As an Editor-in-Chief of two earth science journals over the past three decades, several thousand submissions have crossed my desk. I am still surprised and dismayed that so many authors set themselves up for rejection from editors simply because they fail to follow what I will call “publishing rules”.

Leading journals typically reject the majority of submissions they receive (the best journals reject as many as 90+% of their submissions); thus, the competition for journal space is severe and authors cannot afford to ignore basic rules.

1. Purpose

As a service to aspiring authors, especially those with limited publishing experience, I respectfully submit this set of “dos” and “don’ts” to increase the odds they will receive a favorable decision. My list reflects an editor’s perspective and these recommendations are based on my experience over the past five years as Editor-in-Chief of a journal that receives about 4500 submissions per year, as well as a record of having published over 400 peer-reviewed journal papers. With my ‘editorial hat on’, I can generally reach a decision on a submission’s acceptability following an initial brief appraisal based on a handful of criteria (see below). About 70–85% of them will not survive external review, which thus accounts for my journal’s high desk-rejection rate.

I preface my guidelines by pointing out that a good Editor-in-Chief serves two “clients”. Their primary client is the journal’s publisher, but an important secondary client is the authors themselves. While ensuring that a journal publishes high-quality science, editors also provide advice to aspiring authors.

2. Criteria An Editor Uses to Evaluate Manuscripts

So, what criteria do I use to make the ‘do-or-die’ decision to either desk-reject a paper or to send it out for external review? Here are the criteria, based on a series of questions, that I and many of my colleagues use to make this fundamental decision:

2.1. Does the Science Appear to be Sound?

First and foremost, I ask myself: Does the science appear to be sound? Of course, there is not an editor on Earth who can evaluate the full range of science published in a journal; thus, I have to be cautious. When in doubt, I defer to a pool of Associate Editors or other colleagues. However, I do this only when I find that the following questions are satisfactorily addressed.

2.2. Is the Submitted Paper within the Scope of the Journal?

Second, I ask myself: Is the submitted paper within the scope of my journal? Are there more appropriate journals than my journal for the paper? I continue to be amazed at how many papers are submitted to a journal that is not the best choice; many of these submissions are not even in my journal’s remit. If I find that authors have missed their targeted audience, I reject their submission, although I generally recommend more appropriate journals in my decision letter. Of course, such decisions might involve judgment calls, as many papers are at the perimeter of a specific journal’s scope. However, top-tier journals typically have limited capacity, even in the electronic world in which we now live, and thus are forced to triage submissions according to topic. With an average of 13 incoming submissions per day in the case of my journal, I have to make some hard decisions about their suitability.

With these comments in mind, authors should very carefully review the on-line scopes of journals that they are considering for submission in order to ensure that they choose the most appropriate one.

2.3. Does the Paper Advance Science?

The next question I ask myself is: Does the paper advance science? Or put differently, does it have some novelty? If the answer is yes, the paper will likely interest my journal’s readers and will thus be seen to be relevant and more likely to be cited by peers. If the answer to either of these questions is no, authors should choose a lower-tier journal that does not penalize what might be labelled a “case study” of limited interest to readers. Bear in mind that journals “live and die” on citation metrics, for example, CiteScores. Of course, scholars favor submitting their best work to journals with high citation metrics, but they also have to be realistic about the quality and potential impact of their work.

To deal with this issue, authors should always explain their submission’s contribution to science in the Introduction and Discussion sections of their paper. It is in those sections they can answer the question: “Why should you, the reader, care about my paper?”

2.4. Is the Paper Well-Prepared?

The fourth set of questions I ask of myself include the following: Is the writing clear? Has the manuscript been critiqued by all co-authors? And has it also been reviewed by colleagues who can provide advice on the structure and clarity of the writing? This is not solely an issue for non-native English speakers; it applies to all authors, including native English speakers. Related to this, there is no excuse for failing to perform a spell check prior to submission. I am stunned by the number of submissions to my journal that are poorly structured and grammatically flawed. It may be a bias on my part, but a carelessly prepared paper is also likely to be scientifically flawed.

Here are many suggestions for authors to follow to prevent an editor from “hitting the reject button” on the basis of flawed writing:

• Rigorously follow the journal’s submission guidelines to ensure that the paper is properly formatted.
• If you are an inexperienced author, structure your manuscript using traditional section headings (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Conclusion, References).
• Prior to submission, have your paper carefully reviewed by your co-authors and by trusted colleagues who have not been involved in the study.
• Review the draft paper several times yourself, allowing yourself adequate time (days or weeks) between reviews.
• Use spell check and AI to polish the English, but remember that using AI to write a paper is a breach of scientific ethics.

2.5. Is the Introduction Appropriate for a Scientific Paper?

My fifth question: Is the Introduction appropriate for a scientific paper? The Introduction is not an appropriate place for a literature review. Literature reviews are suitable in theses and reports, but typically not in scientific papers. The appropriate literature can be cited in the Introduction to provide context for the topic of the paper and is clearly required in a Discussion before the Conclusions. An

Introduction provides the reader with an understanding of the core questions or the problem that the paper is addressing and how the paper advances science.

2.6. Is There a Discussion Section After the Results?

My sixth set of evaluation questions: Is there a Discussion section after the Results? Are the results and the discussion separated? The lack of a stand-alone Discussion section indicates to me that the paper is likely a case study with limited generality and a small pool of interested readers. The mixing of results and discussion is a scientific ‘no-no’. The results and discussion should be clearly separated because the former presumably can be replicated by other scientists, whereas the latter is more subjective and typically presents the authors’ view of the broader implications of their work. I still am amazed that authors fail to understand this difference by including sections titled ‘Results and Discussion’.

2.7. Are The References Cited in the Paper Appropriate?

A final question that I ask when evaluating a manuscript relates to the references cited in the paper: Is the pertinent literature, including papers and sources published in the past several years, cited? If not, I will wonder if the authors are up to date on the topic of their paper. I also search for evidence of over-citation of the authors’ own work.

3. Final Tips

Here are some final tips for prospective authors:

• Include line numbers on journal submissions and double-space the manuscripts.
• Minimize the use of acronyms and avoid them completely in article titles.
• Ensure that the font size of all words in figures is large enough to be legible to a reader. Scale the font size of the print to the size of the figure.
• Respect stated journal length limits. If in doubt, ask the editor whether a manuscript that is longer than the journal’s maximum length is acceptable for your submission.
• Do not include the study area in a heading under the title ‘Methods and Study Area”. The two are very different.

Biography

John Clague is Emeritus Professor at Simon Fraser University. He was a Research Scientist with the Geological Survey of Canada from 1975 until 1998, prior to accepting an appointment as Canada Research Chair at Simon Fraser University, a position he held until 2016. Clague is a leading authority in environmental earth sciences, natural hazards, and climate change. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and an Officer of the Order of Canada. He has served as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Natural Hazards since 2021, and before that he was Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences.