimes others that have written a paragraph and they don’t seem like an expert in the field at all, or anyone who has any knowledge of health professions education. So those would be red flags to me as a reviewer or I guess if I was an author and I got back reviewer comments like that, that would kind of be a flag. (1A)

As peer reviewers, participants were attuned to the editor’s role in thoughtfully assigning peer reviewers (e.g., not sending a quantitative researcher a qualitative paper) and helping authors make sense of multiple reviews by presenting a synthesis in the decision letter. When the participants felt the editor acted poorly, it negatively impacted their decision to submit future manuscripts to the journal.

In preparation to submit, participants described reading potential target journals and noting that certain characteristics made them question the quality of peer review. For example, participants described that for those journals that published their article’s publication timeline that “a really, really short time between acceptance and between submission” (E1) suggested poor quality peer review. Participants also mentioned that if a journal published “a mixed bag quality of papers” (4D) that they would question its peer reviewer process and likely avoid submitting to that journal in the future.

Open Access

Participants’ attitudes towards open access (OA) as a journal selection factor varied depending on the journal’s perceived quality and reputation, the journal’s editorial and peer review practices, and the cost of article processing charges (APCs). Overall, participants described OA in terms of its benefits, including increased citation counts, copyright retention, and ability to reach scholars with limited access (e.g., Global South researchers). OA was generally not a driving factor in decision-making, but a complementary one:

“I’m not sure that I’ve chosen a journal because my institution’s relationship allows open access, but I do see it as a plus. Okay, I wouldn’t say that it was a decision-maker in terms of where a paper ended up going, but perhaps it just strengthened that decision.” (1B)

Participants with institutional support for APCs or large research budgets viewed OA more favorably and factored it into their decision-making process, as did those with a strong belief in OA’s emancipatory effects. One participant’s experience as a researcher in the Global South inclined them to view OA as a way to expand their work’s reach and to bridge knowledge divides: “Sometimes I think about open access as my first choice, maybe because I’m coming from a low-resource country. And I know how people there suffer in finding the information […] Sometimes I think, if I can publish in an open access journal, then people can have it.” (3B)

At the same time, several participants mentioned needing to balance publishing OA with APCs. For those without institutional OA budgets, APCs were a major deterrent:

Open access fees can absolutely be a barrier […] I simply won’t consider those journals because I just can’t [pay] those fees so often, even if it’s probably the best journal for me to submit an article to. I absolutely just can’t. And that’s a huge barrier in particular for graduate students. (2C)

Additionally, one participant mentioned how excessive APCs can raise questions about a journal’s integrity: “When I see the APCSs that are very high I consider: Are they running this journal just to earn money or is it a reliable journal?” (1C). Some participants also linked high APCs to predatory publishing. Lastly, a few participants noted how colleague’s outdated notions about OA can undermine work published in legitimate OA journals because these are wrongfully perceived as predatory or low quality:

They will say, “Ohh, you’re paying to publish,” as if it’s something [you] shouldn’t be doing because they don’t understand what’s been happening in publishing over the last five to 10 years. So, you know, you do have to navigate through this. (5A)

Social Factors/Relationships

Several participants highlighted the role of professional relationships and experience. Multiple senior authors, defined as those at the professor level, mentioned knowing many journal editors personally and being able to “just approach them” (5A) to inquire if a particular manuscript would be of interest. They also discussed how journal selection is guided by their maturity of experience and familiarity with a journal more broadly: “When you’ve been around for long enough, you know who is reading them to some extent, you know who the editors are.” (4D)

On this theme, a participant described that they keep the field’s leading editor-in-chiefs (i.e., from Medical Education, Advances in Health Sciences Education , and Perspectives on Medical Education ) in mind as they execute studies or write up findings. Notably they referred to these editors on a first-name basis, indicating familiarity and, arguably, a privilege of proximity that most authors do not have: “I have this voice in my head when I’m writing things or doing studies. And I think Kevin will like this or Rachel will like this or Erik might like this. Or, equally, I might have in my head: ‘No, there’s no point. Kevin won’t like this.’” (2D)

On the flipside, some junior and mid-level scholars mentioned their lack of connections and insider knowledge. One participant reflected on her struggles as a novice author after hearing the more senior authors in the group discuss their relationships with editors and how these have informed their journal publishing experience:

It’s been a very interesting conversation to listen to such esteemed medical educators and researchers, because as somebody who transitioned into this field, it did feel challenging to get through the barrier of what I perceived as a network that you couldn’t break through […] It feels like if you’re not in the know, you’re going to be marginalized. (3D)

Furthermore, participants noted that personal experience as an editor and/or peer reviewer factored into the journal selection process. One participant mentioned that as “an editor, you do get a lot of insider information” (2D), while another said: “I’ve been a reviewer for a lot of journals. So I know, sort of the quality of reviews and the timelines just based on personal experience.” (1A) Several participants shared the sentiment that being an editor and peer reviewer offered “intelligence” not readily available otherwise. One participant mentioned how serving as peer reviewer can be the “start of a relationship” (3C) with a journal.

Finally, some participants mentioned mentorship in the context of journal selection, either as providers or receivers. One participant noted the criticality of mentorship, adding that without a mentor they “wouldn’t have known where to go” (3D) to publish.

Our findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education [ 17 , 18 ] and beyond [ 26 , 27 ]. In medical education, our findings reinforce previously identified factors such as fit with the scope of the journal, journal quality and reputation, journal audience, and technical factors (e.g., turnaround time). However, there are also deviations. Notably, our findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences in journal selection. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of OA and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige (i.e., JIF).

The role of social factors and relationships in journal selection were absent from earlier medical education studies [ 17 , 18 ] and only mentioned peripherally in other disciplines and contexts. For example, an interdisciplinary survey of international academics found that having a relationship with a journal influenced journal choice, but relationships were described more formally such as serving on the journal’s editorial board [ 27 ]. These relationships feel distinct from the personal relationships and first-name familiarity mentioned by our senior participants, both editors and non-editors alike. This finding is important because it suggests that less experienced, less in-the-know scholars with smaller and/or weaker networks may be significantly disadvantaged in the publishing process. While perhaps not surprising, this finding stands out in a professional and educational landscape increasingly tasked with improving diversity and addressing issues of equity in medical education publishing [ 28 , 29 ]. This finding signals that authors, especially those new to the field, may benefit from increased opportunities to engage with and build relationships with journals and editors. Journals could facilitate these relationships by being explicit about how individuals can become involved with the publication. For example, journal websites could prominently feature opportunities to become a peer reviewer and advertise calls for editorial board positions with clear criteria for such roles. Additionally, journals might consider adopting and building upon existing initiatives. For example, the journal Medical Education recently instituted “online office hours” that encourage authors to directly engage with its editors in an informal setting and are held across multiple time zones to accommodate a global audience [ 30 ]. Another example is Academic Medicine ’s creation of a path towards editorship program, which welcomes and trains early and mid-career scholars [ 31 , 32 ].

All focus groups mentioned OA as a consideration, but not a driving force in journal selection, which aligns with studies across disciplines [ 26 , 27 , 33 ]. However, unlike in Ginsburg et al.’s [ 18 ] medical education study in which participants expressed apprehension toward OA, many of our participants looked favorably on it, citing the increased reach and global unfettered exposure it provides. It is possible that these positive sentiments towards OA were partly influenced by whether an author’s institution provided funding and resources for OA, aligning with findings from other fields [ 34 ]. Due to the conversational nature of focus groups, we did not ask participants targeted questions about their institution’s support of OA. Future researchers might consider surveying medical education authors to better understand the institutional OA landscape for the field. Negative comments overwhelmingly focused on affordability—specifically, the high cost of APCs, which participants noted disproportionately affect ECRs and those who lack access to funds for APCs. Overall, our findings suggest that OA publishing has, in recent years, gained traction in medical education—likely due to institutions engaging in transformative agreements directly with publishers, funder mandates, and the impact of events like COVID-19 on scientific practice and communication [ 35 ]. However, there are still misconceptions about OA and financial barriers to be addressed. For misconceptions about OA, many resources are available to educate researchers, including those specific to medical education (e.g., Open Access: What it Means for Your Article [ 36 ]). APCs are indeed a barrier, especially in a field with increasing, but still limited funding [ 37 ]. To shift the burden from authors, some institutions have engaged in agreements with publishers that bundle subscriptions with the APCs or discounted APCs for the institution’s authors. For example, at the University of Chicago, an institutional agreement allows authors to publish OA without facing an APC in Wiley journals, which includes several relevant titles (e.g., Medical Education, Academic Emergency Medicine) [ 38 ]. We observed that participants with institutional support for APCs felt more favorably about OA and large research budgets viewed OA more favorably and factored it into their decision-making process, as did those with a strong belief in OA’s emancipatory effects.

