How To Submit Manuscripts in 10 Simple Steps

I know how this feels. Submitting a manuscript can feel like you’re trying to run an obstacle course while carrying a stack of papers that might catch fire at any second. You want to do everything right, but the rules are all over the place—and the portal never seems to be as simple as it looks.

So yeah, I’ve been there. What I’ve learned is that the process gets way easier once you treat it like a checklist instead of a mystery. If you follow a solid set of steps—from choosing the right journal to handling revisions—you’ll avoid most of the common mistakes that slow people down or get papers bounced before review.

Below, I’ll walk you through the whole thing in 10 steps. No fluff. Just what to do, what to double-check, and what I personally watch for before I hit submit.

Ready? Let’s get into it.

Step 1: Choose the Right Journal for Your Manuscript

The first step sounds simple, but it’s honestly the one that can save you the most time. Pick a journal that’s a true match for your research area and the kind of readers who would actually care about your work. If you choose “too broad,” you’ll feel it fast—often in the form of rejection without much meaningful feedback.

For example, Science Journal reported 12,691 submissions in 2024 and accepted only 5.8%. That’s not a knock on anyone—it’s just what happens when a journal is extremely selective and covers everything.

Here’s what I do to avoid wasting a submission: I shortlist 2–3 journals that clearly publish research like mine. Then I check (1) scope/aims and (2) what recent papers look like in terms of structure and depth. If my manuscript doesn’t align with their scope—no matter how prestigious the journal is—I move on. Life is too short.

One tactic I really like: look at the journals where authors you cite have published their most recent work. If you’re referencing several papers from the same outlet, chances are your topic will be a decent fit there too.

Step 2: Format Your Manuscript According to Journal Guidelines

Once you’ve chosen the journal, formatting is where a lot of papers quietly lose momentum. Each journal has its own rules—length limits, citation style, heading structure, figure labeling, line spacing, even margins. And yes, they can be picky.

What I’ve noticed is this: if you ignore the guidelines, you can end up with delays at the administrative stage—or worse, a desk rejection before reviewers ever see your work. Not because your science is wrong, but because the submission doesn’t follow instructions.

Also, word count expectations vary a lot. For instance, law review articles are often much longer on average (around 20,434 words), but specific journals may still have strict limits. So don’t assume “close enough” will work. Trim if you’re over, and make sure your word count matches what they count (body text? references? appendices?).

To make formatting less painful, I use tools that catch obvious issues before I submit. If you want a practical starting point, many authors pair their word processor with the best proofreading software they trust. It won’t fix everything, but it helps me catch typos, inconsistent formatting, and reference errors that are easy to miss.

Step 3: Prepare Figures, Tables, and Supplementary Files

Figures and tables aren’t decoration. They’re often the fastest way reviewers understand what you did—and whether your results make sense. And here’s the part people underestimate: a surprising number of submissions get kicked back for image problems or missing supplementary files.

My rule is simple: make everything readable and journal-compliant. That means:

• Use high-quality images (many journals want TIFF, JPEG, or EPS).
• Label figures and tables exactly the way the journal requests (captions, numbering, and file naming).
• Check resolution requirements and file size limits before uploading—don’t find out at the last second.

Supplementary materials are optional in many cases, but when they’re included, they should genuinely add value. Think extra methods, datasets, additional figures, or extended tables. If you include them, label them clearly (like Supplementary Table 1) and reference them in the main text so reviewers know they exist.

One last practical tip that has saved me more than once: preview your submission files the way the portal displays them. Sometimes a figure looks fine in your document but turns blurry or shifts order once uploaded. Catch it early.

Step 4: Write a Cover Letter for Your Submission

I treat the cover letter like a quick handshake. It’s your chance to introduce your manuscript to an editor who might be skimming dozens of submissions. You want them to instantly understand why your paper belongs there.

Start with your study’s key takeaway. Then connect it directly to the journal’s focus—what makes it a fit? Don’t just restate your abstract line-by-line. Editors already have that. What they’re looking for is what’s new and why it matters now.

If your findings are especially relevant to certain readers, you can mention that. And if the journal allows it, suggesting potential peer reviewers can be helpful—just make sure they’re truly relevant and not clearly biased.

Keep it short. Usually under a page is the sweet spot. Polite, professional, and to the point. Honestly, no one wants to read your full life story—even if your journey is fascinating.

Step 5: Submit Your Manuscript Through the Journal’s Online System

Most journals now use online submission platforms like ScholarOne Editorial Manager or their own custom portals. That’s convenient… until you realize how easy it is to upload the wrong file or forget an author form.

I recommend setting aside at least an hour or two. Not because you’ll be stuck for that long, but because portals can be glitchy, and you don’t want to rush through the last step.

