After you submit to a journal your manuscript undergoes a series of checks to ensure that it is complete, meets all journal requirements, and is suitable for the journal. Manuscripts that don’t pass this initial screening may be rejected without review, or the journal office may contact you for additional information, resulting in delays. |
We asked the PLOS journal teams about the most common mistakes they see during the initial technical check...and how to avoid them. | | |
“Nothing happens until something moves.”
- Albert Einstein |
| | | | |
Check #1 Sense check. Is this manuscript complete and ready for peer review? | |
⚠️ |
Common mistakes: Part of the manuscript is missing or incomplete, placeholder text has accidentally been left in the document, the language is difficult to understand, or has a very high volume of typos. | | | | | | |
Check #2 Journal fit and scope. Does this manuscript fit within the subject areas and disciplines the journal covers? | |
⚠️ |
Common mistakes: The submitted manuscript doesn’t fit within the subject area(s) that the journal covers, or the format of the article is not appropriate for the publication (for example, a review submitted to a journal that does not publish review articles). | | | | | | |
Check #3 Acceptance criteria. Is this manuscript likely to meet the criteria for publication? | |
⚠️ |
Common mistakes: The research doesn’t offer the level of mechanistic or biological insight the journal looks for, or doesn’t represent a significant advance in the field. | | | | | | |
Check #4 Plagiarism. Is the manuscript original, and have all quotes and allusions been appropriately cited? | |
⚠️ |
Common mistakes: The authors have reused a methods section or introduction, copy-and-pasting text from their own previously published articles, or have forgotten to include citations in figure captions. Quotes from other researchers are not framed within quotation marks or cited. | | | | | | |
Check #5 ethics, funding & data statements. Are the statements and disclosures in the submission form clear, appropriate, and consistent? | |
⚠️ |
Common mistakes: Researchers have lost track of their early paperwork, funding information, committee approval documents, permits, or other materials. Information in the submission for is not consistent with information in the manuscript itself. | | | | | | |
What’s next? |
Stay tuned for our next issue, on what to do after your article is accepted. | | | |
Did you find this helpful?
Share it with your friends. | | |