Manuscript Submissions Guidelines 14 Steps to Success

Submitting a manuscript can honestly feel like you’re walking through a maze where every turn has a different rule. One journal wants one font. Another wants a totally different reference style. And somehow you’re also expected to make sure your figures don’t look like they were assembled five minutes before the deadline. I’ve been there—more than once.

The good news? Most of the “mystery” is just consistency. If you follow the right steps in the right order, you’ll dramatically cut down on desk-rejects and reviewer frustration. I’ll walk you through 14 practical steps I use (and what I check) so you can spend more time improving the science and less time wrestling formatting.

Ready to get your manuscript in shape? Let’s do this.

Step 1: Prepare Your Manuscript Formatting Correctly

Let’s be real: formatting isn’t the fun part. But it’s also one of the fastest ways to get stuck at the starting line. Most publishers do a quick technical screening, and if your file doesn’t match what they asked for, you might not even reach reviewers.

So I always start by copying the journal’s requirements into my checklist. Do they want Times New Roman at 12 pt? Double spacing? Specific margin sizes? Different heading styles? If they say “use our template,” I use the template. It’s boring, but it prevents silly problems.

One thing I’ve learned the hard way: page numbers. They’re easy to forget when you’re deep in revisions. I usually add them to the top-right header so they stay consistent across pages—unless the journal says otherwise.

Also, anonymization. Some journals require anonymous submissions, meaning author names and affiliations can’t show up anywhere in the manuscript file. That includes the document properties, running headers, acknowledgements, and even file metadata. I always do a quick search for names and institutions before submission just to be safe.

And if your manuscript includes dialogue, or you’re unsure how to format certain sections cleanly, I recommend reviewing how to format dialogue and then matching the journal’s overall section structure. It’s easier to fix formatting early than after everything’s uploaded.

Step 2: Follow the Required Manuscript Structure (IMRAD)

Most journals mention IMRAD because it works. Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion gives reviewers a predictable path through your paper, and it keeps your argument from feeling scattered.

Introduction: This is where you set up the problem and your research question. I keep mine tight—usually 2–3 paragraphs. The goal is simple: by the end of the intro, a reader should know what you studied, why it matters, and what gap you’re addressing.

Methods: This needs to be specific enough that someone else could reproduce your approach. I include participants (or data sources), materials, procedures, and analysis methods. If you used a statistical test (like ANOVA, chi-square, regression, etc.), name it and explain why it fits.

Results: Here, I focus on what you found—tables, figures, and key outcomes in a logical order. I avoid interpretation in this section. Save the “so what?” for the discussion.

Discussion: This is where you interpret your findings, connect back to the original question, and explain why the results matter. If anything surprised you, say so. If there are limitations, include them honestly. And yes, reviewers love a thoughtful “future work” section—just don’t make it too vague.

Step 3: Create a Proper Title Page and Abstract

Your title page isn’t just bureaucracy—it’s how editors identify your work and route it correctly. I include the essentials: manuscript title, full author names, affiliations, corresponding author contact details, and any required acknowledgements or funding notes. If the journal specifies a particular layout (author order, numbering, alignment), I follow it exactly.

The abstract is your first real impression. In many fields, it’s around 150–250 words. I write it like an elevator pitch: what you set out to do, how you did it (high-level), the most important results, and the main takeaway. And I keep it readable for non-specialists too—because not every editor or reviewer will be in your exact sub-niche.

One practical tip: I don’t wait until the end to draft the abstract. Even if it’s messy at first, having it early helps me stay focused while I revise the rest of the manuscript. If you get stuck, try seasonal writing prompts to get your brain moving again—sometimes you just need a spark to break the “blank page” feeling.

Step 4: Format Figures and Tables Appropriately

If you’re like me, you probably don’t wake up excited to format tables. But I can tell you this: figure and table issues cause delays more often than people admit.

I start by reading the journal’s image requirements. Some want TIFF instead of JPEG. Others want specific dimensions or file formats. If they specify resolution, I follow it. For many journals, that means 300 dpi at the final size (not just “looks fine on my screen”).

Then placement. I put each figure or table close to where it’s first mentioned in the text. It keeps the paper readable and avoids the “wait, where is that?” moment for reviewers.

Captions matter, too. Each figure and table needs a clear caption explaining what’s shown. And yes, journals can be picky about caption style—some want sentence captions, others want specific formatting or footnote-style details. I match their preference rather than trying to be creative.

Step 5: Check Your Manuscript Against the Journal’s Scope

This is the step that saves the most time. If you ignore scope, you’re basically rolling dice with your submission.

I re-read the journal’s aims and scope and then skim a couple of recent articles. Does your topic and method match what they actually publish? If yes, great. If no, it might be worth changing targets.

One quick sign: if they’ve published similar work recently, your odds are usually better because you’re speaking their language.

But if the journal focuses heavily on clinical research and yours is theoretical, you’ll likely struggle to convince editors it’s a fit. Submitting to the wrong journal is like ordering pizza at a sushi restaurant—you’ll get food, but you’re not in the right place.

Step 6: Comply with the Journal’s Word Count and Reference Style

Word count and reference style are the easiest requirements to mess up because they’re not “creative” tasks. But journals take them seriously, and I’ve seen manuscripts get rejected for being over the limit or using the wrong citation format.

