The preparation of a manuscript for international indexed journals. Basic aspects I

The preparation of a manuscript for international indexed journals. Basic aspects I

Generally, the preparation of a manuscript for international indexed journals is governed by something as basic as authors write, reviewers comment, editors decide, and readers read.

In the light of the above, and before going into the manuscript, it is essential to highlight the role of the editors and reviewers. Concerning the editor, the editor is responsible for the assignment of the article (at least two reviewers) and then makes the decision based on the reviewers’ comments. The decision on the manuscript is usually classified into four categories:

  • Rejected: Varies depending on the journals.
  • Requires significant revision of the paper: Requires an equally thorough revision and is likely to be rejected.
  • Requires minor revision of the paper: Likely to be accepted once the changes proposed by the reviewers are made.
  • Accepted for publication in its current state: Rarely occurs.

Concerning the reviewers, they are responsible for analysing the complete manuscript, looking closely at its suitability for the journal, the interest and relevance of the topic, the perspective from which it is approached and the coherence in the methods, results and previous objectives to be achieved. Some of the main criteria used to evaluate articles are:

  • Does the article’s topic meet the objectives and scope of the scientific journal?
  • Is the research novel, and does it add to the current state of research?
  • Does the article have a global impact, and is the topic relevant to the international scientific community?
  • Does it present a good line of argument structure, and is it written clearly, concisely and fluently?
  • Are the conclusions drawn from the data presented correctly?

From the above, one of the main concerns is the possible rejection of the article. Concerning this concern, the main reasons for refusal might be:

  • Not suitable for the journal
  • Non-novel subject matter
  • Poor experimental design (theories, methods and data analysis are not consistent)
  • Conclusions not supported or based on results
  • Poorly written

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *