Sharing a research paper with an academic journal can be a significant event in any researcher’s academic career. Journal publishing is a great way to disseminate research, establish credibility and make a contribution to science, regardless of your stage as a graduate student, early-stage scientist, or experienced researcher. But the road of successful publishing is seldom easy. Weakness of scientific interest is not the only reason for manuscripts to be rejected tips for avoiding submission errors are mentioned below. After even a minor formatting, journal selection or manuscript preparation mistake can have a negative impact on editorial decision. Researchers can modify their approach to journals and help improve acceptance rates by knowing some of the common mistakes that people make when submitting their papers for publication. Through these 7 mistakes which authors can avoid, they can improve manuscript quality and boost the chances of successful publication.

Submitting to the right journal is one of the most frequently made mistakes by a researcher. All academic journals have had a narrow and definite range of interest, intended audience and journal focus. Sometimes manuscripts sent to a journal that is not related to the research topic or methodology will get rejected, irrespective of the quality of the manuscript. There are several authors who only take into account the impact factor or prestige of journals without checking if their manuscript is appropriate for publishing. Researchers should ensure prior to submission that their work fits within the scope of the journal, hasn’t been published recently, and is consistent with the guidelines provided to authors. Selecting the right type of journal enhances the chances of the editor and reviewers noticing the relevance and the value of the research.

The second big mistake is to not follow the guidelines for journal submissions. Academic journals give you detailed information about the specifications of your manuscript such as word count, headings, structure of references, figure resolution, supplementary materials and so on, about manuscript formatting. Too many writers like to neglect these aspects and submit papers that do not comply with the technical standards. Well done to all those even excellent research papers who were rejected, simply because they didn’t quite fit into the boxes. Guideline compliance is considered to be one of the indicators of professionalism and attention to detail and is often noticed by the editors. Importance of reading instructions for submission and following them carefully; teaching and strengthening the editorial images.

The third error is making sure that the manuscript is poorly written or improperly edited. Just because a paper has strong research findings does not equate to publication if grammar, awkward phrasing, terminology, and/or explanations are not consistent or clear. Academic writing must be precise, clear and logically argued. The language barrier could make it harder for reviewers to understand the research study, decreasing the impact of the study. Language problems are removed, the manuscript is easier to read, before submission, if it is edited professionally or carefully read. If it is possible to communicate well then reviewers can concentrate on science contributions not the flaws.

A weak abstract and title are the fourth common errors. It is important to note that for an editor and/or reviewer to begin their judgment of a manuscript they will likely first consult the title and abstract. The title of the article might not reveal its importance, and a poorly worded abstract might not comprehensively and clearly describe the research objective, methodology, major findings, and overall contribution of the study. Bad initial impressions can diminish the odds of editorial interest, before the full manuscript’s ever been read. Researchers need to spend time developing brief, informative, and engaging titles and abstracts to express the value of the study. Great beginning pages raise awareness and enhance a submission’s results.

The fifth big error is that of poor literature review quality and incorrect citations. A best piece of literature review will reveal that the student has been aware of the literature field, and have highlighted the contribution that the present study makes to the body of knowledge. Weakening manuscript credibility is through the use of inappropriate incomplete reference, outdated citations or not following up on recent studies that are relevant. Reviewers look at the author’s understanding of the body of research and whether the author has placed the work in the appropriate context. There can also be ethical issues as a result of citations being omitted or misused. Researchers should verify that it is the correct references and that they are up to date and consistent with the journal requirements. A good literature review enhances the scholarly relevance and enhances the reviewers’ confidence.

The number six mistake that people make when they’re writing is overlooking ethical publishing etiquette. The integrity, transparency, originality and responsible reporting of findings are central to the academic publishing process. Plagiarism, duplicate submission, manipulated data and incomplete disclosures, or ambiguous authorship are all ethical concerns that may result in instant rejection and a loss of reputation over your Document’s life. In many cases some authors unwittingly breach the ethical guidelines by sending the same scientific paper to two journals at the same time or by not reporting conflict of interest. Potential research authors should check authorship guidelines before submission, and consider the plagiarism guidelines and ethics outlined by researchers. Ethical compliance supports responsible scholarship and will maintain credibility.

The seventh and final big error is to react badly to feedback on the work of their peers. Scientific writing involves receiving requests for revision and/or comments from a critical reviewer; this is a legitimate part of the scientific process. Some, however, resist and ignore feedback or reply inadequately in revision. The reviewers are looking for careful reading of their suggestions and explanation of ways in which there are improved manuscripts. Responsive comments are also expected to be respectful, based on an evidence and professional tone, even if the author may disagree with some or all comments. Revision response ought to reflect maturity, relationships and a sense of responsibility to make the manuscript better. Good communication is one of the really important aspects of revision to a successful conclusion.

Preventing these seven pitfalls involves planning well, attention to detail and a strategic approach to preparation of manuscript. Submitting a journal doesn’t just mean that you need to write high-quality research; it also needs to be presented professionally, meet editorial standards and communicate well throughout publication. It is advisable for the researchers to give enough time for editing, formatting, and choosing a particular journal, and pre-submitting after adding all necessary texts.

Requesting outside comments can also enhance the quality of submissions. Other people such as the supervisor, mentor, colleagues and professional editors can spot weaknesses the author may be unaware of. An independent reading prior to submitting work can help clarify and enhance arguments, and prevent unnecessary errors. Early feedback enables writers to correct weaknesses before the editors or reviewers do!

Nowadays, manuscript preparation has also become easier due to technological advancements. Resource management solutions, such as reference management systems, plagiarism checking software, journal search engines and online submission systems make the publishing process easier for researchers. Appropriate use of these resources can enhance the efficiency and technical error rate when submitting the material.

Patience is required from the researchers on the publication process also. It is common to have to wait for journals to be accepted, make changes to them, and for some to be rejected. Don’t take rejection as a sign that it’s all failed. Often rejected manuscripts are revised and later become publishable in other venues. Building academic publication requires persistence, adaptability and a desire to learn from unsolicited feedback.

Researchers can also benefit from the professional editorial experts who provide manuscript editing, manuscript formatting and publication consultation services to help with them being ready for submission. They can be of great benefit if you are a first-time author and not a native speaker of English. Proficient assistance improves manuscript quality and enhances the confidence in manuscript submissions.

To conclude, there’s more to putting your work into an academic journal than good research data. Many pitfalls like selecting bad journals, not following writing guidelines, sending papers without sufficient editing, poor abstracts, weak literature review, ethical blunders, or inadequate responses to reviewers can be avoided and enhance the chances of a successful paper. Researchers can enhance their chances of getting published, build academic trust and make their contribution to academic knowledge effectively through strategic approach to submission and by drafting their manuscript carefully. Just how to publish starts not just with excellent research, but additionally with strategic and expert submission techniques.