how to publish a research article

• 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

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

Understanding the Publishing Process

What’s happening with my paper? The publication process explained

The path to publication can be unsettling when you’re unsure what’s happening with your paper. Learn about staple journal workflows to see the detailed steps required for ensuring a rigorous and ethical publication.

Your team has prepared the paper, written a cover letter and completed the submission form. From here, it can sometimes feel like a waiting game while the journal has your paper.  It can be unclear exactly who is currently handling your paper as most individuals are only involved in a few steps of the overall process. Journals are responsible for overseeing the peer review, publication and archival process: editors, reviewers, technical editors, production staff and other internal staff all have their roles in ensuring submissions meet rigorous scientific and ethical reporting standards. 

Read on for an inside look at how a conventional peer-reviewed journal helps authors transform their initial submission to a certified publication. 

Note that the description below is based on the process at PLOS journals. It is likely that at other journals, various roles (e.g. technical editor) may in fact also be played by the editor, and some journals may not have journal staff at all, with all roles played by volunteer academics. As such, please consider the processes and waypoints, rather than who performs them, as the key information.

Internal Checks on New Submissions

Estimated time: 10 days.

When a journal first receives your submission, there are typically two separate checks to confirm that the paper is appropriate and ready for peer review:

• Technical check.   Performed by a technical editor to ensure that the submission has been properly completed and is ready for further assessment. Blurry figures, missing ethical statements, and incomplete author affiliations are common issues that are addressed at this initial stage. Typically, there are three technical checks: upon initial submission, alongside the first decision letter, and upon acceptance. 
• Editorial screening . Once a paper passes the first check, an editor with subject expertise assesses the paper and determines whether it is within the journal’s scope and if it could potentially meet the required publication criteria. While there may be requests for further information and minor edits from the author as needed, the paper will either be desk rejected by the editor or allowed to proceed to peer review. 

Both editors at this point will additionally make notes for items to be followed-up on at later stages. The publication process involves finding a careful balance for when each check occurs. Early checks need to be thorough so that editors with relevant expertise can focus on the scientific content and more advanced reporting standards, but no one wants to be asked to reformat references only to have their paper desk rejected a few days later. 

Peer Review

Estimated time: 1 month.

Depending on the journal’s editorial structure, the editor who performed the initial assessment may also oversee peer review or another editor with more specific expertise may be assigned.  Regardless of the journal’s specific process, the various roles and responsibilities during peer review include:  

When you have questions or are unsure who your manuscripts is currently with, reach out to the journal staff for help (eg. [email protected]). They will be your lifeline, connecting you to all the other contributors working to assess the manuscript. 

Whether an editor needs a reminder that all reviews are complete or a reviewer has asked for an extension, the journal acts as a central hub of communication for those involved with the publication process. As editors and reviewers are used to hearing from journal staff about their duties, any messages you send to the journal can be forwarded to them with proper context and instructions on how to proceed appropriately. Additionally, journal staff will be able to inform you of any delays, such as reviewer availability during summer and holiday periods. 

Revision Decision

Estimated time: 1 day.

Editors evaluate peer reviewer feedback and their own expert assessment of the manuscript to reach a decision. After your editor submits a decision on your manuscript, the journal may review it before formally processing the decision and sending it on to you. 

A technical editor may scan the manuscript and the review comments to ensure that journal standards have been followed. At this stage, the technical editor will also add requests to ensure the paper, if published, will adhere to journal requirements for data sharing, copyright, ethical reporting and the like. 

Performing the second technical check at this stage and adding the journal requirements to the decision letter ultimately saves time by allowing authors to resolve the journal’s queries while making revisions based on comments from the reviewers. 

Revised Submission Received

Estimated time: 3 days.

Upon receiving your revised submission, a technical editor will assess the revisions to confirm that the requests from the journal have been properly addressed. Before the paper is returned to the editor for their consideration, the journal needs to be confident that the paper won’t have any issues related to the metadata and reporting standards that could prevent publication. The editor may contact you to resolve any serious issues, though minor items can wait until the paper is accepted.

Subsequent Peer Review

Estimated time: 2 weeks, highly variable.

When your resubmitted paper has passed the required checks, it’ll be assigned back to the same editor who handled it during the first round of peer review. At this point, your paper has gone through two sets of journal checks and one round of peer review. If all has gone well so far, the paper should feel quite solid both in terms of scientific content and proper reporting standards. 

When the editor receives your revised paper, they are asked to check if all reviewer comments have been adequately addressed and if the paper now adheres to the journal’s publication criteria. Depending on the situation, some editors may feel confident making this decision based on their own expertise while others may re-invite the previous reviewers for their opinions. 

Individual responsibilities are the same as the initial round of peer review, but it is generally expected that later stages of peer review proceed quicker unless new concerns have been introduced as part of the revision. 

Preliminary Acceptance

Estimated time: 1 week.

Your editor is satisfied with the scientific quality of your work and has chosen to accept it in principle. Before it can proceed to production and typesetting, the journal office will perform it’s third and final technical check, requesting any formatting changes or additional details that may be required. 

When fulfilling these final journal requests, double check the final files to confirm all information is correct. If you need to make changes beyond those specifically required in the decision letter, inform the journal and explain why you made the unrequested changes. Any change that could affect the scientific meaning of the work will need to be approved by the handling editor. While including your rationale for the changes will help avoid delays, if there are extensive changes made at this point the paper may need to go through another round of formal review.

Formal Acceptance and Publication

Estimated time: 2 weeks.

After a technical editor has confirmed that all requests from the provisional acceptance letter have been addressed, you will receive your formal acceptance letter. This letter indicates that your paper is being passed from the Editorial department to the production department—that all information has been editorially approved. The scientific content has been approved through peer review, and the journal’s publication requirements have been met. 

Congratulations to you and your co-authors! Your article will be available as soon as the journal transforms the submission into a typeset, consistently structured scientific manuscript, ready to be read and cited by your peers.

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

• 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 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
• 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: February 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 699,317 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
• ↑ http://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
• ↑ http://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

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

From Error to Excellence: Embracing Mistakes in Library Practice

The impact of transformative agreements on scholarly publishing, our website is currently unavailable: cyberattacks on cultural heritage institutions, 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

• Search Search
• CN (Chinese)
• DE (German)
• ES (Spanish)
• FR (Français)
• JP (Japanese)
• Open Research
• Booksellers
• Peer Reviewers
• Springer Nature Group ↗

Publish an article

• Roles and responsibilities
• Signing your contract
• Writing your manuscript
• Submitting your manuscript
• Producing your book
• Promoting your book
• Submit your book idea
• Manuscript guidelines
• Book author services
• Publish a book
• Publish conference proceedings

Join thousands of researchers worldwide that have published their work in one of our 3,000+ Springer Nature journals.

Step-by-step guide to article publishing

1. Prepare your article

• Make sure you follow the submission guidelines for that journal. Search for a journal .
• Get permission to use any images.
• Check that your data is easy to reproduce.
• State clearly if you're reusing any data that has been used elsewhere.
• Follow our policies on plagiarism and ethics .
• Use our services to get help with English translation, scientific assessment and formatting. Find out what support you can get .

2. Write a cover letter

• Introduce your work in a 1-page letter, explaining the research you did, and why it's relevant.

3. Submit your manuscript

• Go to the journal homepage to start the process
• You can only submit 1 article at a time to each journal. Duplicate submissions will be rejected.

4. Technical check

• We'll make sure that your article follows the journal guidelines for formatting, ethics, plagiarism, contributors, and permissions.

5. Editor and peer review

• The journal editor will read your article and decide if it's ready for peer review.
• Most articles will be reviewed by 2 or more experts in the field.
• They may contact you with questions at this point.

6. Final decision

• If your article is accepted, you'll need to sign a publishing agreement.
• If your article is rejected, you can get help finding another journal from our transfer desk team .
• If your article is open access, you'll need to pay a fee.
• Fees for OA publishing differ across journals. See relevant journal page for more information.
• You may be able to get help covering that cost. See information on funding .
• We'll send you proofs to approve, then we'll publish your article.
• Track your impact by logging in to your account

Get tips on preparing your manuscript using our submission checklist .

Each publication follows a slightly different process, so check the journal's guidelines for more details

Open access vs subscription publishing

Each of our journals has its own policies, options, and fees for publishing.

Over 600 of our journals are fully open access. Others use a hybrid model, with readers paying to access some articles.

Publishing your article open access has a number of benefits:

• Free to access and download
• Reaches a wider global audience
• 1.6x more citations
• 6x more downloads
• 4.9 average Altmetric attention (vs 2.1 subscription)

It's free to publish your article in a subscription journal, but there are fees for publishing open access articles. You'll need to check the open access fees for the journal you choose.

Learn more about open access

Get help with funding.

Many organisations require you to publish your research open access. It's worth checking with your supervisor and colleagues to understand your organisation's approach.

Many funders and institutions will cover your open access publishing fees. To find out if your fees are covered, take a look at our funding agreements .

We also offer discounts for researchers in some geographical regions. See regions with reduced fees

Learn more about funding

Choose a journal.

We have 3,000+ journals to choose from, covering a wide range of topics. The best way to find a relevant journal is to search by keyword.

