10-Step Submission Checklist for Springer & Elsevier Journals – Free Templates Included

You have put all the blood, sweat, and tears, as well as the data, into your research, and now you are ready to submit it to an academic journal published under Springer or Elsevier. However, the sad reality is that 40% of manuscripts are desk-rejected during peer review, typically due to technical oversight (Wiley Author Services). An extra comma, lack of proper ethics declaration, or submitting to a journal misaligned with the paper’s aim and scope can act as a roadblock to successful publication.

Whether you are a first-time author or an experienced researcher, this 10-step pre-submission checklist and the free downloadable templates will help you avoid rejection and be successful in publishing your paper. This blog is an answer to a standard query most researchers have – How to publish a research paper? The goal is to navigate the complex publication process through manageable steps, ultimately reaching editorial review and securing publication of your paper.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Wrong journal = instant rejection risk. Always match scope.

• Cover letter gets 2 minutes. Make it count.

• Graphical abstract = fast visibility and editor attention.

• Plagiarism over 15%? Rejected without review.

• Final checklist = smooth submission, no surprises.

Why most submissions fail (and how to prevent it)

Before we proceed with the checklist, we need to know the reasons why manuscripts fail.

1. The paper does not match the scope of the journal (25% of all rejections): Your paper doesn’t fit with the journal’s aims and scope.
2. Formatting (20%): Your manuscript/paper does not adhere to the journal’s formatting guidelines, including structure, references, figures, tables, and templates.
3. Poor Presentation (15%): Poor quality cover letter, vague highlights, or no proper conflict of interest statements, unclear author contributions, and funding statements can lead to direct rejection.
4. Language and plagiarism (10%): Manuscripts/research papers get rejected due to poor English language quality or unacknowledged duplication of content, including plagiarism or self-plagiarism (scientific misconduct or academic misconduct).

So, a question that must be bothering you- how do you avoid desk rejection and get your manuscript accepted? Well, These 10 expert-approved steps will help you clear the initial editorial checks on journal submission portals like Springer or Elsevier.

Here is your 10-step success plan for submission

1. Journal Selection Strategy: How to Choose the Right Journal and Avoid Desk Rejection

Choosing the wrong journal is the number one reason manuscripts are desk-rejected and fail to reach the peer review stage. Check your manuscript’s scope and aim with the journal’s scope, readership, and indexing to ensure the paper gets peer-reviewed.

The following Question – How to Select the Right Journal:

• Study the Aims and Scope: Go beyond reading—analyze the Aims and Scope to ensure your abstract and keywords align with the journal’s focus.
• Check Indexing Status: Submit only to journals indexed in Scopus, Web of Science (SCIE), or PubMed or indexing criteria asked by your organization (Libraries & Research institutions). Use verified tools, such as Scopus Sources or the Master Journal List, to confirm indexing.
• Review Recent Publications: Read 3–5 articles from your target journal to evaluate what reporting standards and the presentation style they follow.
• Scan your Reference Section: Leading peer reviewers and journal editors often recommend that your first-choice journals for submission should be the ones you’ve frequently cited in your manuscript. This indicates thematic alignment and increases your chances of acceptance.
• Structure: Always read author guidelines thoroughly. Maintain the appropriate length of the introduction, format of methods, and average article length to avoid desk rejection.
• Tone: As mentioned earlier, reading two to three articles from your target journal will give you insight into the tone the paper demands according to the journal’s style.
• Content: Check submission guidelines and author guidelines to ensure your manuscript has an accurate number of figures, tables, and supplementary materials.

Tip: A well-aligned submission shows the editor that you understand their audience—raising your chances of clearing the first editorial hurdle and definitely a sign of your professionalism in the publishing industry.

2. Impact Factor versus Fit:

A lower IF journal in your discipline > is better than a flagship journal that doesn’t fit!

A 2020 study in the Journal of Information Science found that publishing in a journal that matches your research topic is more important than just aiming for a high-impact factor.

