Mastering the peer review process: 7 steps to successfully publishing a research article

Creating a research project is a multi-component process that does not end solely with gathering robust data, critically analyzing it and writing a high-quality article that attempts to advance science. Although these stages are often the ones that require the most attention and effort, the last phase of publishing the research in a peer-reviewed journal is probably one of the most challenging ones from the entire process. Despite the unique hypotheses and theoretical insights that one might have worked so hard on, a research article might never get into circulation if it fails the peer review stage. The latter could be perceived as a quality control process that is a very important activity within academia as it allows authors to further refine their research and ensure that no unacceptable or unjustified personal claims, views or interpretations will be published. Furthermore submitting a manuscript to experts in this field is also an excellent opportunity for one to network with other scholars and get their name and work stand out within the scientific community. This is why it is very important for authors to take into consideration this last essential part of their research process and prevent any inadequacies such as inappropriate formatting or wording, while increasing their chances of having their manuscripts published. In this article, we focus on the most important steps towards the successful publishing of a research article and also provide tips that may help authors overcome any competition when writing for academic journals. 

Browse the spectrum of scientific journals in your field and select the journal that suits you best!

The first step towards the successful publishing of a research paper is choosing the right journal for submission. There is a wide range of publication outlets, covering many different scientific fields and targeting different audiences. What is more, every journal has also a particular tone of writing, which is another thing that should be taken into consideration when one evaluates one’s options. With that being said, it is crucial for authors to understand that sometimes going for the most renowned journal in their particular field might not necessarily contribute to the success of their work being published. To find the right journal for their project, authors could follow the suggested model below that outlines the key considerations that one must contemplate when choosing where to submit their manuscript.

First and foremost, researchers must start with gaining a clear insight of what to expect by taking their time to carefully explore the variety of relevant journals in their scientific field. Identifying the possible publications helps authors avoid making rapid decisions while building a list of the potential journals that could actually contribute to the success of their work. A good starting point for making such list are the journals cited in the references lists of the sources used for one’s own research. Once the list is ready, one can survey the articles published in each outlet and compare them with their own work. Thus authors could gain a better understanding of the quality, style, tone and scope used in every journal and evaluate the likelihood of their manuscript being accepted based on these requirements. For instance, some outlets might prefer to publish long articles of up to 25 pages, whereas others might include shorter papers. Additional information could be also easily found on the journal’s homepage. Section titles such as “About the Journal”, “Full Aims and Scope” or anything along these lines usually indicate further guidelines that could be used by authors to decide whether their paper might be a good fit for this particular publication or not.

The second most important aspect to be considered by writers is the publications’ timelines. This element could be crucial for the progression of one’s career and especially for those researchers who have worked on a topic that is relevant only for a short period of time and could become obsolete before the paper has been even published. Waiting times will vary greatly depending on each publications’ requirements. According to Susan E. Searing, a science librarian and associate professor of library administration in the University of Illinois, the waiting time can be divided into two individual periods: “the time it takes from submission to acceptance or rejection, and the time it takes from acceptance to publication”. With that being said, one must consider that sometimes the process of publication can be delayed. During the first stage, authors might be asked to update their work according to the editorial feedback. If one addresses rapidly such changes, this will undoubtedly shorten the review process. The second time period could also cause delays, especially with print journals due to the high number of papers and articles awaiting to be published. For instance, some journals might take a minimum of four months just to advise the author if their paper has been sent for a peer review. Most reputed journals might even take up to twelve months or sometimes even longer to publish a paper, usually due to the high volume of submission they receive. This is why when choosing the ideal outlet for publication, authors should monitor the issues that a particular journal publishes on an annual basis. Sometimes online journals might have shorter processing times, which could be just the right fit for researchers with short publication timelines.

Another aspect that might influence one’s publication preferences is the journal’s visibility in terms of readership and availability. If one wants one’s thoughts and ideas to reach a wider audience, the selected journal should then have a wider distribution. The broader the accessibility is, the greater will be the citations for a particular research, which in turn will also increase the chances for an author to be recognized for their contributions to the scientific domain where the research was developed. However, the key here is not just to reach as many people as possible but rather to reach the right target audience, i.e. people who will truly read your wok, rely on it and use your ideas by citing them in their own work. Open Access (OA) journals, for instance, are a great opportunity for authors to distribute their content freely through the Internet. Despite the many discussions whether or not OA journals decrease the quality of control when it comes to peer-review processes simply because anyone can publish anything online, students can still remain positive towards these particular outlets as they have matured over time and significantly improved their editorial processes to match those of most non-open access journals.