Once you've chosen a journal, check the submission guidelines to see the open access fees.

Search all journals

Get support.

We offer editing, translation, data presentation and formatting services to help you at each step.

Author support for publishing

Knowledge resources for scientists, author tutorials.

If you have a question about a specific journal, check the submission guidelines. If you still need help, contact us .

• Tools & Services
• Account Development
• Sales and account contacts
• Professional
• Press office
• Locations & Contact

We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. Visit our main website for more information.

• © 2024 Springer Nature
• General terms and conditions
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Your Privacy Choices / Manage Cookies
• Accessibility
• Legal notice
• Help us to improve this site, send feedback.

• 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

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research Paper Title – Writing Guide and Example

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

How to Submit Your Paper in PubMed

PubMed Central ( PMC ) is a free resource that provides access to millions of peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical and life sciences field, mainly from the MEDLINE database. The archive is maintained by the US National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and allows authors and publishers to store and cross-reference information from several sources using a common format within a single platform.

Four Methods

Accepted papers can get to PMC in different ways : Published articles may be deposited to the repository by the publishers, but final peer-reviewed manuscripts can also be submitted to PMC directly by the authors through the NIH Manuscript Submission (NIHMS) system . There are four methods to ensure that all submitted papers comply with the NIH Public Access Policy:

• Method A : In this case, participating journals deposit final published articles directly in PMC without any author involvement.
• Method B : Some journals only submit selected articles to PMC. So, in this case, authors may need to ask the publishers to deposit the paper for them.
• Method C : Authors (or their delegates) upload final peer-reviewed manuscripts to the repository via the NIHMS system.
• Method D : Authors complete the submission of final peer-reviewed manuscripts started by a publisher through the NIHMS system.

All articles submitted to PMC receive a unique identifier —the PMCID — which can be used to cite them after acceptance. During the first three months, the PMC Journal- In Process (for methods A and B) or the NIHMSID (for methods C and D) identifiers can be used instead.

Submitting Papers to PMC

NIH-funded articles should be submitted to PMC immediately after being accepted by a journal; the manuscripts are made publicly available within 12 months of publication. The submission process is quite easy and fast:

For methods A and B:

• The publisher sends the article —including all tables, figures, and supporting information— to PMC in a specific format (XML). It is a good idea to check the copyright form when submitting a paper to a journal to verify that the publisher will be responsible for submitting the files to PMC. In some cases, the authors will have to ask the publisher to do so.
• The deposited files are then checked by the PMC staff.
• Finally, the paper is added to PMC.

For methods C and D:

• The author, a designee, or the publisher submits the manuscript file (in Word, PDF, or another format) together with all tables, figures, and supporting materials to the NIHMS system.
• The author then provides funding information, associates it with the manuscript, and finally approves the files for processing.
• NIHMS converts the submitted files to a PMC format.
• The author must then approve the converted version.
• After all the previous steps have been completed, the manuscript is added to PMC.

Many journals have agreements to deposit articles in PMC, some of them with full participation, others offering selective deposit, and others with an NIH portfolio agreement, which means that they only deposit NIH-funded articles. To help authors find out which method is supported by a particular journal, the NIH has published several lists on their homepage as well as additional information on how to submit a manuscript to PMC.

Ahaa, its good discussion regarding this piece of writing at this place at this website, I have read all that, so now me also commenting here.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

9 Effective Tips for Publishing Thesis As a Book

While they may look alike, a thesis is not a book! The process of publishing…

• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research

4 Best Essay Writing Services in 2022 – A Comparative Study

If we are all asked to narrate how school life is, we all would probably…

• Selecting Journals

What Is a Preprint? 5 Step Guide to Successfully Publish Yours!

The article is also available in: Turkish, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian “I think you should…

• Understanding Ethics

Interesting Science vs. Sound Science – All About the Rigor and Transparency Index (RTI)

This guest post is drafted by Martijn Roelandse and Anita Bandrowski from SciCrunch. It highlights…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

A Guide to Academic Book Writing and Publishing

Types of academic books How to write a compelling book How to publish an edited…

Interesting Science vs. Sound Science – All About the Rigor and Transparency…

How Can Researchers Get the Most From Wiley Online Library?

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

How to Publish a Research Article

• Submit your Research
• My Submissions
• Article Guidelines
• Article Guidelines (New Versions)
• Data Guidelines
• Posters and Slides Guidelines
• Document Guidelines
• Article Processing Charges
• Finding Article Reviewers
• The Peer Review Process
• The Editorial Team’s Role
• Reviewer Criteria
• Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
• Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
• The work is original. The manuscript (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Manuscripts that were previously posted on a preprint server such as ArXiv or BioRxiv are welcome.
• At least one author must be formally affiliated with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (for details, see our Publication criteria ). On submission authors will be asked for the grant number *OPPID that funded the research.
• The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
• All methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the manuscript adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
• All authors have understood Gates Open Research’s policies for article publication and its publishing model .
• Your manuscript includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.

• ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
• An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.
• we collect and store authenticated ORCID iDs for authors and reviewers
• we publicly display the iDs with the iD icon for those authors and reviewers, linked to their ORCID account
• we connect to the user's ORCID record and update it with new published works

Are you a Gates-funded researcher?

If you are a previous or current Gates grant holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Gates Open Research.

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Gates Open Research

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

How to Publish a Research Article

• Submit your Research
• My Submissions
• Article Guidelines
• Article Guidelines (New Versions)
• Data Guidelines
• Article Processing Charges
• Finding Article Reviewers
• The Peer Review Process
• The Editorial Team’s Role
• Reviewer Criteria
• Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
• Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
• The work is original. The article (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Articles previously posted on a preprint server, such as arXiv, SSRN, BioRxiv, MedRxiv can be submitted for publication in Open Research Europe.
• At least one author must have or previously had Horizon 2020 funding (for details, see our Publication criteria ).
• The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
• Where applicable, all methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
• All authors have understood Health Open Research’s policies for article publication and its author-led publishing model , which requires authors to actively suggest suitable peer reviewers for their article until at least 2 reviews have been received.
• Your article includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.

• ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
• An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.
• we collect and store authenticated ORCID iDs for authors and reviewers
• we publicly display the iDs with the iD icon for those authors and reviewers, linked to their ORCID account
• we connect to the user's ORCID record and update it with new published works

Stay Informed

Sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Health Open Research.

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Health Open Research

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

How to Publish a Research Article

• Submit your Research
• My Submissions
• Article Guidelines
• Article Guidelines (New Versions)
• Data Guidelines
• Article Processing Charges
• Finding Article Reviewers
• The Peer Review Process
• The Editorial Team’s Role
• Reviewer Criteria
• Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
• Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
• The work is original. The manuscript (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Manuscripts that were previously posted on a preprint server such as ArXiv or BioRxiv are welcome.
• At least one author is a qualified researcher (according to Open Research Central’s authorship criteria ) and has made a key contribution to the article.
• The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
• All methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the manuscript adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
• All authors have understood F1000Research’s policies for article publication and its publishing model .
• Your manuscript includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.
• You agree to pay any processing charges applicable to this submission. Following submission, we will ask you for the name and email address of the payer, the name of their institution and the country in which they are based. If based in an EU member country , we will also require a VAT registration number.
• ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
• An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

How to write and publish a scientific manuscript.

Martin R. Huecker ; Jacob Shreffler .

Affiliations

Last Update: October 31, 2022 .

• Definition/Introduction

A clinician should continuously strive to increase knowledge by reviewing and critiquing papers, thoughtfully considering how to integrate new data into practice. This is the essence of evidence-based medicine (EBM). [1]  When new clinical queries arise, one should seek answers in the published literature. The ability to read a scientific or medical manuscript remains vitally important throughout the career of a clinician.

When gaps exist in the literature, clinicians should consider conducting their own research into these questions. Though typically performed by academic doctors or physician-scientists, medical research is open to all clinicians in both informal and formal methods. Anyone who treats patients can collect data on outcomes to assess the quality of care delivered (quality improvement is research). [2]  Though beyond the scope of this chapter, instruction for clinicians on how to conduct research and contribute to medical science is provided by many resources. [3] [4] [5]

Additionally, a clinician who integrates a new practice can study effects on patient outcomes, retro- or prospectively. Continuous practice improvement need not be shared with the larger population of treating providers, but dissemination to the entire scientific community allows widespread adoption, criticism, or further testing for replication of findings.

• Issues of Concern

Clinicians who seek to conduct retrospective chart reviews, prospective studies, or even randomized, controlled clinical trials should access the many resources to ensure quality methodology. [5] Once you have followed the appropriate steps to conduct a study (Table 1), you should complete the process by writing a manuscript to describe your findings and share it with other clinicians and researchers. Other resources detail the steps in undertaking writing a review article, but this StatPearls chapter will focus on Writing a Scientific Manuscript for original research. See also the StatPearls chapter for the different types of research manuscripts. [6]

• Clinical Significance

Steps to Conducting Research

• Develop a research question
• Perform a literature search
• Identify a gap in the literature
• Design a study protocol (including personnel)
• Submit to an institutional review board for approval
• Collect, responsibly store, and then analyze data
• Write a manuscript to interpret and describe your research.

After conducting a quality investigation or a study, one should put together an abstract and manuscript to share results. Researchers can write an abstract in a short amount of time, though the abstract will evolve as the full manuscript moves to completion. Many published and presented abstracts do not reach full manuscript publication. [7] [8]  Although journals and conferences do often publish abstracts, studies with important results should be published in full manuscript form to ensure dissemination and allow attempts at replication. [9]

IRB protocols, study design, and data collection and aggregation require a team effort. Those involved in the research should discuss who will contribute to the full manuscript (i.e., qualify as an author) and thus the planned order of authorship to reduce complications at the time of manuscript submission. The author, who devotes the most effort to the paper, is typically the first and corresponding author. In contrast, the last author is often the most senior member of the team, often the principal investigator of the study. All individuals listed as authors should contribute to the manuscript and overall project in some fashion. [10]

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist is perhaps the most valuable tool in the process of preparing your manuscript for submission [11] . 

Original research manuscripts have the following sections (in chronologic order): [11]

Title and Abstract

Introduction (Background and Objectives)

Methods (Design, Setting, Participants, Variables, Statistics)

Results (Participants, Descriptives, Outcomes, Subgroups)

Tables and Figures     

Discussion (Key findings, Limitations, Interpretations)

Conflict of Interest (COI), Author affiliations, Acknowledgments, Funding

Individuals involved in the IRB submission (prior to data collection) can write the introduction and methods of the manuscript before and during the process of data collection and analysis. This head start on writing makes the full manuscript composition task less formidable. The content of the introduction and methods should be well known to the study group prior to data collection and analysis. The introduction should be organized into a “problem/gap/hook” order: what problem does this study address, the precise gap in the literature, and the objectives of this study (in addressing the gap). [12]  The methods should provide enough detail such that readers who would like to replicate the study could do so.

Once data is collected and analyzed, authors can write an abstract to organize major themes of the research, understanding that the abstract will undergo edits once the manuscript is complete. Similarly, the title can change with revisions, as authors determine the most salient trends in the data. Most readers will only read the title +/- abstract. Thus these are the most important sections of the paper. The title should be concise and should directly describe the results of the trial– this correlates with more citations. The abstract must convey the crucial findings of the paper, ideally divided into sections for easier reading (unless the desired journal does not allow this). [13]

With the larger picture in mind, authors should create tables and figures that visually convey the themes of the data analysis. Working with statisticians or data experts, authors should devote a great deal of time to this component of the manuscript. Some general concepts: [14]

• Only include tables/figures that you believe are necessary.
• Make sure tables/figures are of high quality, simple, clear, with concise captions.
• Do not repeat language in results that appear in tables/figures, i.e., the tables/figures should stand alone.
• Consider how the figure will look in grayscale (in case the journal if not in color)

As with the abstract and title, the tables and figures will likely undergo further edits prior to the completion of the manuscript. The abstract and tables/figures should intuitively evolve together to convey the ‘story’ of the research project.

At this point, refer back to the introduction and methods composed during data collection. Make revisions as necessary to reflect the overall narrative of the project. Ensure you have adhered to the originally determined objectives or hypotheses. 

Next, focus on the results and discussion. The results should contain only objective data with no interpretation of significance. Describe salient results than do not already receive explanations within the figures and tables. The discussion section begins with a lead paragraph highlighting the most important findings from the study. Then the discussion interprets the current results in light of prior published literature. Ensure citation of keystone papers on this topic, including new papers that have been published since embarking on the current project. Frame your results, describing how this study adds to the literature. The discussion section usually includes study limitations. Attempt to anticipate criticisms of the methodology, the results, the organization of the manuscript itself, and the (ability to draw) conclusions. A stronger limitations section preempts journal reviewer feedback, potentially simplifying the revision/resubmission process.

The conclusion section should be concise, conveying the main take-home points from your study. You can make recommendations for current clinical practice and for future research endeavors. Finally, consider using citation management software such as Endnote or Mendeley. Though initially cumbersome, these software platforms drastically improve revision efforts and allow for easy reference reformatting.  All authors should review the manuscript multiple times, potentially sharing with other uninvolved colleagues for objective feedback. Consider who should receive acknowledgment for supporting the project and prepare to disclose conflicts of interest and funding.

Although authors should have an initial idea of which journal to submit to, once the manuscript is near completion, this decision will be more straightforward. Journal rankings are beyond the scope of this StatPearls chapter. Still, generally, one should devise a list of the journals within a specialty in order of highest to lowest impact factor (some sites categorize into tiers). High-quality prospective research and clinical trials have a higher likelihood of acceptance into the more prestigious journals within a specialty or to the high-quality general science or medicine journals. Although many journals have an option for open access publication, and numerous legitimate, open access journals now exist, beware of ‘predatory journals’ that charge a fee to publish and may not be indexed in Pubmed or other databases. [12]

Journals have diverse guidelines for formatting and submission, and the manuscript submission process can be tedious. Prior to submission, review Bordage’s paper on reasons for manuscript rejection. [15]  Most journals require a title page and cover letter, the latter of which represents an opportunity to lobby for your paper’s importance. When (not if) you experience manuscript rejections, take reviewer comments and recommendations seriously. Use this valuable feedback for resubmission to the original journal (when invited) or for subsequent submission to other journals. When submitting a requested revision, compose a point by point response to the reviewers and attach a new manuscript with tracked changes. Attempt to resubmit manuscripts as promptly as possible, keeping your work in the hands of journals (allowing you to work on other research). [14]

• Nursing, Allied Health, and Interprofessional Team Interventions

The above logistic steps will differ for review articles, case reports, editorials, and other types of submissions. [16]  However, the organization, precise methods, and adherence to journal guidelines remain important. See work by Provenzale on principles to increase the likelihood of acceptance for original and revised manuscripts. After submission, revision, resubmission, and proofing, you may experience the fulfillment of an official publication. Academics should promote their scientific work, enhancing the dissemination of research to the wider scientific community. [17] [18] [17] [19]

• Review Questions
• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Martin Huecker declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Jacob Shreffler declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

• Cite this Page Huecker MR, Shreffler J. How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript. [Updated 2022 Oct 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

• Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. [Ann Ital Chir. 2016] Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. Picardi N. Ann Ital Chir. 2016; 87:1-3.
• Original research in pathology: judgment, or evidence-based medicine? [Lab Invest. 2007] Original research in pathology: judgment, or evidence-based medicine? Crawford JM. Lab Invest. 2007 Feb; 87(2):104-14.
• [Personal suggestions to write and publish SCI cited papers]. [Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2006] [Personal suggestions to write and publish SCI cited papers]. Jian XC. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2006 Apr; 15(2):221-3.
• Review Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation. [Hum Exp Toxicol. 2005] Review Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation. Guzelian PS, Victoroff MS, Halmes NC, James RC, Guzelian CP. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2005 Apr; 24(4):161-201.
• Review Evidence-based medicine in treatment and rehabilitation of spinal cord injured. [Spinal Cord. 2005] Review Evidence-based medicine in treatment and rehabilitation of spinal cord injured. Biering-Sørensen F. Spinal Cord. 2005 Oct; 43(10):587-92.

Recent Activity

• How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript - StatPearls How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

What is ‘original scholarship’ in the age of AI?

Complex questions, innovative approaches

Early warning sign of extinction?

Epic science inside a cubic millimeter of brain.

Six layers of excitatory neurons color-coded by depth.

Credit: Google Research and Lichtman Lab

Anne J. Manning

Harvard Staff Writer

Researchers publish largest-ever dataset of neural connections

A cubic millimeter of brain tissue may not sound like much. But considering that that tiny square contains 57,000 cells, 230 millimeters of blood vessels, and 150 million synapses, all amounting to 1,400 terabytes of data, Harvard and Google researchers have just accomplished something stupendous.   

Led by Jeff Lichtman, the Jeremy R. Knowles Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology and newly appointed dean of science , the Harvard team helped create the largest 3D brain reconstruction to date, showing in vivid detail each cell and its web of connections in a piece of temporal cortex about half the size of a rice grain.

Published in Science, the study is the latest development in a nearly 10-year collaboration with scientists at Google Research, combining Lichtman’s electron microscopy imaging with AI algorithms to color-code and reconstruct the extremely complex wiring of mammal brains. The paper’s three first co-authors are former Harvard postdoc Alexander Shapson-Coe, Michał Januszewski of Google Research, and Harvard postdoc Daniel Berger.

The ultimate goal, supported by the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative , is to create a comprehensive, high-resolution map of a mouse’s neural wiring, which would entail about 1,000 times the amount of data the group just produced from the 1-cubic-millimeter fragment of human cortex.  

“The word ‘fragment’ is ironic,” Lichtman said. “A terabyte is, for most people, gigantic, yet a fragment of a human brain — just a minuscule, teeny-weeny little bit of human brain — is still thousands of terabytes.”  

Jeff Lichtman.

Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

The latest map contains never-before-seen details of brain structure, including a rare but powerful set of axons connected by up to 50 synapses. The team also noted oddities in the tissue, such as a small number of axons that formed extensive whorls. Because the sample was taken from a patient with epilepsy, the researchers don’t know whether such formations are pathological or simply rare.