Before you submit, confirm your manuscript fits the exact word count rules. Some journals count the abstract, references, or even figure captions. I usually copy the journal’s wording into my notes so I don’t accidentally miscount.

Then references: make sure you use the citation style they specify—APA, Chicago, Harvard, or whatever they’re using. Don’t assume “it’s close enough.” It’s not.

Skipping this step is an avoidable reason for editors to stop reading. And honestly, you deserve better than that.

Step 7: Ensure Ethical Compliance and Include Necessary Disclosures

If your work involves human participants, patient data, interviews, or anything that touches ethics, you need the paperwork and the transparency. Journals typically expect informed consent statements, ethical committee approval (with approval numbers when applicable), and clear descriptions of how data privacy was handled.

I also make sure conflicts of interest and funding sources are disclosed. Editors appreciate it, and readers definitely do. It’s better to over-disclose than to realize later that you forgot something important.

And if you’re unsure whether something counts as “ethical disclosure,” check the journal’s guidelines—because they’ll make the call, not you.

Step 8: Author Contributions – Know Who Should be Included as an Author

Authorship can be awkward. I get it. It’s like choosing teams in gym class—except the stakes are higher and everyone remembers old debates.

Here’s the standard most journals follow: authors should have made a meaningful contribution to things like research conception, data analysis, drafting the manuscript, revising it critically, or giving final approval.

If someone only did a quick read-through or minor edits, that’s usually more of an acknowledgements situation than authorship.

What I’ve noticed is that writing the author contribution statement early prevents misunderstandings later—especially once feedback starts coming in and people want credit for changes.

Step 9: Conduct a Thorough Plagiarism Check Before Submission

Plagiarism is one of those topics that journals treat extremely seriously—whether it’s intentional or not. And even “accidental” overlap can create problems if it’s not properly cited.

Before you submit, run your manuscript through a reputable checker like Turnitin or Grammarly premium. Then don’t just glance at the similarity score—actually check what triggered the matches.

Sometimes common phrases, methods language, and properly cited references show up as “similar.” Other times, it might be a paragraph that’s too close to a previous publication. If you find that, rewrite it and make sure citations are correct.

It’s better to spend a few hours fixing this now than deal with an ethics inquiry later.

Step 10: Properly Prepare Supplementary Materials and Files

Supplementary materials can be a lifesaver for reviewers. They let you keep the main paper readable while still sharing the full details—datasets, extra tables, coding scripts, extended methods, audio/video, you name it.

But they only help if editors and reviewers can actually use them. That means clear labeling and organization. I’ve seen files named “Image(5)_final3” and honestly? That’s how you lose time and trust. Use descriptive names like “Supplementary_Table_S1.xlsx” or “Appendix_Methods_RawData.zip.”

Also check file types and size limits in the journal guidelines. Some systems cap uploads (like 10–20 MB per file). If you’re near the limit, compress or split files where allowed.

Step 11: Complete Pre-Submission Final Checks and Metadata Preparation

Before you hit submit, I do a final “sanity sweep.” It takes 10–20 minutes, but it catches mistakes that would otherwise annoy everyone.

First: title and keywords. Is your title clear and searchable? Do the keywords match what the paper is really about? If your title is vague, you’ll confuse editors before they even read.

Then: double-check the abstract, author names, affiliations, and the corresponding author contact details. Small errors here can slow down editorial processing or cause miscommunications.

If you’re stuck on how to make your title more effective, it helps to think about how titles work in publishing: clarity and simplicity win readers. That’s why I sometimes point people to guidelines on how to title a book—different format, same principle.

Step 12: Submit Your Manuscript and Track Its Progress

Once you submit, it’s tempting to forget about it. But I’ve learned that tracking your manuscript status helps you respond quickly if the journal requests something.

Check your journal’s online system regularly. Also make sure your email settings are set so updates don’t disappear into spam. I once lost a day because a submission confirmation landed in a promotions tab. Painful.

While you wait, channel the anxiety into something productive. If you want a low-pressure creative break, try experimenting with publishing short stories, coloring books, or even drafting the outline for a foreword you might write later. It’s not “research,” but it keeps your brain from spiraling.

Step 13: Communicate Effectively When Responding to Reviewers

When reviewer comments arrive, breathe first. Criticism isn’t personal (usually), and your job is to respond thoughtfully, not emotionally.

I keep my response organized like this: list each reviewer comment, then explain what I changed in the manuscript. Even better, I reference the exact sections or page/line numbers where the edits happened.

If I agree, I say what I updated. If I disagree, I explain politely and back it up with reasoning. No need to be rude, but you don’t have to accept every suggestion blindly either. Being calm and professional usually works better than trying to “win” the discussion.

Step 14: Address Post-Acceptance Steps and Copyright

Congrats—you got accepted. Seriously, take a minute. Then get ready, because the work isn’t over.

Post-acceptance usually includes proofreading proofs, answering author queries, and handling copyright and open-access decisions. Depending on the journal, you might also be dealing with publication charges or licensing terms.

Proofreading is where I’m extra careful. It’s amazing how many tiny errors can slip in during typesetting—misspellings, formatting changes, figure label shifts. If you catch them now, you won’t be stuck with them in the final version.

And yes, promote it. I’m not saying you need to become an influencer, but a simple share on social media or a post in a professional community can help people actually find your work.

FAQs