How to Build a Journal Submission Queue

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

Quick Answer

• Build a ranked journal list before submission so each rejection triggers an immediate next submission instead of months of new research.
• Prepare complete backup submission packages in advance, including cover letters, figures, and data statements, to eliminate resubmission delays.
• Journal selection depends on your specific field, study type, and reporting requirements, so no single ranking system works for every manuscript.

Understanding the Sequential Submission Problem

Researchers commonly submit a manuscript to one journal, wait for a decision, and only begin considering alternatives after rejection. This approach creates months of idle time between submissions. The peer review process itself takes time, and when a journal rejects a paper, the researcher must restart the entire selection process from scratch.

The sequential submission strategy solves this problem by treating journal selection as a planned workflow instead of a reactive decision. Instead of asking "where should I send this paper" after each rejection, you ask "what is my complete ranked list and what preparation do I need for each option" before the first submission.

This approach matters because publication timelines directly affect career progression, funding applications, and research visibility. A structured queue ensures continuous forward motion even when individual submissions fail.

Core Principles of Journal Selection

Fit Between Manuscript and Journal Scope

The most important factor in journal selection is alignment between your manuscript content and the journal's stated scope. Journals publish specific article types, cover particular subject areas, and serve distinct readerships. Submitting to a journal that does not publish your type of study guarantees rejection regardless of manuscript quality.

Read the journal's aims and scope section carefully. Check recent issues to confirm the journal actually publishes work similar to yours. Some journals list broad scopes but publish narrowly in practice. Reviewing the table of contents from the past year reveals the real editorial focus.

Journal Quality and Credibility Indicators

Established journals follow publication ethics standards that protect research integrity. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices outline expectations for peer review, authorship, data handling, and conflict of interest management. Journals that follow these practices provide a more reliable publication experience.

Indexing status, impact metrics, and reputation vary by field. Some disciplines prioritize journal impact factors while others value specific society journals or rapid publication venues. Your advisor, department colleagues, and recent publications in your field provide practical guidance on which journals carry weight in your specialty.

Editorial and Review Timelines

Journals differ substantially in their time to first decision. Some journals provide average turnaround statistics on their websites. Others do not publish this information. Ask colleagues who have recently submitted to candidate journals about their experiences with review speed and editorial responsiveness.

The sequential strategy depends on realistic timeline estimates. If you plan a queue of five journals, you need reasonable expectations for each step. A journal that takes six months to reach a decision creates a different queue dynamic than one that responds in six weeks.

Building Your Journal Ranking

Step 1: Create a Candidate List

Start with journals you already know from your reading and reference lists. Add journals recommended by mentors and collaborators. Use journal finder tools available through publishers and libraries to identify additional options based on your manuscript title and abstract.

Your candidate list should include more journals than you expect to need. A typical manuscript might have three to five realistic options, but some fields have more venues. The goal is a complete list so you never face a rejection without knowing the next step.

Step 2: Gather Decision Information for Each Journal

For every candidate journal, collect the following information:

• Scope and article type compatibility
• Submission format requirements
• Average time to first decision
• Acceptance rate if published
• Open access policies and fees
• Reporting guideline requirements
• Data availability policies

Record this information in a spreadsheet or table. Update it as you learn new information from submissions, rejections, and conversations with colleagues.

Step 3: Rank by Priority

Rank your candidate journals from most preferred to least preferred. Your priority ranking should reflect your goals. If you need rapid publication for a time-sensitive finding, speed matters more than prestige. If you are seeking a tenure-track position, journal reputation may outweigh speed.

Consider these factors when ranking:

• Journal reputation in your field
• Likelihood of acceptance based on fit
• Time to decision
• Open access requirements and funding availability
• Data sharing policies and your willingness to comply

Step 4: Prepare Backup Packages

For each journal in your queue, prepare a complete submission package in advance. This includes:

• Cover letter tailored to that journal
• Manuscript formatted according to journal guidelines
• Figures at required resolution and format
• Supplementary materials
• Data availability statement
• Reporting guideline checklist if required
• Author information and ORCID identifiers

The ORCID for Researchers resource explains how maintaining a complete researcher profile supports manuscript submission and publication tracking. Many journals now require ORCID identifiers during submission.

At a Glance

Reporting Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation

Selecting the Right Reporting Guideline

The EQUATOR Network maintains a comprehensive library of reporting guidelines organized by study type. These guidelines specify what information must appear in a manuscript for different research designs. Common examples include CONSORT for randomized trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, and STROBE for observational studies.

Before submitting to any journal, identify the reporting guideline that applies to your study design. Complete the corresponding checklist and include it with your submission. Many journals require this checklist as part of the submission process.

Preparing Manuscripts for Multiple Journals

Each journal has specific formatting requirements. Some require structured abstracts, others do not. Reference styles vary. Word limits differ. Figure formatting rules are not uniform.

Prepare a master version of your manuscript with complete content and high-quality figures. Then create journal-specific versions by adjusting formatting to match each target journal's requirements. This approach avoids the common failure of submitting a manuscript formatted for one journal to a different journal without changes.

Data Management and Sharing Statements

Funding agencies increasingly require data management and sharing plans. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for NIH-funded research, including submission of a data management plan and compliance with sharing requirements.

Journals also have data policies. Some require data availability statements, others mandate deposition in specific repositories, and some allow optional data sharing. Check each journal's data policy when preparing your backup packages. A data policy mismatch can delay acceptance after peer review succeeds.

Practical Implementation Steps

Step 1: Complete Your Researcher Identity Setup

Create or update your ORCID record before beginning submissions. Your ORCID identifier connects your publications, grants, and affiliations in a persistent way. Many journals and funding agencies require ORCID during submission and application processes.

Step 2: Draft All Cover Letters

Write a cover letter for each journal in your queue. Each letter should explain why your manuscript fits that specific journal. Generic cover letters signal that you did not research the journal. Mention specific aspects of the journal's scope or recent articles that relate to your work.

Step 3: Verify Funding Compliance

If your research received funding, check the funder's publication requirements. The NIH Grants and Funding portal provides information about grant policies and requirements. Some funders require specific acknowledgment language, open access deposition, or data sharing arrangements.

Step 4: Set Submission Deadlines

Assign a submission date to each journal in your queue. The first submission date is immediate. Subsequent dates depend on expected review timelines. If a journal typically takes three months to decide, schedule the next submission for three months after the first submission date.

Step 5: Track Everything

Maintain a submission tracking log with these columns:

• Journal name
• Submission date
• Manuscript version used
• Cover letter version used
• Expected decision date
• Actual decision date
• Outcome
• Next action

This log becomes your operational record. It prevents confusion when you manage multiple manuscripts or multiple versions of the same manuscript.

Records and Measurements

What to Track Across Your Submission Queue

Measuring Queue Performance

After you complete a submission cycle, review your records. Calculate the average time from submission to decision across journals. Compare your initial timeline estimates to actual performance. Identify journals that responded faster or slower than expected.

This measurement process improves your next queue. You learn which journals actually deliver the timelines they advertise and which ones do not. You also learn which types of feedback recur across reviewers, indicating manuscript weaknesses you should address before the next submission round.

Common Failure Patterns

Submitting Without Checking Scope

The most common failure is submitting to a journal that does not publish your type of work. This wastes weeks or months. Always verify scope against recent issues, beyond the journal's description of itself.

Ignoring Reporting Guidelines

Manuscripts missing required reporting elements face revision requests or rejection. Complete the appropriate checklist before submission. The EQUATOR Network provides the authoritative library for identifying which guideline applies to your study.

Using One Version for Every Journal

Submitting the same formatted manuscript to multiple journals without adjustment signals carelessness. Each journal has specific requirements. Format your manuscript for each target journal before submission.

Failing to Prepare Backup Packages

Researchers who prepare only one submission package lose weeks when rejection arrives. The sequential strategy requires complete packages for every journal in the queue. Preparation happens before the first submission, not after the first rejection.

Overlooking Data Policies

Data availability statements and repository requirements vary by journal and funder. A manuscript that passes peer review can stall at acceptance because the data policy was not followed. Check data requirements during package preparation.

Welfare and Safety Context

Protecting Your Research Timeline

The sequential submission strategy protects your research timeline from the unpredictability of peer review. A structured queue ensures that rejection does not halt progress. This matters for researchers with funding deadlines, degree completion timelines, or competitive job markets.

Avoiding Predatory or Low-Quality Venues

The pressure to publish quickly can lead researchers to consider journals with questionable practices. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe expectations for ethical publishing. Journals that follow these practices provide transparent peer review, clear authorship policies, and proper handling of misconduct concerns.

If a journal's practices seem unclear or its fees and policies are not transparent, investigate further before submitting. Consult the Committee on Publication Ethics resources and discuss concerns with mentors or institutional research offices.

Managing Multiple Submissions Ethically

The sequential strategy means submitting to one journal at a time. Simultaneous submission to multiple journals violates publication ethics unless a journal explicitly permits it. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices address duplicate submission as a form of misconduct.

Your queue is a plan for sequential submission, not a license for simultaneous submission. Submit to the first journal, wait for the decision, and only then submit to the next journal in your queue.