Lichtman’s field is connectomics, which seeks to create comprehensive catalogs of brain structure, down to individual cells. Such completed maps would unlock insights into brain function and disease, about which scientists still know very little.

Google’s state-of-the-art AI algorithms allow for reconstruction and mapping of brain tissue in three dimensions. The team has also developed a suite of publicly available tools researchers can use to examine and annotate the connectome.

“Given the enormous investment put into this project, it was important to present the results in a way that anybody else can now go and benefit from them,” said Google collaborator Viren Jain.

Next the team will tackle the mouse hippocampal formation, which is important to neuroscience for its role in memory and neurological disease.

Share this article

You might like.

Symposium considers how technology is changing academia

Seven projects awarded Star-Friedman Challenge grants

Fossil record stretching millions of years shows tiny ocean creatures on the move before Earth heats up

How far has COVID set back students?

An economist, a policy expert, and a teacher explain why learning losses are worse than many parents realize

Excited about new diet drug? This procedure seems better choice.

Study finds minimally invasive treatment more cost-effective over time, brings greater weight loss

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
• BOOK REVIEW
• 06 May 2024

How rich is too rich?

• Lucas Chancel 0

Lucas Chancel is a visiting associate professor and Stone Visiting Scholar at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is an associate professor of economics at Sciences Po in Paris and co-director of the World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, residents in unplanned settlements live just blocks away from wealthy suburbs. Credit: Viviane Moos/Corbis/Getty

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth Ingrid Robeyns Allen Lane (2024)

As radical as they might seem, calls for limits on wealth are as old as civilization itself. The Hebrew Bible and Torah recognized years during which debts should be cancelled, slaves set free and property redistributed from rich to poor. In classical Greece, Aristotle praised cities that kept wealth inequality in check to enhance political stability. And in 1942, then-US president Franklin D. Roosevelt argued that annual incomes should be capped at the current equivalent of US$480,000.

In Limitarianism , Dutch and Belgian economist and philosopher Ingrid Robeyns argues that it’s time for twenty-first-century governments to do the same. She explores what setting limits on wealth ownership might mean, and why our societies should want to do so. It is a fresh take on a much-needed discussion at a time when, for example, the richest 1% of the US population owns about as much wealth as the bottom 90%.

Why the world cannot afford the rich

Robeyns, who has studied how people perceive wealth, opens with a provocative proposal — governments should set a wealth limit on the order of 10 million euros or US dollars per person. This figure, more of a guideline than a strict cut-off, “strikes a balance between what different moral and political considerations tell us is the maximum level” of wealth one should own, she explains.

Why cap wealth at €10 million? The author’s research across Europe suggests that this level, or an even lower “riches line”, would be broadly accepted by the population. Among a representative sample of Dutch people, for example, Robeyns and her team found that nine out of ten respondents agreed that having wealth exceeding €4 million for a family of four — in terms of ownership of certain assets, such as a mansion, a second home, luxury vehicles and a specific amount of savings — qualifies as being super-rich. In low-income countries, that threshold could be much lower .

Robeyns points out that extreme wealth “is often tied to immoral and criminal practices”. As evidence, she notes the massive use of tax evasion among ultra-wealthy people and their firms. Whether legal or not, she labels these practices as unethical. Going further, she reminds us that current wealth inequalities have some roots in historical practices such as slavery or military conquests — as scholars of global history have revealed, for example in Sven Beckert’s 2014 book Empire of Cotton .

To bolster her case and persuade detractors, Robeyns argues that limiting wealth accumulation would make societies better overall. Indeed, although individuals might disagree on whether market outcomes are fair, many would agree on the value of social-welfare objectives, such as having a healthy democratic system or offering equal opportunities for all.

Disproportionate power

As a growing literature in economics has shown, more wealth at the very top has often meant fewer resources to lift people at the bottom, contrary to the mantra of trickle-down economics. But wealth concentration isn’t just an issue that affects poor people, Robeyns argues — it is an issue for everyone. The discussion that follows is reminiscent of, and expands, the debate sparked by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s 2009 book The Spirit Level .

Houses built over ravines in a low-income area near wealthy housing developments in Mexico City. Credit: Omar Torres/AFP/Getty

Over the past two decades, as Robeyns sets out, scholars have increasingly documented how democracy can be undermined by the disproportionate political power of media tycoons, rich founders of philanthropic organizations and large political-party donors. Extreme wealth concentration limits governments’ abilities to invest in public goods, such as education, health care and climate-change mitigation. And meritocratic promises are endangered when extreme wealth inequality is transmitted from one generation to the next.

Robeyns discusses policies that would constitute the essence of a limitarian policy platform, acknowledging that there is no one‑size-fits-all solution. Her proposals build on the work of Anthony Atkinson’s book Inequality (2015), Thomas Piketty’s A Brief History of Equality (2021) and Isabelle Ferreras and colleagues’ Democratize Work (2022). These include giving workers more rights over firms’ strategic decision-making and restoring governments’ fiscal agency by changing tax rules to limit the possibilities for tax evasion.

To build a better world, stop chasing economic growth

Introducing steep taxes on inheritance should also be high on the limitarian agenda. Robeyns suggests a limit of €200,000 on the total amount that can be inherited by an individual throughout their lifetime. The funds collected would be redistributed by the state to younger citizens so that everyone would “start their adult life without worrying unduly about how they will get by”.

Looming over all these discussions is the ecological crisis and what limitarianism means on a planet with finite resources. In a dedicated chapter, the author ponders: “There is so much good that money above the riches line could do, if only it were used for addressing collective problems,” such as climate change. Here, Robeyns argues that it would be politically and administratively easier to limit assets than to impose individual quotas to cap the appropriation of ecological resources, such as water or energy. Others might view the policies proposed by the author as equally difficult to introduce. The tough question of how to implement such limits in increasingly polarized and competitive electoral systems remains open.

Limitarianism is a thought-provoking read for all those interested in inequality. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen , a founding text of political modernity in the eighteenth century, stated in its first article that: “Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good.” As billionaire wealth increasingly defines our era, it is time to engage in public debates about the point at which wealth concentration ceases to serve the common good. A starting place for this discussion is to ask ourselves when enough is enough: is it €10 million, or more, or less? Robeyns’s original book sets out the proposals and logic to do just that.

Nature 629 , 282-283 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01276-1

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

• Sustainability

Inequality is bad — but that doesn’t mean the rich are

Correspondence 14 MAY 24

Daniel Kahneman obituary: psychologist who revolutionized the way we think about thinking

Obituary 03 MAY 24

Scientists urged to collect royalties from the ‘magic money tree’

Career Feature 25 APR 24

Interpersonal therapy can be an effective tool against the devastating effects of loneliness

Is the Internet bad for you? Huge study reveals surprise effect on well-being

News 12 MAY 24

Real-world plastic-waste success stories can help to boost global treaty

Diana Wall obituary: ecologist who foresaw the importance of soil biodiversity

Obituary 10 MAY 24

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research Sanford Research invites applications for full-time faculty at the rank of...

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Sanford Research

Postdoctoral Fellow - Boyi Gan lab

New postdoctoral positions are open in a cancer research laboratory located within The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The lab curre...

Houston, Texas (US)

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center - Experimental Radiation Oncology

Assistant Professor

Tenure-track Assistant Professor position in the Cell and Molecular Physiology Department at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.

Maywood, Illinois

Loyola University of Chicago - Cell and Molecular Physiology Department

Chief Editor

We are looking for a Chief Editor to build and manage a team handling content at the interface of the physical and life sciences for the journal.

London or Berlin - hybrid working model.

Springer Nature Ltd

Junior and Senior Staff Scientists in microfluidics & optics

Seeking staff scientists with expertise in microfluidics or optics to support development of new technology to combat antimicrobial resistance

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Harvard Medical School Systems Biology Department

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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

Trends in environment and industrial biotechnology

• Published: 14 May 2024

Cite this article

• Manish Singh Rajput 1 ,
• Luciana Vandenberghe 2 &
• Ashok Pandey 3  

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This special issue of Environmental Science and Pollution Research (ESPR) includes manuscripts of the selected presentations at the National Conference on Environmental and Industrial Biotechnology-2022 (NCEIB-2022) entitled Trends in Environment and Industrial Biotechnology, held during November 9–10, 2022, at Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology for Divyangjan, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India.

The conference was held in association with the Biotech Research Society, India (BRSI) and Center for Energy and Environmental Sustainability (CEES), India, featuring the latest developments in the frontier areas of Environmental Biotechnology, Industrial Biotechnology, Biofuels, Bioenergy and Waste Water Management. The conference was sponsored by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT CTEP), India, and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), India, and was attended by more than 250 delegates across India. The eminent speakers included Prof. Sunil Kumar Khare, IIT Delhi; Dr. R. Vinu, IIT Madras; Dr. V. S. Mohalkar, IIT Guwahati; Dr. Madhavan K Nampoothiri, CSIR-NIIST, Trivendrum; Prof. P Mullai, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu; Prof. Datta Madamwar, CHARUSAT, Anand; Prof. Ram Sharan Singh, IIT BHU; Dr. Vinod Kumar, CSIR-IIIM, Jammu; Dr. Ramgopal Rao S., Biocon Limited, Bangalore; and Dr. Ramakrishnan Parthasarthi, CSIT-IITR, Lucknow, to name a few.

