- Prepare an outlet comparison, submission record and response matrix.
Choose a journal
Verify scope, audience, article types, data policy and charges on the journal’s official website. Check indexing in the relevant official database. A familiar name or logo does not establish legitimacy.
Prepare the submission
Prepare the manuscript, tables, high-quality figures, cover letter and required statements. Remove identifying information where anonymous review requires it. Obtain all authors’ approval before submission.
Respond point by point
Address each comment separately and give the page and line of each change. If a suggestion cannot be followed, explain the scientific reason. Use a respectful tone and evidence rather than defensive language.
After acceptance
Check proofs for names, numbers, symbols and citations. Review licensing and access terms. Editors control acceptance and review timing; consultation services cannot guarantee either.
An evidence-based response example
Teaching template: Comment 2 asks how the sample was selected. Response: eligibility and recruitment details were added to Methods, page [x], line [y], and generalizability limits were explained in Discussion. These are placeholders. If a change is not made, explain the scientific reason and supporting evidence.
Anonymous files and versions
Check document properties, acknowledgments, repository links and filenames under the journal’s review policy. Do not remove essential scientific information without justification. Preserve the clean and tracked versions requested by the submission system.
Respond constructively to rejection
Distinguish scope, methods and reporting issues in the decision. Recheck the next journal’s instructions and relevant papers. Reformatting alone cannot resolve a design problem; retain submission versions and respect simultaneous-submission rules.
Worked case and implementation decisions
The following is a fictional teaching case. Do not use its numbers or wording as actual study findings.
Compare three hypothetical outlets by scope, article type, preprint policy, current fees, licence, required indexing and author instructions. A name or an intermediary’s claim is insufficient: check the publisher and the relevant official index. Payment requests and guaranteed acceptance are not credibility evidence. Establish other-submission status and coauthor approval before submission. A reviewer response identifies actions or reasoned disagreement and exact change locations; claiming an unmade correction creates another problem.
| Stage | Teaching example | Verification question |
|---|---|---|
| Fit | Article type and audience | Is it actually within scope? |
| Credibility | Publisher and official index | Are claims independently checked? |
| Terms | Fees, licence and preprints | Are current conditions clear? |
| Submission | Author approval and submission status | Are statements accurate? |
| Response | Comment, action, location and version | Is the change actually present? |
Exercise output: Prepare an outlet comparison, submission record and response matrix.
Sources and further reading
Official sources for verification and further reading