Prepare a manuscript!

The task of moving from a simple idea for a scientific research to publishing a manuscript can be very challenging. Researchers should have a good understanding of how to produce such paper as it is crucial that they communicate their thoughts, ideas and findings through their publication in a clear way in an attempt to contribute to and bring about changes in a particular scientific domain. In what follows, we will break down the process of preparing a manuscript into five steps in order to make this essential task more manageable.

Focus on your goal: Science is what creates knowledge

The primary purpose of a research article is to answer a relevant question or an issue in a particular scientific domain through the development of a hypothesis that will be tested based on the author’s research design. It is very important for researchers to determine the focus of their paper before they begin writing in order to ensure that they will create knowledge and communicate it with their target audience in a clear and concise way. A common issue when people start a project is that they are taken adrift by new ideas that surface throughout the research. While it is indeed a good idea to note them as they might be truly helpful, one must keep their focus on the initial purpose of their article. One tip to avoid such situation is the identification of two or three important findings and aim to make them the central theme of the article. By doing so, the author will manage to be consistent and prove their theories easily by providing convincing evidence. Brainstorming ideas is another great way to maintain concentration as such activity creates a definite direction before the beginning of the writing process.

Create substance: do not just talk, but say something

Throughout the process of writing, it is very important that one creates meaningful and important content, since otherwise people will not perceive their research as a serious endeavour in a scientific field if it gets published at all. After all, the purpose of such research project is to present a unique topic that will propose significant advancements to the current pool of knowledge in the particular domain where the research has been conducted. Authors whose goal is to create a substantial manuscript must pay attention to the usage of their main findings when writing their article. It is important for one to include a critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of the study not only through the extensive presentation of data but rather through discussion with logical arguments. Ultimately a solid content includes a clear interpretation of the results and their relation to the hypotheses that have been set out to be tested. What authors can do here is link every paragraph to their results instead of simply reporting them. Being critical towards your own work is another great tip that could turn out to be useful for spotting any potential weaknesses in your manuscript in terms of meaningful content. In addition, when trying to say something, it is not always necessary to put it in long sentences that could be very daunting and difficult to follow by the readers. Sometimes less is more: writing in a precise and accurate way is imperative when describing an informative and comprehensive research.

Write scientifically: being innovative and creative with a change of perspective

The lack of familiarity with the scholarly writing requirements along with other factors such as poor writing habits, writing anxiety and fear of failure can also cause great barriers for many authors who wish to produce an outstanding piece. However, what many people do not realize is that the very process of scientific writing can be approached creatively just by following a few simple and practical suggestions. To begin with, it is obvious that the most essential thing for authors is to find a way to clearly communicate their findings with the reader. A research article could be written in many ways but the best approach that will most certainly improve the likelihood of a manuscript to be accepted by a journal is for one to be innovative and creative in their expression. Thinking outside the box in the scientific world will also require authors to change their perspective sometimes and analyze a topic or an issue from a different point of view.

A useful tip that will help writers to find a way to express their creativity in scientific writing, for instance, is brainstorming using colours, shapes or patterns that will better represent one’s ideas, since the visual aspect can be extremely useful for enhancing one’s creative energy and lead to a more vibrant writing. Thus writers can explore easily the connections between their ideas and determine how they can organize those that should be the main points of their article and those that work better as supporting details. Other people might find it helpful to keep a journal where they can record their ideas at any time and in whatever form suits their thinking best. In addition, when it comes to the planning stage of writing, one can also try to use a different approach that differs from the linear one. Mind-mapping or story-boarding your assignments are great ways of stimulating innovative thinking and attention to detail.