Limitations and Professional Escalation

When the Queue Strategy Needs Adjustment

The sequential strategy assumes that rejection leads to improvement and resubmission. This works for most manuscripts. However, some situations require different approaches:

• If multiple journals reject a manuscript for the same fundamental reason, the problem may be the study design or analysis, not the journal choice. Consult a statistician or methodologist before further submissions.
• If reviewers consistently identify the same weakness, address that weakness before submitting elsewhere. Repeated submissions without improvement waste time and may harm your reputation with editors who see the same manuscript.
• If a finding is time-sensitive and the queue timeline is too long, consider preprint posting or alternative dissemination venues that fit your field's norms.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Seek advice from mentors, department chairs, or research offices when:

• You receive conflicting guidance about journal selection from trusted colleagues
• A journal's editorial decisions seem inconsistent with its stated policies
• You suspect a journal may not follow ethical publication practices
• You need to interpret funder publication requirements that seem ambiguous
• A manuscript has been rejected multiple times and you are uncertain about the next step

Institutional research offices and libraries often provide publication support services. These services may include journal selection guidance, reporting guideline assistance, and data management planning.

Building a Decision Matrix for Journal Queue Prioritization

Why a Simple Ranking List Is Not Enough

A ranked list tells you the order of journals you prefer, but it does not tell you when to abandon one journal for another or how to compare journals that excel in different dimensions. A journal with excellent reputation might have a six month review timeline while a solid mid tier journal in the same field responds in six weeks. A simple ranking cannot resolve this trade off because it forces you to make an intuitive judgment without documenting your reasoning.

A decision matrix solves this problem by scoring each candidate journal against the same criteria using the same scale. This converts subjective impressions into a comparable numeric format. The matrix does not make the decision for you, but it forces you to articulate why one journal outranks another and it creates a record you can revisit when circumstances change.

Selecting Your Scoring Criteria

The decision matrix works best when you score every journal against the same five to seven criteria. More criteria create false precision because you will struggle to assign meaningful scores to factors you cannot verify. Fewer criteria omit important distinctions between journals.

Start with these core criteria and adjust for your specific situation:

• Scope fit: How closely does the journal's published content match your manuscript topic and study type
• Journal reputation: How much weight the journal carries in your field for your career goals
• Review speed: Expected time from submission to first decision
• Acceptance likelihood: Realistic probability your manuscript will be accepted based on fit and journal selectivity
• Open access cost: Article processing charges and whether you have funding to cover them
• Data policy alignment: Whether the journal's data requirements match your willingness and ability to share
• Reporting guideline burden: How much additional work the journal's checklist requirements create

Assign each criterion a weight based on your priorities. If you need rapid publication for a time sensitive finding, review speed receives a higher weight than journal reputation. If you are building a tenure case, reputation may outweigh speed. The weights should sum to 100 percent so the final scores remain comparable.

Building the Scoring Scale

Use a consistent scale for every criterion. A one to five scale works well because it provides enough granularity for meaningful distinctions without creating false precision.

Define what each score means for every criterion before you score any journal. For example, for review speed:

• 5: Expected decision within one month
• 4: Expected decision within two months
• 3: Expected decision within three months
• 2: Expected decision within four to five months
• 1: Expected decision in six months or longer

For scope fit:

• 5: Journal regularly publishes studies nearly identical to yours
• 4: Journal publishes related work with some overlap
• 3: Journal publishes adjacent topics but not your specific study type
• 2: Journal occasionally publishes work like yours but it is rare
• 1: Journal scope does not clearly include your study type

Write these definitions down before scoring. This prevents you from drifting between interpretations as you work through your journal list. The definitions also create a record you can defend when a colleague asks why one journal outranks another.

Scoring Your Candidate Journals

Work through each journal in your candidate list and assign a score for every criterion. Use the information you gathered during the journal information collection step. If you lack information for a criterion, assign a conservative score instead of guessing optimistically.

For each journal, calculate the weighted score using this formula:

Weighted score equals the sum of each criterion score multiplied by its weight.

For example, if scope fit has a weight of 30 percent and you scored the journal 5, that criterion contributes 1.5 points. If review speed has a weight of 20 percent and you scored the journal 3, that criterion contributes 0.6 points. Add all criterion contributions to get the journal's total weighted score.

Record every score in your tracking spreadsheet. This creates a transparent record of why each journal received its position in your queue.

Interpreting the Matrix Results

The matrix produces a numeric ordering of your candidate journals. This ordering becomes your initial submission queue. The highest scoring journal becomes your first submission target, the second highest becomes your backup, and so on.

The matrix also reveals journals that are close in score. If two journals differ by less than 0.5 points, they are effectively tied. In this situation, use qualitative judgment to break the tie. Consider factors the matrix cannot capture, such as a personal connection with an editor or a colleague's recent positive experience with one journal.

The matrix can also reveal journals that should be removed from your queue entirely. A journal that scores 2 or lower on scope fit should not appear in your queue regardless of its other scores. Submitting to a journal that does not publish your study type wastes time even if the journal has an excellent reputation.