The scientific program included 41 invited talks and 81 contributory short oral or poster presentations. Five Research Excellence award, Three Best Paper Award Flash Talk, and Four Best Paper Award Poster were conferred by the BRSI and CEES to the winners under contributory presentations in the closing ceremony of NCEIB 2022.

The topics covered in this special issue include the following: Harnessing the Potential of microbial Keratinases for Enzymatic Bioconversion of Keratin Waste, Recent advances in Sustainable nature-based functional materials for biomedical sensor technologies, Reducing the Bioburden on Organic Sanitary Napkins and Attempt to Solve the Sterility Issue, Bio-adsorbent Hydroxyapatite for Drinking Water Defluoridation: Column Performance Modeling Studies, Isolation and characterization of novel lytic bacteriophages that infect multi drug resistant clinical strains of Escherichia coli , Enhanced remediation of polyaromatic hydrocarbon using agro-industrial waste for biofuel production and environmental pollution mitigation, Current trends in bioremediation and bio-integrated treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons, Optimization of bio-oil extraction from chlorella biomass via a green approach to obtain algal-based Di-ethyl phthalate, Utilization of agricultural residues for energy and resource recovery towards a sustainable environment, Biodegradation of terephthalic acid using Rhodococcus erythropolis MTCC 3951 : Insights into the degradation process, applications in wastewater treatment and polyhydroxyalkanoate production, Biovalorization of mango byproduct through enzymatic extraction of dietary fiber, Performance, combustion and emission characteristics of bio-oil produced by in-situ catalytic pyrolysis of polypropylene using spent FCC, Marine diatom algae cultivation in simulated dairy wastewater and biomass valorization, Toxicological Impacts of Microplastics on Human Health: A Bibliometric Analysis, Co-culturing Chlorella vulgaris and Cystobasidium oligophagum JRC1 in the microbial fuel cell cathode for lipid biosynthesis and Enhanced ethanol production using hydrophobic resin detoxified Pine forest litter hydrolysate and integrated fermentation process development supplementing molasses.

It is hoped that this special issue, TEIB of ESPR, will make a good reference material and be of great use for the scientific community involved in contributing for the betterment of society by working and developing new sustainable, efficient and eco-friendly technologies in the areas of industrial, environmental and allied streams of biotechnology.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biotechnology, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology for Divyangjan, Kanpur, India

Manish Singh Rajput

Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

Luciana Vandenberghe

Centre for Innovation and Translational Research, CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, India

Ashok Pandey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashok Pandey .

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rajput, M.S., Vandenberghe, L. & Pandey, A. Trends in environment and industrial biotechnology. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33599-x

Download citation

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33599-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Are We Talking Too Much About Mental Health?

Recent studies cast doubt on whether large-scale mental health interventions are making young people better. Some even suggest they can have a negative effect.

By Ellen Barry

In recent years, mental health has become a central subject in childhood and adolescence. Teenagers narrate their psychiatric diagnosis and treatment on TikTok and Instagram. School systems, alarmed by rising levels of distress and self-harm, are introducing preventive coursework in emotional self-regulation and mindfulness.

Now, some researchers warn that we are in danger of overdoing it. Mental health awareness campaigns, they argue, help some young people identify disorders that badly need treatment — but they have a negative effect on others, leading them to over-interpret their symptoms and see themselves as more troubled than they are.

The researchers point to unexpected results in trials of school-based mental health interventions in the United Kingdom and Australia: Students who underwent training in the basics of mindfulness , cognitive behavioral therapy and dialectical behavior therapy did not emerge healthier than peers who did not participate, and some were worse off, at least for a while.

And new research from the United States shows that among young people, “self-labeling” as having depression or anxiety is associated with poor coping skills, like avoidance or rumination.

In a paper published last year , two research psychologists at the University of Oxford, Lucy Foulkes and Jack Andrews, coined the term “prevalence inflation” — driven by the reporting of mild or transient symptoms as mental health disorders — and suggested that awareness campaigns were contributing to it.

“It’s creating this message that teenagers are vulnerable, they’re likely to have problems, and the solution is to outsource them to a professional,” said Dr. Foulkes, a Prudence Trust Research Fellow in Oxford’s department of experimental psychology, who has written two books on mental health and adolescence.

Until high-quality research has clarified these unexpected negative effects, they argue, school systems should proceed cautiously with large-scale mental health interventions.

“It’s not that we need to go back to square one, but it’s that we need to press pause and reroute potentially,” Dr. Foulkes said. “It’s possible that something very well-intended has overshot a bit and needs to be brought back in.”

This remains a minority view among specialists in adolescent mental health, who mostly agree that the far more urgent problem is lack of access to treatment.

About 60 percent of young Americans with severe depression receive no treatment, according to Mental Health America, a nonprofit research group. In crisis, desperate families fall back on emergency rooms, where teens often remain for days before a psychiatric bed opens up. There is good reason to embrace a preventive approach, teaching schoolchildren basic skills that might forestall crises later, experts say.

Dr. Foulkes said she understood that her argument runs counter to that consensus, and when she began to present it, she braced for a backlash. To her surprise, she said, many educators reached out to express quiet agreement.

“There’s definitely a fear about being the one to say it,” she said.

A deflating result

In the summer of 2022, the results of a landmark study on mindfulness training in British classrooms landed — like a lead balloon.

The trial, My Resilience in Adolescence, or MYRIAD, was ambitious, meticulous and expansive, following about 28,000 teenagers over eight years. It had been launched in a glow of optimism that the practice would pay off, improving the students’ mental health outcomes in later years.

Half of the teenagers were trained by their teachers to direct their attention to the present moment — breathing, physical sensations or everyday activities — in 10 lessons of 30 to 50 minutes apiece.

The results were disappointing . The authors reported “no support for our hypothesis” that mindfulness training would improve students’ mental health. In fact, students at highest risk for mental health problems did somewhat worse after receiving the training, the authors concluded.

But by the end of the eight-year project, “mindfulness is already embedded in a lot of schools, and there are already organizations making money from selling this program to schools,” said Dr. Foulkes, who had assisted on the study as a postdoctoral research associate. “And it’s very difficult to get the scientific message out there.”

Why, one might ask, would a mental health program do harm?

Researchers in the study speculated that the training programs “bring awareness to upsetting thoughts,” encouraging students to sit with darker feelings, but without providing solutions, especially for societal problems like racism or poverty. They also found that the students didn’t enjoy the sessions and didn’t practice at home.

Another explanation is that mindfulness training could encourage “co-rumination,” the kind of long, unresolved group discussion that churns up problems without finding solutions.

As the MYRIAD results were being analyzed, Dr. Andrews led an evaluation of Climate Schools, an Australian intervention based on the principles of cognitive behavioral therapy, in which students observed cartoon characters navigating mental health concerns and then answered questions about practices to improve mental health.

Here, too, he found negative effects. Students who had taken the course reported higher levels of depression and anxiety symptoms six months and 12 months later.

Co-rumination appears to be higher in girls, who tend to come into the program more distressed, as well as more attuned to their friends, he said. “It might be,” he said, “that they kind of get together and make things a little bit worse for each other.”

Dr. Andrews, a Wellcome Trust research fellow, has since joined an effort to improve Climate Schools by addressing negative effects. And he has concluded that schools should slow down until “we know the evidence base a bit more.” Sometimes, he said, “doing nothing is better than doing something.”

The awareness paradox

One problem with mental health awareness, some research suggests, is that it may not help to put a label to your symptoms.

Isaac Ahuvia, a doctoral candidate at Stony Brook University, recently tested this in a study of 1,423 college students . Twenty-two percent “self-labeled” as having depression, telling researchers “I am depressed” or “I have depression,” but 39 percent met the diagnostic criteria for depression.

He found that the students who self-labeled felt that they had less control over depression and were more likely to catastrophize and less likely to respond to distress by putting their difficulties in perspective, compared with peers who had similar depression symptoms.

Jessica L. Schleider, a co-author of the self-labeling study, said this was no surprise. People who self-label “appear to be viewing depression as a biological inevitability,” she said. “People who don’t view emotions as malleable, view them as set and stuck and uncontrollable, tend to cope less well because they don’t see a point to trying.”

But Dr. Schleider, an associate professor of medical social sciences at Northwestern University and the director of the university’s Lab for Scalable Mental Health, pushed back on the prevalence inflation hypothesis. She disagreed with the claim that students are overdiagnosing themselves, noting that Mr. Ahuvia’s findings suggest otherwise.

Awareness campaigns are bound to have multiple effects, helping some students and not others. And ultimately, she argued, the priority for public health should be reaching young people in the most distress.

“The urgency of the mental health crisis is so clear,” she said. “In the partnerships that I have, the emphasis is on the kids truly struggling right now who have nothing — we need to help them — more so than a possible risk for a subset of kids who aren’t really struggling.”

