Common Mistakes to Avoid Before Journal Paper Submission

Submitting a research paper to an academic journal is an important milestone for research scholars, doctoral candidates, university faculty, and independent researchers. After spending months conducting research, reviewing literature, analysing findings, and preparing a manuscript, authors may feel ready to submit their work. However, even a well-conducted study can encounter avoidable problems if the manuscript is not carefully checked before submission.

Errors such as choosing an unsuitable journal, overlooking author guidelines, presenting unclear research objectives, using inconsistent references, or failing to meet ethical requirements can delay editorial assessment or contribute to rejection. Some mistakes affect the presentation of the manuscript, while others raise fundamental concerns about research quality, originality, or integrity.

Understanding these common mistakes before submitting a research paper to a journal helps researchers prepare a more professional manuscript, reduce avoidable administrative delays, and improve the clarity and credibility of their work. For guidance on preparing the submission letter itself, see our article on How to Write a Journal Submission Cover Letter for an English Literature Research Paper.

This guide explains the most frequent pre-submission mistakes, why they matter, and how research scholars can avoid them through a systematic final review.

Why Is a Pre-Submission Review Important?

A pre-submission review is the final quality check conducted before a manuscript is sent to a journal. It involves evaluating the research content, writing, structure, formatting, references, ethical declarations, and submission documents.

Researchers sometimes concentrate so heavily on the intellectual content of their work that they overlook basic submission requirements. For example, a paper may present a valuable argument but still be returned for technical corrections because it does not follow the journal's referencing style or exceeds the permitted word count.

A structured review helps authors identify such problems before the manuscript enters the editorial process.

The main benefits include:

• Improved manuscript quality: Identifying gaps in the argument, methodology, analysis, or interpretation.
• Greater clarity: Ensuring that readers can understand the research question, approach, and contribution.
• Compliance with journal requirements: Checking formatting, word limits, reference style, and required documents.
• Responsible publication practices: Confirming appropriate authorship, permissions, disclosures, and ethical approvals.
• Reduced avoidable delays: Preventing administrative problems that could otherwise require corrections or resubmission.

A pre-submission checklist cannot guarantee acceptance. However, it can help ensure that the paper is complete, credible, clearly presented, and suitable for editorial consideration.

1. Choosing the Wrong Journal for Your Research

One of the most consequential mistakes researchers make is submitting a manuscript to a journal that does not match its subject, methodology, audience, or scholarly contribution.

A paper may be academically sound but unsuitable for a journal that prioritises a different discipline or type of research. For instance, a manuscript focused on literary interpretation may not fit a journal primarily devoted to empirical language-processing research, even if both publications fall within the broader field of language studies.

Similarly, a specialised engineering journal may not be an appropriate destination for a manuscript that lacks the technical focus expected by its readership.

Why does journal mismatch matter?

Editors generally assess whether a submission falls within the journal's scope before deciding whether it should proceed to peer review. A mismatch may result in a desk rejection, even when the research has merit.

How to avoid this mistake

Before selecting a journal, read its official aims and scope, examine recently published articles on related topics, check the manuscript categories it accepts, compare your research question and contribution with the journal's readership, review its word limits and submission requirements, and verify the journal's identity, publisher, editorial board, and indexing claims through authoritative sources. For a curated list of reputable venues, explore our guide on Top 10 Scopus Indexed English Literature Journals with Free Publication.

Do not select a journal solely because it advertises rapid publication, has a prestigious-sounding name, or claims an impressive impact factor. The best journal is one that is legitimate and appropriate for the manuscript, not necessarily the one with the highest profile.

2. Ignoring the Journal's Author Guidelines

Every academic journal has its own submission requirements. These may cover manuscript structure, word count, abstract length, referencing style, tables, figures, supplementary materials, and file preparation.

Ignoring these instructions is a common and preventable error. For example, one journal may require an unstructured abstract, while another may specify separate headings such as Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions. Some journals require anonymised manuscripts for double-anonymous peer review, whereas others use different review arrangements.

Common formatting mistakes include exceeding the permitted word count, using the wrong citation or referencing style, omitting required abstract headings, incorrectly formatting tables and figures, including identifying information in an anonymised manuscript, and failing to provide a title page or separate declarations when required.

How to avoid this mistake

Download or review the current author instructions from the journal's official website. Use them as a checklist rather than relying on formatting conventions from another journal. If you transfer a manuscript from one journal to another, review it against the new journal's requirements. Formatting compliance at one publication does not automatically satisfy another publication's rules.