Think of it like this: If you’re writing about rural healthcare policies, submitting to a specialized journal on public health (even with a lower IF) gives your paper a better chance than sending it to a big-name journal focused on general medicine.

Why? Because editors care about how well your paper fits their journal’s scope—and readers in your field are more likely to find and cite it.

So, don’t just chase big names. Aim for the journal where your research truly belongs.

3. The Cover Letter: Your 2-Minute Pitch to the Journal Editor

Journal editors receive hundreds of submissions daily, and they usually spend only 2–5 minutes scanning each cover letter. If you want your manuscript to stand out and move past the first checkpoint, your cover letter needs to be clear, persuasive, and tailored to the journal’s focus.

Structure That Works:

1. Address: Use a personalized greeting like “Dear Prof. [Name], Editor-in-Chief of [Journal].” Avoid generic salutations such as “To whom it may concern.” (Human beings like to listen, so avoid sounding like robots).
2. Hook: “We present the first evidence of [X] in [context] using [cutting-edge method].”
3. Fit: “This contributes to your journal’s mission of [specific aim] as seen in recent publications such as [recent paper citation].”
4. Novelty/Significance: “Our study resolves [controversy] and offers new insights with potential impact on [specific application/policy/practice].”
5. Ethics: “Ethical approval was obtained (IRB ID: [ID]), and the study complied with [relevant ethical guidelines, e.g., Declaration of Helsinki].”
6. Exclusivity: “This manuscript is original, has not been published, and is not under review elsewhere.”.

Tip: Many young researchers and PhD Scholars write abstracts in the cover letter. Please avoid summarizing your abstract in the cover letter. Focus instead on relevance, contribution, and fit.

Free Resource: Cover Letter Template. It contains placeholders and practical examples.

• Research Highlights: The Science of a Strong First Impression

Think of research highlights as the Twitter version of your paper—short, sharp, and shareable. They’re designed for skim readers (and search engines), so keep them concise and compelling.

4. How to craft the perfect highlight:

• Use 3–5 bullet points only.
• 85 characters max—including spaces.
• Start each point with an action verb like: Demonstrates, Reveals, Proves.
• Avoid vague phrases.
  • Bad: “Investigation of tumor growth inhibition.”
  •  Good: “Demonstrates that Compound X inhibits glioblastoma growth in vivo.”

Free Resource:

Download our ready-to-use Highlights Template—a pre-formatted, journal-ready table that shows you exactly how it’s done (with real examples).

Make your science skimmable and searchable. That’s the secret to getting read.

5. Graphical Abstract: Say More with Less

A well-designed graphical abstract can make your research instantly more discoverable—and it’s no longer optional. Around 80% of Elsevier journals and 60% of Springer journals now require one at submission.

 Why It Matters:

A compelling graphical abstract can increase visibility, engage editors quickly, and attract more citations, particularly on platforms such as ScienceDirect, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar. It can increase your social media visibility and improve your communication on science platforms, thus enhancing your altimetric score.

 Design Principles for Graphical Abstracts

•  Tools You Can Use:
  • BioRender – Best for biology and biomedical illustrations
  • Canva – Ideal for general designs with drag-and-drop ease
  • Inkscape – A powerful free tool for vector graphics
•  Recommended Sizes:
  • Elsevier: 1328 × 531 pixels (landscape)
  • Springer: 1200 × 1800 pixels (portrait)
  • Always check the specific journal’s author guidelines before submission.
• Clarity > Creativity:
  • Use minimal text—let visuals speak.
  • Arrows = Flow, Colour = Meaning (e.g., blue for baseline, red for impact/change).
  • Avoid clutter. Use white space effectively to guide the reader’s eye.

 Pro Tip:

Before you design, study the graphical abstract from a recently published high-impact paper in your target journal. Reverse-engineer the layout, flow, and elements—they’re often a masterclass in visual storytelling.

