A journal submission checklist has four parts: manuscript files, author details, declarations, and approvals. Most items can be produced in an afternoon. Three usually cannot — ethics committee approval, prospective trial registration and patient consent — because each records a step that had to be taken at the time, not at submission. Check those three first.
That last point is the one that decides your timetable. A submission is not a form but a list of documents, some reaching months back into the study. The inventory below marks each item by when it can be obtained.
What a journal submission checklist covers
A journal submission checklist is a list of every file, field and document a journal requires before it will send a manuscript into peer review. It is not a reporting checklist such as CONSORT or PRISMA: those govern what belongs inside the paper, while a submission checklist governs the package around it.
The inventory has four groups:
- Manuscript files — the text, figures, tables and supporting documents you attach.
- Author details — who wrote it, where, and how they are identified.
- Declarations — short statements about funding, interests, data and AI tools.
- Approvals and registrations — documents issued by somebody else, usually before the study began.
Only the fourth group carries risk. Each table marks an item Produce now or Must already exist.
The pre-submission inventory: manuscript files
| Item | Why it is asked for | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Main manuscript file: title, abstract, IMRaD text, references | Reviewed, then typeset if accepted | Produce now |
| Separate title page: names, affiliations, corresponding author | Keeps identity out of the reviewed file | Produce now |
| Figures as separate files at publication resolution | Images pasted into a text file are downsampled and cannot be typeset at full quality | Produce now |
| Tables as editable text, not screenshots | Re-flowed into the layout; readable by screen readers | Produce now |
| Reporting checklist matched to the study design | Shows a reviewer where each element appears | Produce now |
| Supplementary files, named and cited in the text | Supports the paper without belonging inside it | Produce now |
| Cover letter | Says what the study adds; confirms no parallel submission | Produce now |
| References in one consistent style | Carried into the typeset article and the JATS XML, so errors persist | Produce now |
The target journal's guidelines settle word limits, file formats and reference style. Packaging the extra files is covered in preparing supplementary materials.
The pre-submission inventory: author details
| Item | Why it is asked for | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Every author's name as it should appear permanently | Deposited to Crossref with the DOI | Produce now |
| Affiliation held when the work was done | Records where the research happened | Produce now |
| ORCID iD for each author | Separates you from researchers with the same surname | Produce now — takes minutes |
| Corresponding author email still valid in two years | Proofs and reader contact route through it | Produce now |
| Contribution statement, commonly using CRediT roles | The evidence base if authorship is later disputed | Produce now — needs every co-author's agreement |
| Confirmation that all authors approved this version | An ICMJE authorship condition | Produce now — depends on co-authors replying |
The last two rows wait on other people and cannot begin until the manuscript is stable. Start them a week early.
The pre-submission inventory: declarations you write yourself
| Item | Why it is asked for | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Conflict of interest statement covering every author | Readers weigh findings differently when an interest exists | Produce now |
| Funding statement with funder name and grant number | Funders audit outputs; the number travels with the record | Produce now — look the number up early |
| Data availability statement | Says where the data are and on what terms | Produce now — a repository deposit takes days |
| Disclosure of generative AI use in writing or analysis | AI tools cannot take responsibility for the work | Produce now |
| Statement that the work is not published or under review elsewhere | Prevents duplicate publication | Produce now |
| Acknowledgements naming individuals | Being named implies endorsement | Produce now — ask their permission first |
The pre-submission inventory: approvals and registrations
| Item | Why it is asked for | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Ethics committee or IRB approval letter, with number and date | Evidence of independent review before the study began | Must already exist |
| Written informed consent from participants | Cannot be recreated once the study closes | Must already exist |
| Patient consent to publish a case report or identifiable image | Consent to publication, not to treatment | Must already exist where the patient is identifiable |
| Trial registration number and registration date | Registration must be made at or before first enrolment, which the date proves | Must already exist |
| Permission to access records retrospectively | Chart studies need a documented right of access | Must already exist |
| Data-sharing or material-transfer agreement | Governs what may be published about data you did not collect | Must already exist |
| Permission to reproduce a previously published figure | Reuse needs the rights holder's licence | Produce now — allow several weeks |
Three documents fix a date you cannot change later
Every row marked Must already exist proves that something happened at a particular time, so it cannot be created afterwards. Three depend on a date already recorded by a committee, a registry or a patient's signature.
Ethics approval must be dated before data collection starts
Ethics approval is a decision issued by a research ethics committee or institutional review board before data collection starts. The WMA Declaration of Helsinki makes prior review a condition of research on human participants, and journals ask for the committee name, reference number and date. A committee can confirm retrospectively that review was not required — for a service evaluation or audit — and that determination is a legitimate document. No committee will issue an approval dated before you asked for it. More is in ethics approval and informed consent.
Trial registration must predate the first enrolled participant
Prospective trial registration means the trial record was created in a public registry at or before the enrolment of the first participant. The ICMJE treats registration in a WHO ICTRP primary registry, or ClinicalTrials.gov, as a condition of considering a trial for publication. Registries publish the date each record was created, so the sequence is visible to an editor. Registering after enrolment makes the registration retrospective, which some journals will not consider at all and others accept only when it is declared as such.
Consent to publish must be taken while the patient can be reached
Consent to publish is separate from consent to treatment. It covers a specific manuscript, including the images and clinical detail in it, and the patient should be able to see what will be published. Missing consent is hard to repair: by submission the patient may have been discharged, moved or died. Where a patient cannot be traced, some material can be published with identifying detail removed and some cannot; the editor decides.
How submission works at Directive Publications
Manuscripts reach the editorial office by email, not through a portal, so no software validates your package. If an item is missing, nothing in the process catches it for you — completeness is the corresponding author's responsibility.
- Submission is free. An article publishing charge applies only if the manuscript is formally accepted after peer review. If it is rejected, nothing is owed.
- Peer review here is double-blind, so a separate title page is the simplest way to keep author identity out of the reviewed file.
- Our author guidelines ask you to match the manuscript to the relevant EQUATOR reporting checklist. They do not ask which one you used — name it in the cover letter anyway.
- A fee waiver is requested at or before submission, and is handled administratively, separately from editorial evaluation.
What to do when an item does not exist
Say so in the cover letter, in one sentence, with the reason. A declared gap is an editorial question. A gap glossed over becomes an integrity question, handled under COPE guidance rather than ordinary review. Two model sentences to adapt — the dates are illustrative, replace them with your own:
This was a retrospective service evaluation. The Institutional Ethics Committee confirmed on 14 March 2025 that formal review was not required; the confirmation is attached.
The trial was registered on 2 June 2024, after the first participant was enrolled on 11 April 2024. This is a retrospective registration and is declared as such in the Methods.
Neither guarantees an outcome. Both let an editor assess the study rather than the omission.
A final pass before you send
- Open every attachment from your sent folder and confirm it is the version you meant.
- Search the manuscript file for author names, institution logos and metadata that identify you.
- Check the declarations in the manuscript against the cover letter; they must agree.
- Confirm every approval you cite by number is attached, not only mentioned.
- Send the package to yourself and read it as the editorial office will.
Read the author guidelines before assembling anything, and the submission page for where the package goes. Two related posts cover parts this one only lists: how to write a cover letter to the editor, where missing-item explanations belong, and the corresponding author's responsibilities, the role that carries it onward.