Another challenge in scientific writing for many is also how the beginning, middle and ending of the article should be structured in order to engage the reader’s attention. For starters, authors can try to tell the “story” of the scientific paper out loud to themselves, see how it unfolds and thus evaluate what would be the best framework for their “plot”. Then one can focus on the usage of words in the text to convey a more persuasive writing. Thus the author demonstrates their understanding of the topic and that they can view things from a different perspective through compelling information and convincing arguments. It is crucial for authors to understand that despite the tone of scientific writing their creativity is essential for the overall outcome. Taking advantage of their own creative strengths and ability of innovative thinking can help authors build a strong framework for their article that will support their writing and allow them to communicate clearly their ideas to the readers.

Quote correctly: Distinguishing between one’s own thoughts and those of others

Academic writing involves quotations and citations that need to be implemented in the text following specific requirements. Unlike other styles of writing, however, in scientific writing authors rarely include direct quotations. This is due to the fact that direct quotes do not really reflect original thinking and, if used inappropriately, might distract the reader from the point the author is trying to communicate. This is why it is very important, especially for inexperienced writers, to learn when it is appropriate to quote directly and when the ideas of others are better expressed through paraphrasing without losing the intended meaning. Another reason why quoting appropriately matters is that when used inappropriately, either unintentionally or on purpose, it might mislead the reader into believing that the presented ideas are not those of others but the ones of the author, which is plagiarism. Some examples of inappropriate use of quotations in a research article include the quotation of a definition of a theory at length.

Create structure: consider formatting forms and styles

As already established, clarity is one of the main characteristics of a successful manuscript, not only in its writing but also in terms of editing. Poor language, bad editing and formatting are one of the top reasons why a research article might get rejected by the editorial board before it is even approved for peer-review. This is why authors should always aim to produce a well-structured paper in terms of text formatting, citation style, references, etc. Some journals have very specific guidelines for formatting and style that might require specific attention. Most research articles follow more or less the same pattern, including an abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, a discussion, conclusion, and references. This outline serves as a great visual reminder for authors, helping them to organize their thoughts and include all of the pertinent details of their research. Creating such structure will not only increase the chances for the efficient processing of your manuscript, but will also show the scholars reviewing your work that you are capable of respecting the journal’s requirements and that you are careful in your work – both qualities that are anticipated among the participants of the scientific community.

Make changes to your manuscript!

Before asking someone else to review your manuscript, you can start by doing so yourself. Editing is often best done in stages as it allows thorough examination of the entire paper. For example, once done with writing, authors can first run through their work and make sure all of the main ideas are properly addressed in the article. A great tip here would be for one to quickly outline the key points separately before re-reading their manuscript and then check if the content deviates from these points. If so, authors might need to add or delete some of the information or even entire paragraphs. We have discussed previously in the article that the overall idea should flow consistently and clearly throughout the text. This should be checked in the second stage of editing. To do so, one could verify if each paragraph is appropriately linked to the preceding one. After finishing, a third read-through could be done but with a finer lens where the attention of the author should fall on the sentence structure and their choice of words. Those who want to perfect their research articles are strongly advised to do so since grammar and spelling are just as important as the findings of the article.

Manuscript completed? Ask an experienced science colleague to review your manuscript!

Once authors have put everything together, the next step towards perfecting their manuscripts is to seek another scholar’s professional opinion on their work. Seeking advice from an experienced science colleague could be very useful for the acceptance of the article in a journal. One must be, however, willing to receive constructive criticism and embrace it instead of getting discouraged by it. Incorporating the feedback received from others in your work could make a huge difference for the overall outcome, since the editing stage is usually the phase when one gets to put the finishing touches. If you have worked with other co-authors on the creation of the article, you should make sure that they have had the chance to read and comment on your final draft as well. Ideally, one should show one’s work to as many friends and colleagues as possible, including those in different fields of study than their own, as this will give them a wider variety of opinions and feedback. One does not have to share one’s work only with professionals as sometimes the opinion of people who are non-experts could be particularly valuable. The perspective of someone who has little or no experience with science can provide unbiased suggestions that might turn out to be very helpful. Allowing others to share their ideas on how your manuscript can be improved is a great opportunity for you to self-assess your research and writing skills and further polish your style. Finally, it is strongly recommended that authors submit their manuscripts only when they feel ready to do so. Rushing too fast might expose authors to the risk of presenting an unfinished article that will get rejected even before being sent for peer-review.