Maybe, she said, we need to look beyond the “universal, school-assembly-style approach,” to targeted, light-touch interventions, which research has shown can be effective at decreasing anxiety and conduct disorders, especially in younger children.

“There is a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” Dr. Schleider said. “The response can’t be ‘Forget all of it.’ It should be ‘What about this intervention was unhelpful?’”

Other researchers echoed her concern, pointing to studies that show that on average, students benefit from social and emotional learning courses.

One of the largest, a 2023 meta-analysis of 252 classroom programs in 53 countries, found that students who participated performed better academically, displayed better social skills and had lower levels of emotional distress or behavioral problems. In that context, negative effects in a handful of trials appear modest, the researchers said.

“We clearly have not figured out how to do them yet, but I can’t imagine any population-based intervention that the field got right the first time,” said Dr. Andrew J. Gerber, the president and medical director of Silver Hill Hospital and a practicing child and adolescent psychiatrist.

“Really, if you think about almost everything we do in schools, we don’t have great evidence for it working,” he added. “That doesn’t mean we don’t do it. It just means that we’re constantly thinking about ways to improve it.”

‘We want everyone to have it’

These debates are taking place a long way away from classrooms, where mental health curriculums are increasingly commonplace.

Allyson Kangisser, a counselor at Woodsdale Elementary School in Wheeling, W.Va., said the focus in her school is on basic coping skills. In the early grades, students are asked, “What things can you do to take care of yourself when you’re having big feelings?”

Starting in third grade, they take on more complex material, such as watching cartoon characters to distinguish transient stress from chronic conditions like depression. “We’re not trying to have them diagnose themselves,” Ms. Kangisser said. “We are saying, what do you feel — this one? Or this one?”

At the school’s sixth annual mental health fair last month, Woodsdale students walked through a giant inflatable brain, its lobes neatly labeled. They did yoga stretches and talked about regulating their emotions. Ms. Kangisser said the event is valuable precisely because it is universal, so troubled children are not singled out.

“The mental health fair, everybody does it,” she said. “It’s not ‘You need it, and you don’t.’ We want everyone to have it, because you just never know.”

By the time the students reach college, they will have absorbed enormous amounts of information about mental health — from school, but also from social media and from one another.

Dr. Jessica Gold, chief wellness officer for the University of Tennessee system, said the college students she sees are recognizably different — more comfortable speaking about their emotions and more willing to be vulnerable. They also overuse diagnostic terms and have the self-assurance to question a psychiatrist’s judgment.

“It’s sort of a double-edged sword,” she said. “We want people to talk about this more, but we don’t want that to lead to overdiagnosis or incorrect diagnosis or overtreatment. We want it to lead to normalizing of having feelings.”

Lucy Kim, a Yale senior who has lobbied for better mental health support on campus, described the prevalence inflation hypothesis as “disheartening, dismissive and potentially dangerous,” providing another way to discount the experiences of young people.

“As a college student, I see a generation of young people around me impacted by a depth and breadth of loneliness, exhaustion and disillusionment suggestive of a malaise that goes deeper than the general vicissitudes of life,” said Ms. Kim, 23.

Overdiagnosis does happen, she said, and so does glorification of mental health disorders. But stigma and barriers to treatment remain the bigger problem. “I can confidently say I have never heard anyone respond to disclosures of depression with ‘That’s so cool, I wish I had that, too,’” she said.

Ellen Barry is a reporter covering mental health for The Times. More about Ellen Barry

Managing Anxiety and Stress

Stay balanced in the face of stress and anxiety with our collection of tools and advice..

How are you, really? This self-guided check-in will help you take stock of your emotional well-being — and learn how to make changes .

These simple and proven strategies will help you manage stress , support your mental health and find meaning in the new year.

First, bring calm and clarity into your life with these 10 tips . Next, identify what you are dealing with: Is it worry, anxiety or stress ?

Persistent depressive disorder is underdiagnosed, and many who suffer from it have never heard of it. Here is what to know .

If you notice drastic shifts in your mood during certain times of the year, you could have seasonal affective disorder. Here are answers to your top questions about the condition .

How much anxiety is too much? Here is how to establish whether you should see a professional about it .

Chimps continue learning tool use even as adults, study finds

New research has surprising implications for primate intelligence as they age, by matthew rozsa.

Many younger people know the pain of trying to teach an older person how to print a PDF or navigate the internet. But of course, some people keep with the times and still learn how to use new tools later in life. Does the same hold true for other primates? The answer seems to be yes, at least when it comes to chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes .)

Scientists in the African country of Côte d’Ivoire spent seven-and-a-half years quietly recording 70 wild chimpanzees of all ages. They did so because, while researchers have known for decades that chimpanzees can use tools, they did not know whether these primates are like humans in being able to continue   learning throughout their lifetimes.

"Studies examining how chimpanzee tool use manipulative skills develop across their lifetime, especially in the wild, are rare."

According to the recent study published in the journal PLOS Biology, the wild western chimpanzees were able to develop their use of stick tools into adulthood.

The chimpanzees, who were studied in their natural home at Taï National Park, became increasingly adept as they aged at utilizing various finger grips to handle the sticks they used for retrieving food. After beginning to develop their dexterity by the age of six, these animals were usually not fully capable of removing insects from hard-to-reach places or adjusting their grip when necessary until they reached the age of 15. Scientists conclude this means that the chimpanzees have to keep learning new technological skills as they grow older; it is not simply a question of physical aptitude.

“In wild chimpanzees, the intricacies of tool use learning continue into adulthood," the authors said in a statement . "This pattern supports ideas that large brains across hominids allow continued learning through the first two decades of life.”

At this point, the next step for researchers is to learn why chimpanzees do not become even more skilled in their tool use than they currently are.

"Whether the limiting factor preventing more tool use and manufacture in chimpanzees populations is cognitive capacity in specific domains (e.g., action planning) or is rather due to limited exposure to role models to acquire culture cumulatively remains to be examined," the authors write.

Studying tool use is one of the best ways to understand the evolution of intelligence. Other species demonstrate using tools in various flexible ways. In fact, humans' ability to use tools has been argued to be one of the most fundamental differences between us and other animals. The authors point out that New Caledonian crows, Goffin's cockatoos, woodpecker finches, bearded capuchins, bottlenose dolphins, orangutans, gorillas and sea otters can also use tools flexibly. At the same time, they explain that chimpanzees are one of the only species where the ability to flexibly use tools is "regularly observed across individuals, populations, tool materials and contexts."

This is also true for humans, and because chimpanzees are one of our closest living relatives, studying how chimpanzees use tools can ultimately illuminate how humans developed those same skills.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes .

New Caledonian crows, Goffin's cockatoos, woodpecker finches, bearded capuchins, bottlenose dolphins, orangutans, gorillas and sea otters also can use tools flexibly.

"While significant differences exist between the hand anatomy of chimpanzees and humans, with the former having long digits and small and weak thumb considered inoperant in precise handling, chimpanzees employ all hand grips described in humans, including the pad-to-pad precision grip, a complex hand grip long thought to be unique to humans," the authors write.

This study is only the latest in a long series of papers that repeatedly amaze humans with the intelligence of their primate relatives. A paper this month in the journal Nature revealed that an orangutan had been filmed grinding up plant matter and applying it to a facial wound. This may have been the first documented case of a wild animal treating its own wound with medicine. The researchers wrote that "this possibly innovative behavior presents the first systematically documented case of active wound treatment with a plant species know to contain biologically active substances by a wild animal and provides new insights into the origins of human wound care."

Other recent studies have focused specifically on chimpanzee intelligence. In a study  published for the journal Nature Communications, scientists placed fake snakes among wild chimpanzees in Uganda to monitor their vocalizations as they reacted. They observed that the chimpanzees produced a "waa-bark" sound in order to recruit other chimpanzees to deal with the "snake," while if they were surprised they produced a sound called an "alarm-huus." In the process, the chimpanzees effectively created the equivalent of syllables and words to form sentences that communicated complex ideas — also known as language.

"We propose the 'alarm-huu + waa-bark' represents a compositional syntactic-like structure, where the meaning of the call combination is derived from the meaning of its parts," the authors explain in their study.

Another recent study , this one published in the journal Communications Biology, also studied a group of chimpanzees at Taï National Park. This time the scientists looked at 46 animals, analyzing the sounds they produced in order to better understand how they communicate.

We need your help to stay independent

"Chimpanzees produced 390 unique vocal sequences," the scientists wrote. "Most vocal units emitted singly were also emitted in two-unit sequences (bigrams), which in turn were embedded into three-unit sequences (trigrams)."

As in the study on chimpanzee tool use, the study on their complex vocalizations benefited immensely from the fact that it was performed on wild animals. As the authors of the tool study observe, the greatest challenge in understanding chimpanzees it is that so difficult to obtain sufficient records of their activities while they are still in the wild. Given that chimpanzees are endangered as a result of human activity, the opportunities to observe them in the wild are sparse and increasingly hard to come by.

