How Many Journals Should You Submit To?

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-27

Quick Answer

• Submit to a small queue of two to four journals at a time, ordered by fit and prestige, instead of one journal or a mass submission.
• Match your queue size to your career deadline, the journal's expected review time, and the rejection rate you can absorb before your target date.
• Never submit the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously, as this violates publication ethics and wastes reviewer effort.

Understanding the Journal Submission Queue

The question of how many journals to submit to is a practical logistics problem that every researcher faces. The answer depends on a calculation that balances your time constraints, the quality of your work, and the ethical boundaries of academic publishing. A submission queue is the sequence of journals you plan to send your manuscript to, one after another, until it is accepted.

The core principle is that you should submit to one journal at a time, but you should have a planned queue of several journals prepared in advance. This approach prevents the common failure of waiting months for a rejection when you could have already been under review at the next journal. The optimal queue size typically falls between two and four journals, though this number shifts based on your specific circumstances.

Your personal deadline is the most important factor. If you need a publication for an upcoming grant application, a job interview, or a degree requirement, you must work backward from that date. Consider the average time from submission to first decision at your target journals, then add time for revisions and final acceptance. This calculation tells you how many submission cycles you can afford before your deadline arrives.

Core Principles of Journal Selection

Fit Before Prestige

The most common mistake researchers make is choosing journals based solely on impact factor or name recognition. A prestigious journal that rejects your manuscript after three months has cost you time you cannot recover. A more modest journal that publishes work in your exact niche may accept your paper faster and reach the audience who will actually cite it.

Journal fit means the paper's topic, methods, and scope align with what the journal regularly publishes. Read the journal's aims and scope statement carefully. Look at recent issues and ask whether your manuscript resembles the articles they publish. Check whether the journal has published work using your methodology or studying your subject population. If you cannot find similar articles in the last two years, the journal may not be a good fit regardless of its reputation.

Review Time as a Planning Variable

Different journals have very different review timelines. Some fields have journals that return first decisions in four to six weeks, while others routinely take four to six months. This information is often available from the journal's website, from published articles that list submission and acceptance dates, or from colleagues who have published there recently.

When you build your queue, list each candidate journal with its estimated review time. Multiply that time by the number of submission rounds you expect to need. A journal with a six month review time and a high rejection rate may consume a full year of your timeline before you move to the next option. A faster journal with a moderate rejection rate might give you two or three chances in the same period.

Rejection Rates and Your Odds

Rejection rates vary widely across journals and fields. Top tier journals in competitive disciplines may reject 85 to 95 percent of submissions. Mid tier journals often accept 15 to 30 percent of submissions. These numbers are not always published, but you can estimate them from editorial board members, published acceptance statistics, or the journal's own reports.

Your queue size should reflect the probability that any single journal will accept your work. If you are aiming at a journal with a 10 percent acceptance rate, you need more backup options than if you are targeting a journal that accepts 30 percent of submissions. However, the backup options must be realistic alternatives, beyond any journal that will take your paper.

Building Your Submission Queue

Step One: Create a Long List

Start with a broad list of 10 to 20 journals that could plausibly publish your work. Use journal finder tools, citation databases, and the reference lists of papers you have read. Ask your coauthors and mentors for suggestions based on their experience. Include journals from adjacent fields that might appreciate your contribution even if it is not their primary focus.

For each journal on your long list, record the following information in a spreadsheet or table:

• Journal name and publisher
• Scope and fit assessment
• Estimated review time to first decision
• Estimated acceptance rate
• Open access requirements or fees
• Whether the journal is indexed in the databases that matter for your field
• Any special instructions or formatting requirements

Step Two: Rank by Fit and Practicality

Rank your long list by fit first, then by practical considerations. A journal with perfect fit but a two year backlog may be less useful than a journal with good fit and a six month turnaround. Consider whether the journal charges submission fees, whether it offers open access options that your funder requires, and whether it has a reputation for fair and constructive review.