In Ginsburg et al.’s study [ 18 ], JIF was identified as the most prevalent factor in journal selection and was considered an important priority for those in Rees’ et al’.s survey [ 17 ]. However, in our findings JIF was deemed less important though still acknowledged as influential in relation to readership. Related to JIF, institutional policies regarding the ranking of journals and articles were viewed as relatively important, but not as important as, for example, the quality, integrity, and reliability of the reviewing process. It is possible that this is the fruit of global initiatives to reform academic assessment and deemphasize the JIF, such as the Declaration on Research Assessment [ 39 ]. Our finding may reflect that many of our participants were senior scholars, which also aligns with Niles et al.’s finding that the JIF was less important to older and likely more senior participants [ 26 ]. Future research might further investigate the perceptions of early career researchers to better understand their stance on JIF and other related metrics, such as the h-index and altmetrics.

Limitations

Our findings are context specific, which may limit their generalizability outside their context. While we included authors from 8 countries, representation was lacking from certain regions (e.g., South America). Additionally, we focused only on first authors who submit to medical education journals. Future researchers might consider recruiting a broader diversity of authors (e.g., those from other world regions, corresponding or senior authors). Additionally, recruitment focused on individuals that had published in MEJ-24 journals, which is an incomplete representation of medical education [ 20 ]. However, our participant population roughly aligns with studies describing medical education authors [ 40 , 41 ]. Also, our inclusion of journal editors may have skewed our study population towards more advanced researchers. Future researchers could investigate this topic with other populations.

This study provides an international perspective on the factors and signals that medical education researchers consider when selecting a journal for their research. Participants in the study demonstrated a thoughtful and nuanced approach considering various journal’s impact, audience, and accessibility, and made decisions based on the alignment between the journal and their research goals and values.

Additional File

The additional file for this article can be found as follows:

Semi-structured focus group guide. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1517.s1

Ethics and Consent

Stanford University IRB (Protocol#70447) and Simon Fraser REB (Case #30001784).

Funding Information

Anonymous donor, Stanford University.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Johnson R, Watkinson A, Mabe M. The STM Report 1968–2018 . https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf . Published 2018. Accessed May 7, 2024.  

Khanna S, Ball J, Alperin JP, Willinsky J. Recalibrating the scope of scholarly publishing: A modest step in a vast decolonization process. Quantitative Science Studies . 2022; 3(4): 912–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00228  

Van Dalen HP. How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists. Scientometrics . 2021; 126(2): 1675–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03786-x  

Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V, et al. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ . 2018; 6: e4375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375  

Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, Richens E. Preprints and Scholarly Communication: Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers. F1000 . 2019; 8: 971. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19619.1  

Hays R. A new outlet for medical education scholarship. MedEdPublish . 2016; 5: 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2016.000003  

Maggio LA, Driessen EW. Perspectives on Medical Education: three changes in our guidelines to make authors’ and reviewers’ lives easier. Perspect Med Educ . 2020; 9(1): 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S40037-020-00563-7  

Ellaway R, Tolsgaard M, Norman G. Peer review is not a lottery: AHSE’s Fast Track. Adv Health Sci Educ . 2020; 25(3): 519–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-020-09981-y  

Maggio LA, Costello JA, Artino AR. Describing the Landscape of Medical Education Preprints on MedRxiv: Current Trends and Future Recommendations. Acad Med . 2024; 99(9): 981–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005742  

Sullivan GM. JGME Is Now Open Access. J Grad Med Educ . 2021; 13(1): 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-20-01532.1  

Maggio LA, Bynum WE, Schreiber-Gregory DN, Durning SJ, Artino AR Jr. When will I get my paper back? A replication study of publication timelines for health professions education research. Perspect Med Educ . 2020; 9(3): 139–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S40037-020-00576-2  

Rice DB, Raffoul H, Ioannidis JP, Moher D. Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of medicine: a cross-sectional study of the Canadian U15 universities. Facets . 2021; 6(1): 58–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0044  

Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, et al. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature . 2019; 576(7786): 210–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y  

Ibrahim H, Elhag SA, Elnour SM, Abdel-Razig S, Harhara T, Nair SC. Medical Resident Awareness of Predatory Journal Practices in an International Medical Education System. Med Educ Online . 2022; 27(1): 2139169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2139169  

Tomlinson OW. Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review. BMC Med Educ . 2024; 24(1): 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05024-x  

ten Cate O. “Can you recommend a journal for my paper?”. Perspect Med Educ . 2022; 11(3): 146–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S40037-022-00712-0  

Rees EL, Burton O, Asif A, Eva KW. A method for the madness: An international survey of health professions education authors’ journal choice. Perspect Med Educ . 2022; 11(3): 165–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S40037-022-00698-9  

Ginsburg S, Lynch M, Walsh CM. A Fine Balance: How Authors Strategize Around Journal Submission. Acad Med . 2018; 93(8): 1176–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002265  

Mogashoa T. Applicability of constructivist theory in qualitative educational research. American International Journal of Contemporary Research . 2014; 4(7): 51–9.  