Submit your manuscript – now patience is required!

Once you have finally submitted your article to the selected journal, you will have to arm yourself with patience and wait for the response. Manuscript submission might be just the beginning of what could turn out to be a lengthy process the end of which might not be in favor of the author. As mentioned above, some journals might take four or six months just to reply to candidates if their work has been accepted for peer review. Once submitted, the manuscript will usually go through a first screening that is done by the editorial board of the journal. During that process the person reviewing the article will evaluate if the topic of the research fits the scope of the journal and if the format, language and length of the submission also correspond with the expectations of the publication. In addition, the editor must also make sure that there are no obvious omissions, for instance missing pages, tables, etc. as well as no ethical violations. If the author submits their article to a journal that receives a high volume of manuscripts, it is evident why the waiting time is so long.

If the article meets all of these requirements and does not have any serious problems, it will be then sent for a peer review by two or more qualified academics that will estimate the potential of the manuscript. In general, there are four scenarios that can occur after the article has passed the peer review stage:

- Accepted – In this case the article will be sent for publication in the journal as it means that the author will not be asked to make any revisions of their work.

- Accepted with minor revisions – If authors receive this response, then they will have to make minor alterations to their work as per the requirements and suggestions of the peer reviewers. Once these have been made on the part of the author, the journal will publish the article.

- Accepted with major revisions – Peer reviewers might decide that some articles are suitable for publication in a journal, however only after going through substantial revisions by the authors.

- Rejected – In the event of rejection, the journal will refuse to publish the article even if it undergoes significant alterations. If a paper gets rejected, this does not necessarily mean that it was poorly written. It could be rejected because it does not meet the high standards of originality expected by the journal or its area of specialization.

Based on the outcome that one will receive after the peer review process, the waiting times could vary significantly, from a few weeks to months or even more than a year. Therefore authors should prepare themselves for any of the possible scenarios and cooperate with making changes when required as fast as possible if they wish to speed up the publication time.

Cooperate with your peer reviewers and make changes to your manuscript!

As discussed above, sometimes peer reviewers might request authors to make alterations to their manuscripts after they have been accepted. Once the peer reviewers have assessed the paper, they will invite the writers to either make specific alterations or conduct additional studies before re-submitting the article for a second evaluation. Some examples of the most common suggestions by peer reviewers include reanalyzing or reinterpreting of existing data, requests for additional experiments or requests for clarification of existing text. When asked to perform such changes, it is highly recommended to authors to do them quickly as soon as possible. A good idea to tackle such issues is for authors to carefully plan the actions that they will undertake for each comment.

It is also possible that the author disagrees with the reviewers’ comments. In this case one must write a response letter where they must provide satisfactory explanations for contradicting with the reviewers’ suggestions. Such letters must be written in a polite and straightforward way, without the usage of an argumentative tone. Although sometimes reviewers’ comments might sound harsh, one must remember that these people are volunteers and have given up their own time to contribute to the scientific community by reviewing many research articles. Therefore it is important for researchers to maintain good manners and avoid starting debates. In addition, researchers must provide strong evidence to support their claims towards the issues that they disagree with.

You did it! The successful publication as a return on hard scientific work!

Hurray, you made it! The wait is finally over and your persistence is paid off with the publication of your research article in a scientific journal. The successful publication of a research project is the final stage of the long journey from a simple idea to a completed manuscript. This event is undoubtedly an occasion that deserves to be acknowledged. Celebrating such achievement after months of hard work is a great experience for researchers as it marks their personal accomplishment within a highly competitive field. Many authors describe the emotions of seeing their articles published in a journal as a plethora of feelings of joy, pride, inspiration and confidence to pursue more projects that will contribute with unique and innovative content to the world of science.

manuscript research article peer-review publication

Has the classic peer review process had its day

Date: 17.02.2021

Mastering the peer review process: 7 steps to successfully publishing a research article

Date: 23.04.2021

Publications – the currency of science

Date: 23.04.2021

Show scientific competences as peer review assessor

Date: 23.04.2021