Free Resource:

Download our Graphical Abstract Starter Pack

✔ Size templates (Elsevier & Springer formats)

✔ Quick-access design checklist

6. Plagiarism & Language: The Hidden Barrier to Publication Success

Plagiarism and poor language quality are two of the most common reasons for manuscript rejection. Scholars often face difficulty in reducing the plagiarism percentage and, in the process, get diverted from their paper’s focus. Even a similarity score above 15% on tools like iThenticate or Turnitin can lead to instant desk rejection before your work reaches peer reviewers.

So,  How to Check and Fix High Similarity

• Use Reliable Tools
• Run a pre-check using Turnitin or iThenticate to detect overlap before submission. (Many journals use the same tools.)
• Paraphrase Smartly
• Avoid copying large sections of the literature review—even if cited. Paraphrase in your own words and use methods phrasing templates like:
• “RNA was extracted following the protocol in [10].”.

Pro tip: The best way is to read thoroughly, understand the concept, and write the idea fitting to your manuscript’s central argument ( Note: Fitting it forcibly can lead to rejection. Take or supervisor help to understand how this can be done). Language Quality Matters

• Choose the Right Editing Tool
• For technical writing, Grammarly Premium offers more accurate suggestions than tools like Hemingway. However, you can check with the Hemingway editor, too, to see the readability score. Remember, scholarly communication should never demand complexity; it should be easily understandable and interpretable.
• Get a Human Review
• Whether it’s a colleague, mentor, or professional editor, have someone check your manuscript for clarity, flow, and discipline-specific jargon.

Free Resource:

Download Our Language Proofing Checklist – Designed specifically for academic manuscripts.

7. Declarations: The Legal Shield

Forget to include a funding or ethics statement? That alone can get your manuscript rejected—without review. Most top journals now require detailed declarations to ensure ethical transparency, research reproducibility, and legal compliance.

Must-Include Declarations for Journal Submission

• Ethics Approval
• Include your IRB or IACUC approval number, along with the complete ethics statement.
• Example: “Approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of XYZ University (Ref No: 2024/IEC/105).”
• Credit Author Contributions
• Use the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to specify each author’s role.
• Example: “A.B. – Conceptualization; C.D. – Data Curation.”
• Funding Disclosure
• Clearly list grant agencies and project titles and disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
• Example: “This work was supported by NIH under project ID ABC123. No conflicts of interest declared.”
• Data Availability
• Indicate where raw data is stored.
• Example: “Raw RNA-seq data have been deposited to GEO under accession GSE12345.”

 Pro Tip:

Copy declaration headings exactly as shown in the journal’s author guidelines. Using the correct phrases (like “Ethics Statement” or “Funding Disclosure”) speeds up editorial checks.

8. Reviewer Suggestions: Strategic Advocacy That Works

Suggesting reviewers isn’t optional—it’s a strategic move. In fact, over 90% of journal editors welcome or expect authors to suggest potential reviewers. When done right, it can accelerate the peer review process and connect your work with the right experts.

Reviewer Recommendation Guidelines

1. Avoid Conflicts of Interest

Do not suggest:

• Your current or former advisors or collaborators (within the last 5 years)
• Anyone affiliated with your current or former institution
• Close co-authors, funders, or family members

 2. Promote Reviewer Diversity

• Include 1–2 early-career researchers alongside senior experts.
• Suggest reviewers from different geographic regions or institutions.
• Consider gender balance and disciplinary subfields.

3. Provide Reviewer Details Clearly

Use a format editor that can copy-paste into their system:

Example:

Prof. Jane Smith

Email: smith@univ.edu

Affiliation: Department of Neuroscience, University X

Justification: “Author of the 2022 paper on neural biomarkers in Nature Neuroscience, which directly aligns with our study.”

Pro Tip:

Avoid generic praise. Be specific about how each suggested reviewer’s work aligns with your paper.