Maggio LA, Ninkov A, Frank JR, Costello JA, Artino AR. Delineating the field of medical education: Bibliometric research approach(es). Med Educ . 2022; 56(4): 387–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14677  

LaDonna KA, Artino AR Jr, Balmer DF. Beyond the guise of saturation: rigor and qualitative interview data. J Grad Med Educ . 2021; 13(5): 607–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-21-00752.1  

Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Weber MB. What Influences Saturation? Estimating Sample Sizes in Focus Group Research. Qual Health Res . 2019; 29(10): 1483–1496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318821692  

Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ . 1995; 311(7000): 299–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299  

Barbour RS. Making sense of focus groups. Med Educ . 2005; 39(7): 742–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.x  

Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology . 2017; 12(3): 297–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613  

Niles MT, Schimanski LA, McKiernan EC, Alperin JP. Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations. Plos One . 2020; 15(3): e0228914. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228914  

Rowley J, Sbaffi L, Sugden M, Gilbert A. Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions. Journal of Information Science . 2022; 48(3): 321–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520958591  

Wondimagegn D, Soklaridis S, Yifter H, Cartmill C, Yeshak MY, Whitehead C. Passing the microphone: broadening perspectives by amplifying underrepresented voices. Adv Health Sci Educ . 2020; 25: 1139–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-020-10012-z  

Naidu T. The personal is political in the struggle for equity in global medical education research and scholarship. Med Teach . 2023; 45(9): 991–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2206535  

Association for the Study of Medical Education. Medical Education Office Hours. https://asmepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/13652923/officehours . Accessed on May 7, 2024.  

Thompson PY, Bynum IV WE, Schumacher DJ, Park YS, Alexandraki I, Balmer DF. Mutual rewards: Engaging the field and creating a path toward academic journal editorship. Acad Med . 2021; 96(10): 1377–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004241  

Roberts LW. Creating opportunities to engage with our journal and the field of academic medicine. Acad Med . 2024; 99(4): 345–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005639  

Tenopir C, Dalton E, Fish A, Christian L, Jones M, Smith M. What motivates authors of scholarly articles? The importance of journal attributes and potential audience on publication choice. Publications . 2016; 4(3): 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4030022  

DeCastro P, Frenk G. Funding APCs from the Research Funder’s Seat: Findings from the EC FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot. Profesional De La Informacion . 2019; 28(4): e280413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.13  

Tavernier W. COVID-19 demonstrates the value of open access: What happens next? College & Research Libraries News . 2020; 81(5): 226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.81.5.226  

Maggio LA, Stranack K. Open Access: What It Means for Your Article. Acad Med . 2018; 93(11): 1743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002347  

McKechnie DG, Al-Shakarchi N, Tackett SA, Young TM, Rashid MA. Sources of funding for research articles in medical education journals from 1999 to 2019. Med Teach . 2023 3; 45(10): 1123–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2192858  

University of Chicago. Open Access Agreements. https://guides.lib.uchicago.edu/openaccess/agreements . Accessed on May 7, 2024.  

Declaration on Research Assessment. About DORA. https://sfdora.org/about-dora/ . Accessed on May 7, 2024.  

Wondimagegn D, Whitehead CR, Cartmill C, et al. Faster, higher, stronger–together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals. BMJ Glob Health . 2023; 8(6): e011656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011656  

Maggio LA, Costello JA, Ninkov AB, Frank JR, Artino AR. The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape. Med Educ . 2023; 57(3): 280–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14959  

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

• JOURNAL HOME
• EDITORIAL BOARD
• ALL VOLUMES
• CURRENT ISSUE

The Impact of Dynamic Capabilities on Supply Chain Performance at Jordanian Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Companies

Hamza yusuf abdulrahman samik, aysar mohamed al-khashman.

Pages 2230-2251 Received: 25 Jun, 2024 Revised: 23 Jul, 2024 Published Online: 21 Aug, 2024

Author Guidelines

• PUBLICATION ETHICS
• PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Submit Paper

• SUBMIT PAPER

KWP Journals

Fee payments.

• FEE PAYMENTS

--> AGU