3. Failing to Clearly Define the Research Problem

A research paper should establish what problem it addresses and why that problem deserves scholarly attention. When the research problem is vague, readers may struggle to understand the purpose of the study. A broad topic is not necessarily a well-defined research problem.

For example, "climate change and agriculture" identifies a general subject. A more focused research problem might investigate how a particular irrigation practice affects crop-water efficiency under specified conditions. In literary studies, the distinction is similar. A paper about "women in Victorian literature" may be too broad unless it identifies the texts, interpretive question, historical context, or critical debate being examined.

How to avoid this mistake

Before submission, verify that the manuscript identifies the central research problem, explains the gap or question motivating the study, establishes clear research objectives or questions, connects the objectives to the methods or analytical approach, and explains why the research matters to its intended audience. The research problem should be clear from the introduction, and the rest of the manuscript should remain aligned with it. For a step-by-step framework, consult How to Formulate a Research Proposal in English Literature.

4. Conducting an Incomplete or Outdated Literature Review

A literature review should do more than list previous studies. It should demonstrate an understanding of existing scholarship and explain how the current research relates to it.

An incomplete review may overlook influential publications, recent findings, important theoretical perspectives, or disagreements within the field. An outdated review can also weaken a manuscript when the topic has developed substantially since the cited work appeared. However, a strong literature review does not simply include the largest possible number of references.

Common literature review mistakes include citing only studies that support the author's argument, ignoring relevant contradictory findings, relying heavily on old sources when newer research is necessary, summarising studies without comparing their contributions, failing to identify a meaningful research gap, and including irrelevant references merely to increase the reference count.

How to avoid this mistake

Search relevant academic databases, examine the references of influential studies, and review recent publications in the field. Use primary sources when appropriate and evaluate the quality and relevance of the material you cite. A useful final question is: does the literature review explain what is already known, what remains uncertain, and how this paper contributes to the discussion? If it only describes previous studies, it may need further analytical development.

5. Using an Inappropriate Research Methodology

The methodology should be suitable for the research question and sufficiently detailed for readers to understand how the research was conducted.

In empirical studies, weaknesses may include unclear sampling procedures, inadequate descriptions of instruments, inappropriate statistical methods, or insufficient information about data collection. In humanities research, problems may involve an unexplained selection of primary texts, unclear analytical criteria, weak justification for a theoretical framework, or a mismatch between the research question and the chosen interpretive method.

How to avoid this mistake

Check that the manuscript explains why the chosen method is appropriate, how participants, sources, texts, datasets, or materials were selected, what procedures were followed, how data or evidence were analysed, what limitations affect the interpretation, and whether the relevant ethical and reporting requirements have been addressed.

The level of methodological detail will vary by discipline. The objective is to make the research process transparent and the conclusions defensible. For a comparative overview, see Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Cultural Research: Foundations, Applications, and Best Practices.

6. Presenting Results Without Sufficient Analysis

Another common mistake is presenting results without explaining what they mean. In quantitative research, tables and statistical outputs do not replace interpretation. In qualitative studies, quotations or observations require analytical context. In literary research, identifying themes or textual features is not enough unless the author explains how they support the central argument.

How to avoid this mistake

Distinguish between presenting evidence and interpreting it. The Results section, where applicable, should report findings clearly. The Discussion should explain their significance, relate them to previous research, consider alternative explanations, and acknowledge limitations. In disciplines where results and discussion are combined, the same functions should still be fulfilled. Avoid claiming that a finding proves more than the study can establish. Conclusions should be proportional to the evidence and research design.

7. Writing an Unclear or Ineffective Abstract

The abstract is often the first substantive part of the manuscript that editors, reviewers, and readers encounter. A vague abstract can make a strong paper difficult to evaluate quickly. An abstract that only describes the topic without stating the research question, approach, key findings, or contribution may fail to communicate the paper's value.

How to avoid this mistake

Include the elements required by the journal. Depending on the discipline and article type, these commonly include the research problem or purpose, the methodology or analytical approach, the principal findings or argument, and the main conclusion or contribution.

Avoid adding references, unsupported claims, excessive background information, or unexplained abbreviations unless the journal permits or requires them. Write the abstract after the main manuscript has stabilised, then verify that every statement accurately reflects the final paper.