Your top ranked journal should be the one where your work has the best chance of reaching the right readers and where you would be genuinely satisfied to publish. The second and third choices should be journals where you would still be happy to publish, even if they are not your first preference. The fourth choice might be a journal you would accept only if your deadline is approaching and you need a publication quickly.

Step Three: Prepare All Versions in Advance

A common mistake is waiting for a rejection before preparing the manuscript for the next journal. This wastes weeks or months. Instead, prepare your manuscript for the first journal in your queue, submit it, and then immediately begin adapting the manuscript for the second journal while you wait for the first decision.

Most journals have specific formatting requirements for references, figures, and supplementary materials. These adaptations are mechanical and do not require new intellectual work. By preparing the next version in advance, you can submit within days of a rejection instead of weeks. This practice keeps your queue moving and protects your timeline.

The Ethics of Sequential Submission

One Journal at a Time

The ethical rule is clear: you may submit a manuscript to only one journal at a time. Simultaneous submission to multiple journals is considered misconduct because it wastes the time of editors and peer reviewers who are volunteering their expertise. It also creates the risk of duplicate publication if two journals accept the same manuscript.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the standards that journals and researchers are expected to follow. These practices cover the responsibilities of authors, including honest and complete reporting of research. Submitting the same work to multiple journals at once violates the expectation that authors will not attempt to publish the same research in more than one place.

Withdrawal and Transfer

If you receive a rejection, you are free to submit to the next journal in your queue immediately. If your manuscript is under review and you decide to withdraw it, you must notify the editor in writing before submitting elsewhere. Withdrawing a manuscript after it has entered peer review is disruptive and should be done only for compelling reasons, such as discovering a fatal flaw in the work or receiving a better offer from a journal you prefer.

Some journals offer transfer programs where a rejected manuscript can be redirected to another journal in the same publisher's portfolio. These transfers can save time because the reviews may travel with the manuscript. However, you are not obligated to accept a transfer, and you should evaluate the receiving journal on its own merits before agreeing.

At a Glance

Journal Selection Criteria

Scope and Audience

The journal's scope statement tells you what the editors want to publish. Read it carefully and compare it to your manuscript. If the journal says it publishes clinical research and your paper is a basic science study, the fit is poor regardless of how interesting your findings are. If the journal emphasizes translational impact and your work is purely theoretical, you will face an uphill battle.

The audience matters for your career as much as for the paper itself. Publishing in a journal that your target readers actually follow means your work will be seen by the people who matter for citations, collaborations, and job opportunities. A journal with a lower impact factor but a highly engaged readership in your niche may serve you better than a general journal with a higher impact factor but less relevant audience.

Indexing and Visibility

Check whether the journal is indexed in the major databases for your field, such as PubMed, Web of Science, or Scopus. Indexing affects how easily other researchers can find your work. It also affects how your institution and funders evaluate the publication. The National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources provide guidance on finding and evaluating biomedical literature, which includes understanding how indexing works.

For biomedical research, consider whether the journal is indexed in MEDLINE and whether it follows the reporting guidelines relevant to your study type. The EQUATOR Network maintains a comprehensive database of reporting guidelines that journals expect authors to follow. Using the appropriate guideline for your study design improves your manuscript's quality and reduces the chance of rejection for methodological reporting problems.

Open Access and Fees

Open access requirements vary by funder and institution. The NIH Grants and Funding pages describe the expectations for NIH funded research, including public access requirements. If your work is funded by NIH, you must ensure that your publication is deposited in PubMed Central according to the policy. Some journals handle this automatically, while others require you to take action.

The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy adds another layer of planning. Your data management plan must describe how and where your data will be shared. Some journals require data availability statements, and some require data deposition in specific repositories. Factor these requirements into your journal selection so you do not discover a compliance problem after acceptance.

Review Quality and Speed

A journal that returns thoughtful, constructive reviews is more valuable than one that returns quick but superficial decisions. Good reviews improve your manuscript even when they result in rejection. Poor reviews waste your time and provide no benefit. Ask colleagues about their experiences with specific journals. Look at whether published articles acknowledge reviewers, which some journals do.

Review speed matters for your timeline. Some journals advertise their average time to first decision. Others do not publish this information, but you can estimate it from the submission and acceptance dates listed on published articles. Be realistic about these estimates. A journal that says it averages 30 days to first decision may take longer for your manuscript if the editor struggles to find reviewers.

Practical Implementation Steps

Assess Your Timeline

Write down your hard deadline for having a publication accepted. This might be a grant submission date, a job application deadline, or a degree completion requirement. Work backward from that date to determine how many submission cycles you can afford.

For each journal in your potential queue, estimate the total time from submission to acceptance. This includes time to first decision, time for your revisions, time for the second round of review, and time from acceptance to online publication. Add a buffer of two to four weeks for each step to account for delays. If the total time for a journal exceeds your available time, remove it from your queue.

Calculate Your Queue Size

Use this formula as a starting point:

Queue size = Number of submission cycles you can afford before your deadline

Each submission cycle includes the time from submission to rejection or acceptance. If you have 12 months before your deadline and your target journals average 3 months to first decision, you can afford approximately 4 submission cycles. This suggests a queue of 3 to 4 journals, assuming you will need at least one acceptance.

Adjust the formula based on your confidence in acceptance. If you are submitting work that has already been presented at conferences and received positive feedback, you might be more confident and can plan for fewer cycles. If your work is novel and you are unsure how reviewers will react, plan for more cycles.

Prepare Your Backup Versions

For each journal in your queue, prepare the manuscript in that journal's format before you submit to the first journal. This includes formatting references, adjusting figure sizes, and writing the cover letter. Store each version in a separate folder with the journal name and date.

When you receive a rejection, do not spend time grieving or second guessing. Submit to the next journal in your queue within one week. The longer you wait, the more your timeline erodes. If the rejection includes reviewer comments that improve the manuscript, incorporate those changes before submitting to the next journal.

Records and Measurements

Track Your Submission History

Maintain a submission log that records the following for each manuscript:

• Journal name and submission date
• Manuscript version and file name
• Date of first decision
• Decision type (accept, reject, major revision, minor revision)
• Reviewer comments and your responses
• Date of resubmission or next submission
• Final outcome

This log serves multiple purposes. It helps you plan future submissions by showing which journals respond quickly and which are slow. It provides evidence of your publication activity for grant applications and job materials. It also helps you avoid accidentally submitting to the same journal twice with the same manuscript.

Measure Your Acceptance Rate

Over time, track how many submissions result in acceptance at each journal. This personal data is more useful than published acceptance rates because it reflects your specific work and writing style. If you have a 50 percent acceptance rate at mid tier journals in your field, you can plan your queue accordingly. If you have a 10 percent acceptance rate, you need more backup options.

Share this information with your students and mentees. Many early career researchers have no idea how many submissions are typical before acceptance. Knowing that multiple rejections are normal can reduce the discouragement that causes researchers to abandon good manuscripts.

Common Failure Patterns

Submitting to Only One Journal

The most common failure is submitting to a single journal and waiting for the decision before making any other plans. If that journal takes six months to reject the manuscript, you have lost six months. This pattern is especially damaging for early career researchers who have tight deadlines and limited publication records.

The fix is to build your queue before you submit. Even if you are confident about your first choice, prepare the second and third versions in advance. You lose nothing by being prepared, and you gain the ability to submit immediately after a rejection.

Submitting to Too Many Journals Simultaneously

The opposite failure is submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at once. This practice is unethical and can damage your reputation. Editors communicate with each other, and reviewers may recognize a manuscript they have already reviewed elsewhere. If you are caught submitting simultaneously, you may face sanctions from multiple journals.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the expected standards for authors. Simultaneous submission is not among the acceptable practices. If you are tempted to submit to multiple journals because you are desperate for a publication, remember that a delayed publication is better than a ruined reputation.

