How do you submit a paper to an academic journal for publication?

Direct answer: Submission is a pipeline, not a single action. You select a target journal, format the manuscript to its author guidelines, prepare supporting files (title page, cover letter, figures, declarations), submit through an online editorial system, and then respond to the editor's decision, with the corresponding author managing every stage.

Evidence: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, n.d.-a) defines the corresponding author as the person responsible for communication with the journal through submission, peer review, and publication, and for completing all administrative requirements. Springer Nature (n.d.) describes the same flow: choose the journal, follow its guidelines, submit files through the editorial system, and track the outcome.

Example: A MAAS-mentored PhD candidate treated submission as one task and tried to upload immediately. Her mentor mapped the pipeline below and found four missing items, title page, data-availability statement, ethics line, and cover letter.

The process has six predictable stages:

Direct answer: Choose a journal whose scope, readership, and indexing match your paper before you write a single formatting line. Confirm it is indexed where your institution counts (Scopus or Web of Science), listed in trusted directories, and free of predatory warning signs. A strong paper sent to the wrong journal is still rejected.

Evidence: ICMJE (n.d.-a) states that authors must evaluate the integrity, history, and reputation of the journals they submit to, and avoid predatory titles that publish almost anything for a fee. The Directory of Open Access Journals is one verification tool, alongside database indexing and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) membership.

Example: A MAAS client in public health had a paper of clear regional value but aimed at a broad global journal wanting only wide-interest findings. Her mentor moved the target to a well-indexed regional Scopus journal and it reached review rather than a desk rejection.

Direct answer: Most journals require a manuscript file, a separate title page, a cover letter, figures at print quality, and declarations covering ethics, conflicts of interest, author contributions, and data availability. The exact list lives in the journal's author guidelines, and following it precisely is the cheapest way to avoid a desk rejection.

Evidence: ICMJE (n.d.-b) specifies that the title page carries the article title, author details, disclaimers, sources of support, and word count, and that submissions often need a statement confirming all authors approved the manuscript. Dantas-Torres (2022) lists incomplete methods, missing data-availability statements, and unresolved ethics approvals among the top reasons manuscripts are rejected without review.

Example: A MAAS-mentored team wrote "data available on request." Their mentor flagged it, many journals now reject that phrasing and helped them deposit the dataset in a public repository with an accession number.

A typical package includes the manuscript (within word and reference limits), a separate title page (authors, affiliations, ORCID, funding), the cover letter, figures at 300 dpi, and declarations for ethics, conflicts of interest, contributions, and data availability, each worded to match the journal. Who counts as an author is worth settling before submission, and who qualifies as an author on a research paper explains the criteria.

Direct answer: Keep the cover letter to one page and make it specific to the journal. Address the handling editor, name the journal, state what the study found and why its readers will care, and confirm the work is original and not under review elsewhere. It is your argument for why this paper belongs here.

Evidence: Elsevier (n.d.) advises authors to articulate the significance of the research, show how it aligns with the journal's scope, and confirm the manuscript is not published or under review elsewhere and that all authors approved it. Elsevier states that "A cover letter is often the first thing an editor reads when reviewing your submission" (Elsevier, n.d.). Springer Nature (n.d.) recommends a concise, journal-specific letter of no more than one page.

Example: A MAAS client reused one cover letter across three journals, changing only the title. Her mentor rebuilt it for the actual target, two sentences on the gap the study fills, one on why that readership needs it, plus the originality statement.

Direct answer: Your manuscript enters an editorial pipeline. Staff first check it is complete and in scope; an editor then decides whether to reject it at the desk or send it to reviewers. Reviewers assess rigour and novelty, and the editor makes the final call, usually accept, minor or major revision, or reject.

Evidence: Dantas-Torres (2022), writing as editor-in-chief of Parasites & Vectors, reports a pre-review rejection rate of 39% at his own journal, and cites JAMA Internal Medicine's reported rate of 78% of manuscripts received in 2017, showing how much the desk-check stage filters out before review begins. ICMJE (n.d.-a) frames peer review as the critical evaluation that follows this screening.

Example: A MAAS-mentored author panicked when her status stayed on "with editor" for three weeks. Her mentor explained the desk-check and reviewer stages and advised waiting, the paper moved to review in week four.

The decision you receive falls into one of four categories:

Direct answer: Most early rejections are avoidable and have nothing to do with the quality of your science. Papers are desk-rejected for being out of scope, of only local interest, lacking novelty, missing methods or ethics detail, poorly formatted, or written in unclear English. Fixing these before you submit sharply raises your odds of review.

Evidence: Dantas-Torres (2022) lists ten recurring desk-rejection triggers: out of scope, local interest only, no novelty, inadequate study design, incomplete methodological detail, data availability issues, ethical issues, poor presentation, poor English, and plagiarism. Simera et al. (2010), writing in BMC Medicine, show that transparent, guideline-based reporting increases the reliability and impact of research, and following reporting guidelines catalogued by the EQUATOR Network helps manuscripts pass editorial screening.

Example: A MAAS client wrote strong science in unclear English, and two journals rejected it without review. Her mentor coached her through the Outline → Draft → Final model, restructuring the argument and sharpening the language while she kept full authorship and the next submission reached review.

The most common desk-rejection triggers, and their fixes:

Direct answer: Read every decision as information, not a verdict. Minor and major revisions are invitations to improve, answer each reviewer point by point in a respectful letter. If the paper is rejected, use the feedback to strengthen it, choose a better-matched journal, and submit again. Persistence, done properly, is how most papers publish.

Evidence: COPE (n.d.) sets out the ethical framework editors and authors follow through revisions and appeals, emphasising honest, documented responses. ICMJE (n.d.-a) reinforces that authors must not submit the same manuscript to two journals at once, so a genuine rejection frees you to submit elsewhere.

Example: A MAAS-mentored researcher received a rejection and assumed her project had failed. Her mentor read the reviews, identified three fixable weaknesses, matched her to a better-fitting Q2 journal, and guided the resubmission, accepted after one round of minor revision.