Free Resource:

Download Our Reviewer Suggestions Template

✔ Includes sample email wording

✔ Reviewer info table

9. Submission Portals: These may seem tedious, but they are essential for publication success

Journal submission portals can feel overwhelming—especially the first time. But once you understand the flow, it becomes a checklist-driven process. Whether you’re submitting to Elsevier or Springer, knowing how to navigate their systems can save you time—and prevent costly mistakes. Also, note that it is essential to check for any additional information requirements that are not mentioned in the author’s guidelines. Similarly, in specific submission systems, guidelines may clash with their author guidelines. In that situation, reaching out to the journal support team can save much of your time and prevent desk rejection.

Figure: Submission portal of Scientific Reports A Springer Nature journal in STEM.

 Submission Workflow: What You Must Upload

Most portals will ask for files in the following order:

1. Main Manuscript File – Word or LaTeX (no author names for double-blind review)
2. Highlights – A 3–5 bullet summary of key findings
3. Cover Letter – Tailored and signed
4. Graphical Abstract – Mandatory for 80% of Elsevier journals
5. Declarations & Statements – Ethics, funding, conflicts, etc.

Author Identifiers & Final Checks

• ORCID is required:
• Ensure all authors have linked ORCID IDs before submission. Some portals won’t let you proceed without them.
• Proofing the PDF:
• After uploading, the system will generate a compiled PDF. Carefully proofread it—this is your final draft.
• Don’t forget to hit “Approve Submission” or “Submit for Review” once you’re satisfied.

10. The Most Final Pre-Submission Triage

Run this Check List:

• Journal purpose/aims/scope is a 100% match?
• All co-authors approved the final version.
• Cover letter addressed to Editor-in-Chief?
• Highlights are <85 characters/bullet?
• Figures at a minimum of 300 DPI, with fonts embedded?
• Plagiarism report <15%?
• Ethics/CRediT/funding declared?
• ORCIDs linked?

Free Resource: The Final Pre-Submission Checklist

PDF with auto-checks.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeirgA6_kst0OyRi5CEerQLhV7lDeKC5HUTo44kuDO19qEX_A/viewform?usp=header

Bonus: The Academic’s Toolkit

Tool	Use Case	Cost
Zotero	Reference Management	Free
Grammarly Premium	Technical Language Polish	$12/month
BioRender	Graphical Abstracts/Figures	$35/month
Turnitin	Plagiarism Check	$3/page
Overleaf	LaTeX Collaboration	Free (Basic)

Real Talk: Why This Works

Dr. Anika Patel (neuroscience postdoc) used this checklist after her Nature Neuroscience rejection:

“My paper was rejected by 3 journals for ‘scope mismatch.’ I downloaded the Journal Selection Checklist, identified a suitable Elsevier journal, and utilized their LaTeX template. Accepted in 6 weeks!”

Conclusion: Submit Like a Pro

Publishing in Springer or Elsevier is not just about luck; it is about planning and strategy. This checklist addressed 13 common technical reasons for rejection in writing. The free templates do all the grunt work, so you can take advantage of your time writing science.

Your Next Steps:

• Download all templates here.
• Run your manuscript through the 10-step guidelines.
• Submit with confidence.

Still have a case of the jitters? Our Journal Submission Support team will handle formatting, cover letters, and navigating portals.

contact: support@manuscriptedit.com

services: ManuscriptEdit.com

Because rejection should come from science, not paperwork.

REFERENCES

1. Rowley, J., Sbaffi, L., Gilbert, A., & Johnson, B. (2020). Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions. Journal of Information Science, 48(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520958591
2. Wiley Author Services. (n.d.). Peer review process. Wiley. Retrieved June 3, 2025, from https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/submission-peer-review/peer-review.html
3. Elsevier. (n.d.). Graphical abstracts. Elsevier Author Hub. Retrieved June 3, 2025, from https://www.elsevier.com/authors/tools-and-resources/graphical-abstract
4. Springer Nature. (n.d.). Manuscript submission guidelines. Springer. Retrieved June 3, 2025, from https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/manuscript-submission
5. Altmetric. (n.d.). What are altmetrics? Retrieved June 3, 2025, from https://www.altmetric.com/about-altmetrics/what-are-altmetrics/