"Studies examining how chimpanzee tool use manipulative skills develop across their lifetime, especially in the wild, are rare," the scientists write. "This gap in the literature impedes our understanding of the motor and cognitive skills that may underlie chimpanzee natural tool use behavior."

about primates

• Monkeys are marvelous, but face a bleak future thanks to other primates: Humans
• An undercounted gorilla population yields hope for conservationists
• Inner ear of extinct ape species is overlooked aspect of human bipedal evolution, study finds

Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer at Salon. He received a Master's Degree in History from Rutgers-Newark in 2012 and was awarded a science journalism fellowship from the Metcalf Institute in 2022.

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Related articles.

How to Publish a Research Article

• Submit your Research
• My Submissions
• Article Guidelines
• Article Guidelines (New Versions)
• Data Guidelines
• Article Processing Charges
• Finding Article Reviewers
• The Peer Review Process
• The Editorial Team’s Role
• Reviewer Criteria
• Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
• Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
• The work is original. The manuscript (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Manuscripts that were previously posted on a preprint server such as ArXiv or BioRxiv are welcome.
• At least one author must be formally affiliated with funding from Wellcome (for more details, see our Publication criteria ).
• The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
• All methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the manuscript adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
• All authors have understood Wellcome Open Research’s policies for article publication and its publishing model .
• Your manuscript includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.

• ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
• An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.
• we collect and store authenticated ORCID iDs for authors and reviewers
• we publicly display the iDs with the iD icon for those authors and reviewers, linked to their ORCID account
• we connect to the user's ORCID record and update it with new published works

Are you a Wellcome-funded researcher?

If you are a previous or current Wellcome grant holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Wellcome Open Research.

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Wellcome Open Research

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

Time to move: Sporting goods 2024

As the world continued its uneven progress in 2023, the sporting goods industry faced familiar challenges. Economic headwinds, persistent inflation, and regional conflicts undermined consumer confidence, while companies continued to struggle with inventories—mainly overstocking, because anticipated demand failed to materialize. But the industry demonstrated its resilience again. Revenue growth in 2023 was 6 percent (compared with 2 percent in 2022) amid stronger performance across geographies. 1 Euromonitor, October 2023.

As we begin 2024, this report highlights a renewed sense of optimism among industry leaders. This reflects opportunities arising from an improving market environment and new consumer preferences. More people are choosing sports that are quicker to pick up, require less commitment, and are more social, rather than organized sports with fixed time commitments or requirements for teams or high levels of skill. Participation as a driver has become as important as performance. And after supply–demand imbalances in the recent period, companies are turning to integrated business planning and analytics to help them navigate more volatile times. Meanwhile, sporting ecosystems and the demands of sustainability offer potential for innovation. With these themes in mind, this year’s sporting goods report paints a picture of an industry at a pivotal moment, facing not only challenges but also opportunities to achieve sustained growth.

Review of the past year and looking ahead

The past year was one in which regional differences were prominent. Companies in Western Europe posted growth of 8 percent, a strong rebound from the 3 percent decline the previous year, while the industry in Asia–Pacific saw income rise 11 percent after a 4 percent decline in 2022. North American companies followed 6 percent growth in 2022 with growth of 2 percent. Latin America, meanwhile, was the standout performer, with growth of 22 percent after 20 percent growth the previous year. 2 Euromonitor, October 2023.

A report on the global sporting goods industry

The World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI) and McKinsey are proud to continue our partnership to present our fourth annual sporting goods industry report, Time to move: Sporting goods 2024 . The report dives into the dynamics driving performance in the sporting goods market and presents insights from some of the industry’s most senior players. As in past editions, we focus on the key trends that have affected the industry over the past year and will shape performance in the coming year and beyond. This article summarizes some of the report’s findings.

The industry’s super winners, which are companies that have consistently grown revenues and expanded margins since 2017, maintained their momentum in 2023. The group outperformed the market by focusing on attractive categories and employing smart go-to-market strategies to inspire and engage with consumers. These leaders exemplified the merits of a balanced portfolio, with retail innovation, trend-responsive branding, and cost-effective manufacturing among the pillars that supported growth.

There were also notable variations in the competitive landscape. For example, competition intensified in China, with global titans losing their edge to local players, which had a market share of about 60 percent among the top 20 brands. Conversely, in Latin America, global players continued to dominate, with a share of about 90 percent amid a strong soccer and tennis focus.

In 2023, macro factors including geopolitical conflict, inflation, and consumer conservatism, as well as inventory challenges, have made for a bumpy year and required companies to allocate more resources to promotional activities. That said, we continue to manage things in our control to the best of our ability and remain optimistic due to the enduring trend of fitness and health and our long-term growth potential, especially given our brand’s strong positioning. Stephanie Linnartz, president and CEO, Under Armour

Looking ahead, the industry is set to continue its steady growth: analysts estimate CAGR of about 7 percent by 2027 (Exhibit 1).

Rising levels of polarization

In an unpredictable market environment, a key trend is rising levels of polarization, with some companies performing much better than others. About a third of sporting goods companies have grown revenues and widened margins since 2017, forming an elite group of winners that consistently outperform the wider market. On average, this group has achieved organic growth of five percentage points and margin improvements of three percentage points over the period. Conversely, about a quarter of companies have been margin-accretive laggards—in other words, they have lifted margins but not revenues. About 10 percent are dilutive laggards, seeing strong revenue performance (more than 15 percent) but slightly negative margin performance (two percentage points on average). We expect this polarization theme to persist in the future.

I think the difficult thing in the current environment is that so many variables are changing at one time—COVID-19–related shutdowns, supply chain disruptions, geopolitical uncertainty, and inflation. Getting into this season, most brands and retailers built too much inventory, so 2024 is therefore going to be a little bit of a clean-up year. Hugo Maurstad, managing partner, Monte Rosa Capital

Sporting goods trends for 2024

In the first chapter of the report, we highlight an improving industry outlook, with about 90 percent of sporting goods leaders anticipating stability or improvements in sales and margins, according to the McKinsey and World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI) Sporting Goods Industry Report Survey 2023. Still, industry leaders are not universally optimistic, amid persistent concern over inflation and overstocking. Eighty-one percent of respondents to this year’s survey say inflation and inventory levels and cost of capital are a continuing challenge, and 50 percent worry about attracting talent and the pressing imperative to become more sustainable. In addition, economic headwinds may still apply. In China, for example, 2023 marked a recovery from a tough 2022, but many Chinese consumers will likely trade down in 2024 as tough economic conditions persist.

In the remaining four chapters of this year’s report, we dive into the key themes that will likely appear on executive agendas in the year ahead:

1. Shifting consumer preferences and generational opportunities. Consumer confidence remains subdued, but the sporting goods sector has shown it can be resilient, with many companies relatively immune to downtrading. That said, brand loyalty is declining. Also, consumer behaviors are moving away from organized sports and toward options that are more accessible. This pivot presents new avenues to growth, particularly in segments such as pickleball and paddle tennis (159 percent growth from 2019 to 2022) and off-course golf (57 percent growth from 2019 to 2022), which have seen surges in popularity (Exhibit 2).

In addition, there is a generational shift in progress, with some older demographics spending more time and money on their favorite sports and hobbies. However, demographic dynamics vary across regions, suggesting brands will need to craft age-inclusive strategies to suit their constituencies.

Our product range at Nike isn’t just about catering to a specific age group—it’s more about accessibility. We want to ensure that whether someone is a jogger, walker, marathon runner, or just looking to stay active, they find something in our range that suits their needs. Vanessa Garcia-Brito, VP, chief social & community impact officer, Nike

2. Planning, planning, planning. Inventory management remains a pressing challenge as companies grapple with overstocking and demand volatility. The rising cost of capital further complicates the outlook, compelling companies to reevaluate their established planning processes. The key to being prepared lies in integrated business planning, which can significantly improve coordination and reduce the number of surprises. Still, effective implementation requires new governance approaches and cross-functional alignments as well as standardized inputs and outputs. Companies can combine these with AI and machine learning to generate more precise end-to-end planning and forecasting (Exhibit 3).

The last three and a half years for us and the rest of the industry has been super hard on supply chain and planning. … We’re now embarking on a new system for integrated planning. It’s an end-to-end planning system to connect our entire supply chain and continue to deliver the right inventory at the right time. Dan Sheridan, chief operating officer, Brooks Running

3. From sustainability targets to actions. Regulation and corporate action are supporting nations and regions in setting and meeting their sustainability targets. In China, the European Union, and the United States, there is increasing government support for funding that will drive the energy transition.

Many sporting goods brands, including smaller companies, are now stepping up, not only setting ambitious targets but also seeking to address social and governance issues in their operations and supply chains. These steps reflect rising consumer demand for more sustainable offerings. For example, consumers increasingly value products that use organic or sustainable input materials—and are often willing to pay a premium for them. While many companies are making progress, others are still at the starting blocks. Ten impact areas along the value chain and specific initiatives in each can help companies move forward. These range from new business models to initiatives that may boost consumer awareness, and companies can assess each of these through the lens of a cost abatement curve (Exhibit 4).

4. Playing the sports ecosystem game. In the wake of some companies embracing direct-to-consumer business models, the past year has seen a renewed focus on wholesale partnerships, reflecting the understanding that consumers prefer to shop in multibrand environments. Going a step further, an increasing number of companies are embracing explicit ecosystem strategies, taking their thinking beyond channel coverage and product assortments. This reflects the fact that technological advancements and health trends are driving a shift in consumer demand from individual products to comprehensive health- and activity-centered solutions.

Companies alone cannot meet all consumer needs. But they can meet those needs through networks of companies that serve some element of the customer journey, from opportunity discovery to planning and preparing, traveling, participation, and recovery (Exhibit 5). McKinsey research shows that the activities within these steps that customers value most include finding similarly minded people, shaping products to their specific needs, obtaining insurance to reduce risks, liaising with travel agencies, and receiving support during activities. 3 McKinsey Ecosystem Strategy Hub; McKinsey Consumer Community Survey, September 2023, n = 322 (Germany and the UK). Ecosystems enable companies to cater to these demands.

The report identifies five levers for value generation in an ecosystem environment: new subscription revenues, lower customer-acquisition costs, cross-selling, commissions, and operational efficiencies.

The past year has marked a period of recalibration for the sporting goods industry, with an uneven recovery and persistent challenges. Looking ahead, we believe the most successful players will innovate to address shifting consumer demands, manage supply chain complexity, streamline operations, and seize opportunities in emerging markets and ecosystems. Through efforts in these areas and a sharp focus on execution, the industry will be well positioned to continue its positive trajectory.

Download Time to move: Sporting goods 2024 , the full report on which this article is based.

Sabine Becker is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Zurich office, where Alexander Thiel  is a partner; Gemma D’Auria is a senior partner in the Milan office; and Sajal Kohli  is a senior partner in the Chicago office.

The authors wish to thank Rajat Agarwal, Becca Coggins, Asina de Branche, Karl-Hendrik Magnus, Olga Ostromecka, Daniel Zipser, all members of WFSGI, and the many industry experts who generously shared their perspectives during interviews for this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

The trends defining the $1.8 trillion global wellness market in 2024

The State of Fashion 2024: Finding pockets of growth as uncertainty reigns

Sporting goods 2023: The need for resilience in a world in disarray

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Growing Partisan Divisions Over NATO and Ukraine

Many americans say the influence of china, russia and iran is rising; increasing shares see u.s. and european nations as in decline, table of contents.

• NATO and trans-Atlantic relations
• A shifting balance of global power
• International engagement and foreign policy issues
• Views of U.S. support to Ukraine
• Concerns about Russia taking over Ukraine, invading other countries
• Impact of supporting Ukraine on U.S. national security
• Confidence in Zelenskyy
• Views of NATO
• U.S. membership in NATO
• NATO’s influence in the world
• Americans’ knowledge of NATO
• Views of the UK, France and Germany
• Views of British, French and German power
• Trans-Atlantic relations
• European defense spending
• Confidence in Putin
• Attitudes toward Russia
• Russia’s influence in the world
• Russia as an enemy, competitor or partner of the U.S.
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ opinions of NATO, Russia and the war between Russia and Ukraine. For this analysis, we surveyed 3,600 U.S. adults from April 1 to April 7, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

As NATO approaches its 75th anniversary, Americans are increasingly divided in their views about the alliance. Most continue to believe the United States benefits from its membership, but partisan differences on ratings of NATO have widened in recent years.

Three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents rate the organization favorably, while only 43% of Republicans and Republican leaners agree – down from 55% in a 2022 survey conducted soon after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Attitudes toward the war in Ukraine have evolved to reflect the partisan polarization found across so many issues in U.S. politics. Democrats and Republicans differ sharply on views about aid to Ukraine, ratings of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and whether supporting Ukraine helps or hurts U.S. interests.

The share of Americans who believe the U.S. is not providing enough support to Ukraine has risen slightly in recent months, following setbacks for Ukraine on the battlefield and prolonged congressional debate over sending aid. (The survey was conducted before President Joe Biden signed into law an aid package sending nearly $61 billion to the Ukrainian war effort.)

Roughly one-quarter of Americans (24%) now say the U.S. is not providing enough aid, up from 18% in November 2023, when we last asked this question. Still, more Americans (31%) think the U.S. is providing too much aid, and 25% believe it’s giving the right amount.

However, views on this issue vary considerably by party. While the share of Democrats who believe the U.S. is not doing enough to help Ukraine declined after the initial onset of the war, it has increased more recently. Currently, 36% of Democrats say the U.S. is not providing enough aid.

In contrast, just 13% of Republicans say the U.S. is not giving enough support to Ukraine, while 49% believe it is giving too much. At the beginning of the war, Republican attitudes were essentially the reverse: 49% said the U.S. was not providing enough aid and 9% said it was providing too much. Among Republicans, conservatives are more likely than moderates and liberals to say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine.

In addition to shifting views about NATO and Ukraine over the past few years, Americans have increasingly come to believe that U.S. power is declining on the global stage: 54% say the country’s influence has been getting weaker recently, up from 47% two years ago. The shares saying the same about the United Kingdom, France and Germany – key U.S. allies in Europe – have also increased since 2022.

Meanwhile, about four-in-ten or more see China, Russia and Iran – nations often considered adversaries of the U.S. – as increasingly influential, including a 71% majority who say this of China. And about a third say India’s influence is getting stronger.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe China, Russia and Iran are gaining strength. They are also more likely to believe the U.S., France and Germany are becoming weaker.

These are among the findings from a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 1-7, 2024, among 3,600 U.S. adults.

Below we describe some of the key findings from the survey, which explored attitudes toward NATO, Ukraine, trans-Atlantic relations, Russia and the shifting balance of power in global politics. For more in-depth analysis of these topics, read:

• Chapter 1:  Views of Ukraine and U.S. involvement with the war
• Chapter 2: Americans’ opinions of NATO
• Chapter 3: Views of trans-Atlantic allies and U.S.-Europe relations
• Chapter 4: Views of Russia and Putin

• There is no public consensus on whether supporting Ukraine is in America’s national interests: 36% say it helps U.S. national security, 36% say it hurts and 24% believe it has no impact. Democrats are particularly likely to think it helps, while Republicans are especially likely to say it hurts.
• Concerns about Russia defeating Ukraine and Russia invading other countries in the region are higher today than in September 2022, the last time we asked this question. These concerns are more common among Democrats than Republicans.
• Opinions about Zelenskyy also divide sharply along partisan lines. A 55% majority of Republicans now lack confidence in Zelenskyy to do the right thing in world affairs, up from 48% a year ago. In contrast, 65% of Democrats say they are confident in the Ukrainian leader, although this is down from 71% in 2023.
• In addition to partisan divisions over NATO, there are also substantial differences by education. For instance, 73% of Americans with a postgraduate degree have a favorable view of NATO, compared with just 51% of those with a high school degree or less education.

How much do Americans know about NATO?

Read the results of our NATO knowledge quiz .

• 66% of Americans believe the U.S. benefits a great deal or fair amount from being a NATO member; 51% of Republicans hold this view, compared with 81% of Democrats.
• Majorities of Americans have favorable views of the UK (70%), France (64%) and Germany (64%); Democrats are more likely than Republicans to see these key U.S. allies positively.
• Large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans believe economic and trade ties, security and defense ties, and shared democratic values are important for strong relations between the U.S. and Europe. However, while 45% of Democrats believe shared democratic values are very important, only about a third of Republicans (31%) say the same.
• Despite overall positive views of European allies and the nature of trans-Atlantic relations, roughly half of U.S. adults (47%) say European allies need to increase their defense spending. Older Americans and conservative Republicans are particularly likely to believe this.
• Americans became significantly more likely to consider Russia an enemy after the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In January 2022, 41% considered Russia an enemy of the U.S.; two months later, 70% held this view. Today, roughly six-in-ten (61%) see Russia as an enemy.
• Compared with the other issues in this study, partisan divisions over Russia are relatively muted. Democrats (67%) are more likely to describe Russia as an enemy, but most Republicans (58%) share this view. In 2022, these partisan differences were not as wide.

• Attitudes toward Russian President Vladimir Putin remain extremely negative among Americans: 88% say they do not have confidence in him to do the right thing in world affairs.
• Since 2022, Americans have become more likely to believe China, India and Russia are growing stronger in world affairs. In contrast, they have become more likely to say France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. are losing influence on the world stage.  
• Two-thirds of Republicans think the U.S. is losing influence; 44% of Democrats agree. The share of each partisan group who say U.S. influence is declining has increased since 2022.
• Large majorities in both parties believe China’s power is rising, although Republicans (78%) are somewhat more likely than Democrats (68%) to hold this view.

• Many questions on the survey correlate with general views about international engagement. For example, 56% of those who think it’s best for the U.S. to be active in world affairs say supporting Ukraine helps American national security. That share is just 17% among those who say the U.S. should pay less attention to problems in other countries and concentrate on domestic problems.

Related: What Are Americans’ Top Foreign Policy Priorities?

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Global Balance of Power
• Global Image of Countries
• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues
• Vladimir Putin
• War & International Conflict

What Are Americans’ Top Foreign Policy Priorities?

Large shares see russia and putin in negative light, while views of zelenskyy more mixed, americans hold positive feelings toward nato and ukraine, see russia as an enemy, how young adults want their country to engage with the world, what public opinion surveys found in the first year of the war in ukraine, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center