Before you start, gather everything in one place:

• Main manuscript file
• Figures and tables (if uploaded separately)
• Supplementary materials
• Cover letter
• Any author declaration forms

Also, double-check author contact and affiliation details for every author. One wrong email can lead to delays, missed messages, or extra back-and-forth. And nobody wants that.

Finally, don’t slam the submit button. Take a moment to confirm you uploaded the correct manuscript version and all supplementary files. It’s a boring step, but it prevents the most common mistakes.

Step 6: Check Submission for Errors Before Finalizing

This is the step people skip, and I get it—you’re excited, you’re tired, you just want to be done. But do yourself a favor and review everything after uploading and before clicking “submit.”

Specifically, I check:

• Text formatting changes (headings, line spacing, reference style)
• Citation accuracy and numbering
• Figure numbers and captions (especially if figures are uploaded separately)
• Table labels and any missing assets
• Supplementary files (are they present? are they the right ones?)

Then I preview the online submission exactly as the portal shows it. Images can look fine in Word but turn weird after upload. Tables can become cramped. Supplementary files can fail to upload properly. Catch it now, not later.

One more thing: if the system lets you download submitted documents, grab a copy for your records. It’s not just “nice to have.” It’s proof you can reference if anything technical goes sideways during review.

Step 7: Respond Promptly and Clearly to Reviewer Feedback

Let’s be real: reviewer feedback can sting. Sometimes it’s minor. Sometimes it’s a full redesign of your paper’s logic. Either way, don’t panic.

When you respond, go comment-by-comment. Even if you disagree, keep your tone calm and professional. I like to write responses that clearly say what changed, where it changed, and why. If you didn’t make a change, explain respectfully and back it up with a reason.

It also helps to include your responses in a separate document that’s easy to navigate. Reviewers are busy. If your response is organized, they’ll be able to verify your edits faster.

And please remember: reviewers aren’t trying to “get you.” They’re trying to help the work become stronger, clearer, and more accurate. When you show flexibility and professionalism, you often improve your odds—even if the revisions are substantial.

Step 8: Track the Progress of Your Manuscript Submission

Waiting is the worst part. But if you track your submission the right way, you’ll feel a lot less stuck.

Most journal portals update status like “under review,” “decision pending,” or “in revision.” I usually log in every few days (not every hour), and I rely on email notifications for actual changes. That balance helps me stay informed without turning my whole life into a submission dashboard.

If your paper seems stalled for weeks with no updates, it’s okay to contact the editorial office. Just keep it polite and brief—ask for an update and mention your manuscript ID.

Some publishers offer faster review options. For instance, JCER advertises a rapid review option with prioritized peer review and publication within about 3 weeks of acceptance. If you’re on a tight timeline, it’s worth checking whether your target journal offers something like that.

Step 9: Revise and Resubmit Your Manuscript if Requested

Getting a “revise and resubmit” decision is not the end of the road—it’s usually a sign that your manuscript has potential. In my experience, most eventually published papers went through at least one revision round.

When you revise, tackle recommendations systematically. Use tracked changes if you’re asked for it. If you’re submitting a clean version, consider using bold or clear formatting to make changes easy to spot (as long as the journal allows it).

Then write a strong “response to reviewers” document. Don’t just list edits—explain them. Reviewers want to see that you understood their concerns and addressed them.

Also, don’t resist too much. Reviewer suggestions often make the manuscript clearer, stronger, and more persuasive. Even when you initially think, “This is too much,” it frequently ends up improving your final paper.

Once you’ve revised, ask someone you trust to read it. A colleague can catch gaps in logic or places where your writing got confusing during revisions. If you want a different angle, you might consider learning how to become a beta reader to understand what beta readers typically look for—or just choose someone experienced who reads critically.

Step 10: Share and Promote Your Published Article

Congrats—you made it through the hardest part. But publishing isn’t the finish line. If you want your work to actually reach people, you need to share it.

In my experience, posting your article across platforms like LinkedIn, Twitter, ResearchGate, and your personal website can boost visibility. It can also lead to more reads and, over time, more citations. More importantly, it can spark conversations with other researchers or industry folks who care about the problem you’re solving.

If your publisher provides shareable links or press release materials, use them. They’re usually formatted well and designed to be easy to find online.

Another approach I like: write an accessible version of your findings. A short blog post, a “what we learned” summary, or a behind-the-scenes explanation helps non-specialists (and even busy specialists) engage with your work faster. If your topic fits a lighter tone, you can even use creative formats like funny writing prompts for kids—sometimes storytelling makes complex ideas click.

And yes, the practical truth: articles that get discussed and cited tend to open doors. Not just ego—real opportunities, collaborations, and career momentum.

FAQs