Choosing Journals by Impact Factor Alone

Researchers who choose journals solely by impact factor often waste months on submissions to journals that are not a good fit. A high impact journal that rejects your manuscript after four months has cost you time that could have been spent at a journal where your work would have been welcomed.

Use impact factor as one factor among many. Consider fit, review speed, acceptance rate, and audience. A publication in a good fit journal that accepts your work in three months is worth more to your career than a rejection from a high impact journal after six months.

Ignoring Formatting Requirements

Submitting a manuscript that does not follow the journal's formatting requirements signals that you have not read the instructions. Editors may return the manuscript without review, or reviewers may be negatively biased by the sloppy presentation. Formatting errors are easy to avoid and create an impression of carelessness that undermines your credibility.

Before submitting, check the journal's instructions for authors and follow them exactly. This includes reference style, figure formatting, word limits, and required sections. Use the journal's template if one is provided. Have a colleague review your formatted manuscript before submission.

Welfare and Safety Context

Protecting Your Time and Mental Health

The journal submission process can be emotionally draining. Rejections are common, and even experienced researchers face multiple rejections before finding a home for their work. The NIH Grants and Funding resources acknowledge the competitive nature of research careers and the importance of persistence.

Build a support network of colleagues who understand the submission process. Share your experiences and learn from theirs. Celebrate acceptances and treat rejections as data points instead of personal failures. A well planned queue reduces the emotional impact of rejection because you always have a next step ready.

Avoiding Predatory Journals

The pressure to publish can lead researchers to consider journals that are not legitimate. Predatory journals charge publication fees without providing genuine peer review or editorial services. They may accept almost any submission and provide little or no quality control.

Signs of a predatory journal include unsolicited email invitations to submit, promises of rapid publication, lack of transparency about fees, and editorial boards that are fabricated or include researchers who did not agree to serve. Check whether the journal is listed in reputable databases and whether its publisher is a member of recognized industry organizations. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the standards that legitimate journals follow.

Data Management and Sharing Obligations

Your journal selection affects your data management obligations. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy requires NIH funded researchers to submit a data management plan and to share data according to that plan. Some journals have their own data sharing requirements that may be more stringent than funder requirements.

Before submitting, verify that you can meet the journal's data sharing expectations. If the journal requires data deposition in a specific repository, confirm that your data can be deposited there. If the journal requires a data availability statement, prepare one that accurately describes where your data will be available. Failing to meet these requirements can delay publication or result in rejection after review.

Professional Escalation Criteria

When to Seek Advice

You should seek advice from a mentor, senior colleague, or research office when you face any of the following situations:

• You have received three or more rejections for the same manuscript and are unsure whether to continue revising or to abandon the project
• You are considering submitting to a journal that you cannot verify as legitimate
• You have a deadline that you cannot meet with your current submission plan
• You are unsure whether your manuscript meets the ethical standards for publication
• You have been accused of a publication ethics violation

A mentor who has experience in your field can provide perspective on whether your manuscript is publishable and where it might find a home. A research office can help with institutional policies and resources. An ethics advisor can help you navigate complex situations involving authorship, data, or conflicts of interest.

When to Change Your Plan

You should change your submission plan when new information changes your assumptions. This includes:

• A journal changes its scope or editorial leadership
• You receive reviewer comments that reveal a fundamental flaw in your work
• Your deadline changes
• A coauthor raises concerns about the manuscript
• You discover that a competing group has published similar work

Changing your plan is not a failure. It is a rational response to new information. The goal is to publish your work in the best appropriate venue, not to follow a plan that no longer makes sense.

When to Consider Withdrawal

Withdrawing a manuscript from a journal is a serious step that should be taken only in specific circumstances. These include:

• You discover a fatal error in the data or analysis
• You find that the manuscript has been published elsewhere, even in part
• A coauthor withdraws consent for publication
• The journal has violated its stated policies or ethical standards

Before withdrawing, discuss the situation with your coauthors and seek advice from a mentor or ethics advisor. Withdrawal after peer review has begun is disruptive and should be documented carefully. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices provide context for the responsibilities of authors in managing their submissions.

