Tips for accelerating the publication
of your manuscript

A researcher spends, on average, around 100 hours preparing a manuscript for publication. For non-native English speakers, that figure climbs to 200 hours. That's before the journal has even looked at it. Then comes peer review, revision, and — if you're unlucky — rejection and resubmission somewhere else.

The total elapsed time from finished experiments to published paper can easily stretch to one or two years. Some of that is unavoidable. A lot of it isn't.

• 01
  Plan for publication from the start

  When designing experiments, keep the end goal in mind. Data collected with a clear publication structure in mind requires fewer follow-up experiments, fewer reformatting passes, and less time spent reconstructing the narrative after the fact.
• 02
  Start writing before your data is complete

  The introduction and literature context can be drafted while experiments are still running. Writing while the ideas are fresh reduces the time spent reconstructing your reasoning months later — and often improves the quality of the framing.
• 03
  Prepare your figures and tables first

  Building the visual data story before drafting the text forces clarity about what you're actually arguing. It also reduces redundancy — you won't repeat in prose what a table already shows.
• 04
  Choose your target journal before you write

  Journal selection is a research task, not an afterthought. The scope, article type, word limits, and formatting requirements of your target journal should shape the manuscript from the first draft. Reformatting a finished paper is one of the most time-consuming avoidable delays in academic publishing.
• 05
  Read the author guidelines — then read them again

  Technical non-compliance is an instant rejection trigger at most journals. Word count, reference style, figure formats, required sections — these are checked before any editor reads your science. Non-compliance signals carelessness and wastes everyone's time.
• 06
  Write clearly — your editor is not your decoder

  Unclear writing doesn't just slow down peer review; it can cause desk rejection. Editors screening hundreds of submissions won't spend time deciphering a poorly written abstract. Ask a colleague outside your subfield to read yours and explain back what they understood.
• 07
  Consider a pre-submission inquiry

  Many journals accept a brief letter before full submission to gauge editorial interest. This takes a few days and can save weeks — if the editor indicates the paper is out of scope, you can redirect immediately rather than waiting through a full review cycle.
• 08
  Write a strong cover letter

  The cover letter is read before the manuscript. A well-written cover letter that clearly states the novelty and significance of your work, and makes an explicit case for why it belongs in this journal, can be the difference between desk rejection and peer review.
• 09
  Follow up if you haven't heard in 6 weeks

  Submission systems lose manuscripts. Editors miss emails. If you've submitted and heard nothing for more than six weeks, a polite status inquiry is appropriate and professional. Don't wait indefinitely when a brief message could get things moving.
• 10
  Respond to reviewers specifically and completely

  A vague or incomplete response to reviewer comments will trigger another round of review — sometimes with the same reviewers, sometimes with new ones. Address every point directly. Quote the reviewer, state what you changed, and explain why. A thorough first response saves weeks of back-and-forth.

The theme running through all ten of these is the same: most publication delays are caused by decisions made before submission, not after. Choose the right journal, write clearly, follow the guidelines, make your case in the cover letter — and the time from submission to decision gets shorter. The time from decision to acceptance gets shorter too, because the reviewers aren't spending their energy on questions you could have pre-empted.