8. Neglecting Grammar, Academic Style, and Clarity

Language problems can make research difficult to follow even when the underlying ideas are valuable. Long sentences, inconsistent terminology, vague pronouns, unnecessary repetition, and poorly structured paragraphs may obscure the argument. Excessively complicated language can also make a paper less effective rather than more scholarly.

How to avoid this mistake

Conduct a dedicated language review after completing the substantive revisions. Check whether each paragraph has a clear purpose, sentences communicate one main idea at a time where practical, technical terminology is used consistently, abbreviations are defined when first introduced as appropriate, transitions help readers follow the argument, claims are expressed precisely and cautiously, and grammar, punctuation, and spelling are correct.

If English is not your first language, a qualified editor or knowledgeable colleague may help improve clarity. Language editing should preserve the author's meaning and should not introduce unsupported claims. For detailed editing support, explore AD Publications' guide on editing your research paper.

9. Inconsistent or Incorrect Referencing

Citation problems can undermine the credibility of a manuscript and, in serious cases, raise concerns about academic integrity. Common errors include citing a source that does not support the claim, omitting citations for borrowed ideas, including references that are never cited in the text, and providing inaccurate publication details.

A reference list generated by citation software is not automatically accurate. Imported metadata can contain incorrect author names, titles, page numbers, publication years, or digital object identifiers.

How to avoid this mistake

Verify that every in-text citation has a corresponding reference entry where required. Check that reference entries are cited appropriately in the manuscript. Confirm author names, titles, dates, journal names, page ranges, and DOIs. Follow the journal's required referencing style. Verify that the cited source actually supports the statement. Check quotations and page numbers against the original source. Reference managers can improve consistency, but authors remain responsible for the accuracy of the citations.

10. Overlooking Plagiarism, Text Recycling, and Attribution

Academic integrity is a fundamental requirement of scholarly publishing. Researchers must distinguish their own contribution from ideas, wording, data, and interpretations derived from other sources.

Plagiarism may involve copying text without appropriate attribution, paraphrasing too closely, presenting another person's ideas as original, or using figures and other materials without the required permission or acknowledgement. Text recycling and duplicate publication also require careful attention. Reusing material from an earlier publication is not automatically acceptable simply because the author wrote it. Policies differ by journal, and substantial overlap may require disclosure, citation, or editorial approval.

How to avoid this mistake

Cite the sources of borrowed ideas and arguments. Use quotation marks and page references for direct quotations where appropriate. Paraphrase through genuine understanding rather than superficial word substitution. Identify and disclose relevant overlap with previous publications. Check permissions for copyrighted figures, images, tables, and other material. Follow the journal's policies on preprints, theses, conference papers, and related manuscripts.

Similarity-checking software can help identify overlapping text, but a similarity percentage alone does not establish whether plagiarism has occurred. The context, source, attribution, and nature of the overlap matter.

11. Failing to Address Research Ethics and Required Approvals

Ethical requirements vary according to the discipline, study design, jurisdiction, and journal policy. Nevertheless, authors must ensure that all applicable approvals, permissions, consent procedures, and disclosures are in place before submission.

For research involving human participants, sensitive personal data, animals, or clinical interventions, specific ethical and regulatory requirements may apply. Humanities researchers may also need to consider copyright, archival permissions, interview consent, privacy, and the ethical use of personal or community records.

How to avoid this mistake

Confirm whether your research requires institutional ethics committee approval or an applicable exemption, informed consent or other participant permissions, clinical trial registration where applicable, animal research approval where applicable, permissions for copyrighted material, data protection measures and confidentiality safeguards, and funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures.

Do not claim that ethical approval was obtained if it was not. If an exemption applies, describe it accurately and follow the journal's instructions.

12. Ignoring Authorship and Contribution Disputes

Authorship should reflect genuine scholarly contributions and comply with the relevant journal's authorship criteria. Problems arise when a contributor is omitted, an individual is included without qualifying contributions, or the author order is disputed shortly before submission. Gift authorship, guest authorship, and ghost authorship can undermine trust in the research process.

How to avoid this mistake

Before submission, discuss authorship with all contributors. Confirm who qualifies for authorship under the applicable criteria, the order of authors where relevant, each author's contribution, who will serve as corresponding author, whether all authors have approved the final manuscript, and whether acknowledgements accurately recognise other contributions.

Some journals require a formal contributor statement using a taxonomy such as CRediT. Follow the journal's specific requirements. Authorship changes after submission may require explanation and written approval from all affected authors.

13. Making Unsupported Claims or Overstating Findings

Research papers sometimes present conclusions that go beyond what the data, sources, or analytical approach can support. Examples include treating a correlation as proof of causation, generalising findings from a narrow sample to an entire population, or presenting one interpretation of a literary text as the only possible reading.

Overstatement can weaken the manuscript's credibility and may prompt reviewers to question the author's interpretation of the evidence.

How to avoid this mistake

Review each major claim and ask: what evidence supports this statement? Does the research design justify the conclusion? Have alternative explanations been considered? Are limitations acknowledged? Is the language appropriately cautious?

Use expressions such as "the findings suggest" or "the analysis indicates" when they accurately reflect the strength of the evidence. Avoid weakening well-supported conclusions unnecessarily, but ensure that the wording remains defensible.

14. Submitting Without Checking Tables, Figures, and Supplementary Files

Tables, figures, appendices, datasets, and supplementary documents often provide essential information. Missing files or inconsistent numbering can complicate editorial assessment.

Common problems include unreadable figures, missing captions, inconsistent labels, incorrect cross-references, and supplementary files that do not match the manuscript.

How to avoid this mistake

Check that every table and figure is mentioned in the text where required, numbering follows the journal's conventions, captions and legends explain the content clearly, figures meet resolution and file-format requirements, permissions are available for reused material, supplementary files are correctly labelled and uploaded, and data availability statements and repository links work where applicable.

Also verify whether tables and figures should appear within the manuscript or be uploaded as separate files.

15. Ignoring Data Availability and Reproducibility Requirements

Many journals expect authors to explain whether research data, code, materials, or supporting documents are available. Requirements vary widely across disciplines and study types. A manuscript may be delayed if it lacks a required data availability statement or fails to provide a working repository link. However, data sharing must also respect confidentiality, consent, intellectual property, and legal restrictions.

How to avoid this mistake

Review the journal's data policy before submission. Where applicable, deposit data or code in an appropriate repository, provide a persistent identifier or functioning link, include a data availability statement, explain legitimate restrictions on access, and ensure that shared materials match the analyses reported in the manuscript. Do not claim that data are publicly available unless the stated access arrangement is accurate.

16. Submitting Without a Professional Cover Letter

Some journals require a cover letter, while others make it optional or request relevant information through the submission system. When required, the cover letter should briefly identify the manuscript, explain its relevance to the journal, and include any declarations requested by the editor.

A generic letter that merely repeats the title and says the paper is important does little to explain why the manuscript belongs in that journal.

How to avoid this mistake

Prepare a concise, journal-specific cover letter that states the manuscript title and article type, summarises the central contribution, explains the fit with the journal's scope, includes required declarations, and uses a professional tone without exaggerating the paper's importance. Ensure that the letter does not contradict the manuscript or the information entered in the submission system.

17. Choosing a Journal Based on Misleading Metrics or Indexing Claims

Researchers may be tempted by journals that promise rapid acceptance, unusually high impact, or indexing in well-known databases. Some questionable publishers use misleading claims to attract submissions. A journal's legitimacy should not be assessed using a single metric or logo.

How to avoid this mistake

Verify indexing directly through the relevant database's official source. Examine the publisher, editorial board, peer-review policy, publication fees, correction and retraction procedures, and previously published articles. Check whether claimed metrics are current and issued by a recognised source. Be cautious of unsolicited invitations that promise guaranteed acceptance or peer review within implausibly short periods. The aim is to choose a reputable journal that serves the intended scholarly community and handles manuscripts transparently.

18. Overlooking Publication Fees and Copyright Terms

Publication costs can affect a researcher's budget, institutional arrangements, and choice of journal. Some journals charge article processing charges for open-access publication, while others use subscription models or offer optional open-access arrangements. Authors may also need to consider copyright transfer, publishing licences, self-archiving policies, and institutional or funder requirements.

How to avoid this mistake

Before submission, confirm whether submission or publication fees apply, whether open access is optional or required, whether waivers or discounts are available, what licence or copyright agreement applies, whether the journal's archiving policy meets institutional requirements, and whether the manuscript complies with relevant funder mandates. Do not assume that every open-access journal charges a fee or that every subscription journal is free for authors. Check the journal's current terms.

19. Submitting to Multiple Journals Simultaneously Without Permission

Most scholarly journals require that a manuscript not be under consideration by another journal at the same time. Simultaneous submission can violate publication policies and create serious editorial problems. This is different from submitting a manuscript to a journal after formally withdrawing it from another publication, subject to the first journal's withdrawal process.

How to avoid this mistake

Read the journal's exclusive-submission policy and confirm that the manuscript is not under review elsewhere if such exclusivity is required. If you decide to withdraw a manuscript, follow the journal's formal procedure and obtain confirmation of withdrawal before submitting it elsewhere when required by the applicable policy. Do not assume that a long period without an editorial update means the manuscript has been withdrawn or is free to submit elsewhere.

20. Failing to Check the Submission Portal Before Finalising

Even a carefully prepared manuscript can encounter problems if the online submission form contains inconsistent information or required files are missing. Examples include entering an incomplete title, omitting a co-author, selecting the wrong article type, uploading an outdated manuscript, or failing to complete mandatory declarations.

How to avoid this mistake

Before clicking the final submission button, verify the title and abstract in the portal, check the author names, affiliations, and order, confirm the corresponding author's contact details, select the correct article category, upload the required manuscript and supplementary files, complete declarations accurately, review the generated submission PDF if provided, and save the manuscript ID and confirmation email. The submitted files should match the final version approved by all authors. For help with writing the full manuscript, see AD Publications' guide on writing a complete research paper.

Research Paper Submission Mistakes: Quick Comparison

A Practical Pre-Submission Checklist for Research Scholars

A final checklist helps convert the recommendations above into an actionable workflow. Review the manuscript in stages rather than attempting to verify everything at once.

Research quality

• The research problem and objectives are clearly defined.
• The literature review establishes the relevant scholarly context and research gap.
• The methodology or analytical approach is justified and adequately described.
• The findings, interpretation, and conclusions are consistent with the evidence.
• The limitations are acknowledged where appropriate.

Writing and presentation

• The abstract accurately reflects the final manuscript.
• The paper has a logical structure and clear academic language.
• All tables, figures, captions, and supplementary files are complete.
• Citations and reference entries are accurate and consistent.
• The manuscript has been proofread for grammar, spelling, and repetition.

Ethics and integrity

• Originality, attribution, and overlap with earlier work have been checked.
• Required ethical approvals, consent, and permissions are documented.
• Authorship, contributions, and author order have been confirmed.
• Funding, conflicts of interest, and data availability are disclosed where required.

Journal and submission requirements

• The journal is legitimate and suitable for the manuscript.
• The current author guidelines and formatting requirements have been followed.
• Publication fees, access options, and relevant licence terms have been reviewed.
• The cover letter and declarations are accurate, where required.
• All portal details and uploaded files match the final manuscript.

How Research Scholars Can Build a More Effective Submission Workflow

Avoiding submission mistakes becomes easier when researchers establish a consistent process for preparing manuscripts. Rather than waiting until the final day, use separate review stages.

First, conduct a content review. Evaluate the research question, literature review, methods, evidence, discussion, and conclusions.

Second, perform a technical review. Check formatting, citations, references, figures, supplementary files, and journal-specific requirements.

Third, conduct an integrity review. Verify attribution, authorship, permissions, ethical approvals, disclosures, and any overlap with earlier work.

Finally, complete a submission review. Confirm the journal's legitimacy, prepare the cover letter if needed, inspect the online submission details, and ensure that all files are correct.

For collaborative research, assign responsibility for these checks. One author may verify references, another may review figures, and the corresponding author may coordinate the submission documents. However, delegation does not remove the authors' collective responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the paper.

Researchers should also maintain a record of the final manuscript version, submission date, manuscript identification number, and correspondence with the editorial office.

Continue Exploring Our Blog

We invite you to read more insightful articles from our blog to support your academic journey in English Literature, Cultural Studies, and Research Methodology:

• How to Write a Journal Submission Cover Letter for an English Literature Research Paper
  Learn how to prepare a professional cover letter that supports a successful manuscript submission.
• Where to Publish PhD Research in English Literature: A Complete Guide for Scholars
  Discover comprehensive guidance on selecting the right journals and publication venues for doctoral research.
• How to Formulate a Research Proposal in English Literature
  Learn how to develop strong research proposals that impress thesis committees and set the foundation for successful publication.
• How to Respond to Peer Review Comments: A Guide for Research Scholars
  Discover strategies for preparing point-by-point response letters and handling reviewer feedback professionally.