Limitations of the Queue Approach

Uncertainty in Review Times

The queue approach depends on estimates of review times that are inherently uncertain. A journal that usually responds in six weeks may take six months for your manuscript if the editor struggles to find reviewers or if the manuscript is difficult to evaluate. Your estimates should include a buffer for this uncertainty.

If you are working with a tight deadline, consider whether you can afford the risk of a slow review. A journal with a slightly lower fit but a faster review process may be a better choice when time is critical. The tradeoff between fit and speed is a judgment call that depends on your specific circumstances.

Variation in Acceptance Rates

Published acceptance rates are averages that may not reflect your specific chances. A journal with a high overall acceptance rate may reject your manuscript because it does not fit their current priorities. A journal with a low acceptance rate may accept your work because it fills a gap they are actively seeking to fill.

Use acceptance rates as a rough guide, not a precise prediction. Your personal experience with similar manuscripts, feedback from colleagues, and the quality of your work are all relevant factors. The queue approach is a planning tool, not a guarantee of success.

Field Specific Differences

The optimal queue size varies by field. Fields with rapid review times and high acceptance rates may require only two journals in the queue. Fields with slow review times and low acceptance rates may require four or more. Clinical research, basic science, humanities, and social sciences all have different publishing cultures.

Talk to colleagues in your specific field about their experiences. Ask how many submissions they typically need before acceptance and which journals respond quickly. This field specific knowledge is more valuable than general advice about queue sizes.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I know if a journal is a good fit for my manuscript?

Read the journal's aims and scope statement and compare it to your manuscript's topic, methods, and contribution. Look at recent issues and check whether the journal publishes work similar to yours. If you cannot find comparable articles in the last two years, the journal may not be a good fit. You can also email the editor with a brief abstract and ask whether the manuscript would be considered.

What should I do if I receive a rejection?

Treat the rejection as data. Read the reviewer comments carefully and determine whether they identify fixable problems or fundamental flaws. If the problems are fixable, revise the manuscript and submit to the next journal in your queue within one week. If the problems are fundamental, consider whether the project can be salvaged or should be abandoned. Do not let rejection discourage you from continuing to submit.

Can I submit my manuscript to multiple journals at the same time?

No. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously violates publication ethics and wastes the time of editors and reviewers. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the expected standards for authors. Submit to one journal at a time and wait for the decision before submitting elsewhere.

How long should I wait before following up on my submission?

Most journals provide guidance on when to expect a decision. If the journal has not responded within the stated time, or within a reasonable estimate based on their typical performance, you may send a polite inquiry to the editorial office. Wait at least two to three months before following up, unless the journal advertises a faster review process. If you receive no response after two inquiries, consider withdrawing the manuscript and submitting elsewhere.

What is the difference between a major revision and a rejection?

A major revision means the editors and reviewers see potential in your manuscript but want substantial changes before they will consider it for publication. A rejection means the manuscript will not be published in that journal, regardless of revisions. Major revisions are a positive signal and should be taken seriously. Rejections require you to move to the next journal in your queue.

How do I handle reviewer comments from a rejected manuscript?

Reviewer comments from a rejected manuscript are valuable feedback even though the manuscript was not accepted. Incorporate the comments that improve the manuscript before submitting to the next journal. You do not need to address every comment, but you should address the ones that identify real weaknesses. The revised manuscript will be stronger and more likely to be accepted at the next journal.

Should I tell the next journal about previous rejections?

You are not required to disclose previous rejections when submitting to a new journal

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• Ethical Concerns in Research: Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
• Bioinformatics vs. Computational Biology: What's the Difference (and Which Should You Choose)?
• Ethical Considerations in Psychological Research: A Guide for Students and Early-Career Researchers
• Ncbi Genome Submission
• Open Access Practices for Researchers: A Guide

References and Further Reading

• Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
• NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
• ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
• Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.