How to submit

The first stage involves an initial check when the manuscript is examined to make sure it is readable, formatted properly and that the necessary declarations have been made.  

For example, we check that: 

• all declarations are present for ethics or competing interests
• all the authors have been identified

We need to make sure all the required data is present to support the onward processes.

We use AI technology to check for plagiarism and we may reject a manuscript on this basis - even if it's unintentional. 

If you're using a well-known method or reproducing parts of data from elsewhere, you must be transparent and state this in your manuscript.

During this process, we might ask you to clarify or amend your manuscript.

Read our Common issues section to see how you can avoid any unnecessary delays.

If you see this status, your submission has passed the technical check, and the editorial team is selecting an editor. This involves finding an editor with expertise in your manuscript's subject matter to oversee the peer review process. The editor’s responsibilities across the process include choosing the right reviewers, assessing their feedback, and deciding whether your manuscript is accepted, rejected, or needs a revision.

Depending on the journal, several factors may affect turnaround times for assigning an editor, such as:

• journal process journals differ in how they handle submissions, affecting how quickly an editor is assigned
• matching expertise finding the appropriate editor may take longer if the manuscript's topic is niche
• editor workload finding an editor available to review your work can take time
• journal policies some journals have specific policies affecting editor assignments, such as finding a diverse range of editors from different geographical locations, or ensuring there are no conflicts of interest

Your manuscript is with the editor, who will assess its suitability for the journal. At this stage, they may request revisions before making a decision or selecting reviewers for peer review. You can usually find the average time from submission to the first decision on the journal homepage. However, remember, it can vary due to different factors, like searching for the right reviewers.

Peer reviewing is a critical process in academic publishing where experts and peers review the validity and quality of your manuscript. Reviewers assess the technical soundness and scientific validity of your methods, analysis, and interpretation, all of which must be appropriate, properly conducted, ethically robust, and fully supported by the data.

• Reviewer(s) invited After an initial screening process, the editor searches for peer reviewers. Reviewers invited means the editor has sent the first invitations. Finding peer reviewers can sometimes take time due to conflicts of interest, difficulty finding experts on the topic, busy schedules, or the reviewer receiving a high volume of invitations.
• Reviewer(s) accepted When peer reviewers accept the invitation to review your submission, they’ll then start working on a report and providing comments.
• Reviewer report(s) received At this stage, the first reviewer(s) have submitted their report. If the editor considers a review report to be insufficient quality, they will need additional time to invite and secure new reviewers. Sometimes the reviewer comments may be conflicting, or the editor may decide they need further advice, so more reviewers may be consulted before making a decision. This may involve asking you to make some revisions. 
• Revision requested Around 97% of accepted submissions require at least one revision. After reviewing the peer reviewer comments and reports, the editor may request revisions if they think more work is needed or if the reviewer comments indicate necessary changes. When submitting a revision, you must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments. The revision will then go through another round of technical checks. 
• Revision received After the revision passes technical checks, the editor evaluates whether it addresses the reviewer's concerns and meets the journal's standards. The editor may consult with the original reviewers or seek additional opinions before making a decision. Delays can occur due to the complexity of the revision or the editor or reviewer's availability. The editor will decide whether to accept, reject, or request another round of peer review for the manuscript.
• Multiple rounds of peer review Multiple rounds of peer review are common, particularly for complex manuscripts, and usually indicate progress. Future rounds are as important as the first. For each round, the process is repeated, including inviting reviewers and waiting for their acceptance. The manuscript must also go through a new technical check each time and may need revisions. This can all add time to the process.

The editorial team will then consider the comments of the peer reviewers and re-assess any manuscript revisions. If they are satisfied that the manuscript is now suitable for publication, they will officially accept it and let you know.

If you are unsuccessful at your chosen journal, our Transfer Desk team will be in touch upon rejection to make some recommendations for other Springer Nature titles you might wish to transfer your manuscript to. There is more information about this service on the Transfer Desk webpages.

Once your article is accepted you'll sign a publishing agreement. 

For open access articles, you may need to pay the article processing charge (APC) - but only if you're not already covered by one of Springer Nature's open access agreements, or another source of funding. 

Read more about open access funding and support

After the agreement has been signed, you'll be sent the article proofs to approve and then, it's straight to our publication system. 

We'll notify you when your article is live and send you a link. You'll be able to track how many times it's been accessed by readers by logging into your Springer Nature account.