Updating the Matrix After Each Submission Outcome

The decision matrix is not a one time exercise. Every submission outcome provides new information that should update your scores.

When a journal rejects your manuscript, record the outcome and the time to decision. Compare the actual timeline to your estimated timeline. If the journal took twice as long as you estimated, lower its review speed score for future manuscripts. If the rejection letter indicates the manuscript was outside scope despite your assessment, lower the scope fit score.

When you receive reviewer comments, use them to assess acceptance likelihood for remaining journals. If reviewers consistently identify the same weakness, your acceptance likelihood scores for all remaining journals should decrease until you address that weakness.

Update the matrix after every submission outcome, beyond after rejections. An acceptance also provides information. The journal that accepted your manuscript may deserve a higher acceptance likelihood score for future manuscripts of similar type.

Using the Matrix for Multiple Manuscripts

If you manage more than one manuscript simultaneously, create a separate matrix for each one. The criteria weights may differ between manuscripts because your goals differ. A manuscript with a time sensitive finding prioritizes review speed. A manuscript that represents the core contribution of your dissertation prioritizes journal reputation.

The journal information you collected remains reusable across matrices. The scope fit scores may differ because each manuscript has a different topic. The review speed and data policy scores transfer directly because they describe the journal, not the manuscript.

Common Matrix Mistakes

The most common mistake is assigning scores without written definitions. Without definitions, you will score inconsistently across journals and across time. Write the definitions before scoring and keep them visible while you work.

Another common mistake is letting one criterion dominate the final score despite its weight. If you assign a 5 for scope fit to every journal on your list, that criterion no longer distinguishes between journals. The matrix then ranks journals based on other criteria, which may not reflect your actual priorities.

A third mistake is ignoring the matrix results when they conflict with intuition. If the matrix ranks a journal first that you instinctively distrust, investigate why. The matrix may have missed a factor you care about, or your instinct may reflect outdated information. Add the missing criterion or update the scores instead of discarding the matrix.

When to Escalate Beyond the Matrix

The decision matrix handles routine journal selection decisions. Some situations require human judgment beyond what a scoring system can provide.

Escalate to a mentor or senior colleague when:

• Two journals score nearly identically and you cannot break the tie
• A journal's actual performance contradicts its published policies and you need guidance on whether to continue considering it
• You are uncertain whether a journal's data policy conflicts with your funder's requirements
• A manuscript has been rejected by multiple journals and you need an outside perspective on whether the problem is the manuscript or the journal selection

The matrix provides structure for your decision process, but it does not replace the judgment of experienced researchers who know the norms and politics of your specific field. Use the matrix to organize your thinking and document your reasoning, then confirm your top choices with a trusted colleague before submitting.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I choose which journal to submit to first?

Rank your candidate journals by a combination of scope fit, reputation in your field, review speed, and your publication goals. The first journal in your queue should be the one you most want to publish in that also has a realistic chance of accepting your work.

What is a journal finder and how do I use it?

Journal finder tools accept your manuscript title and abstract and suggest candidate journals based on scope matching. These tools provide a starting list, but you must verify each suggestion against the journal's actual scope, policies, and recent publications.

What journal selection criteria matter most for my manuscript?

The most important criteria are scope alignment, reporting guideline requirements, data policies, and review timelines. Journal reputation matters for career purposes, but a prestigious journal that rejects your manuscript delays your publication timeline.

How many journals should I include in my submission queue?

Include every journal that could realistically publish your work. Most manuscripts have three to five viable options, but some fields have more. A longer queue provides more security but requires more preparation time for backup packages.

Should I format my manuscript differently for each journal?

Yes. Each journal has specific formatting requirements including reference style, abstract structure, word limits, and figure specifications. Prepare a master version and create journal-specific versions for each submission.

What should I do with reviewer comments from a rejected manuscript?

Incorporate valid reviewer feedback into your manuscript before the next submission. Reviewers often identify genuine weaknesses. Address these issues even if you disagree with the rejection decision.

Can I submit to multiple journals at the same time?

Simultaneous submission to multiple journals violates publication ethics unless a journal explicitly permits it. The sequential strategy requires submitting to one journal at a time and waiting for the decision before proceeding to the next.

How do data sharing policies affect my journal selection?

Some journals require data availability statements, others mandate deposition in specific repositories, and some allow optional sharing. Check each journal's data policy during queue preparation. Funder requirements may also apply to your data sharing obligations.

Related Articles

• Protein Synthesis Step By Step
• Protein Synthesis: A Step-by-Step Guide to Transcription and Translation
• Data Management Plan Template: A Practical Guide for Researchers
• Biostatistics Journal
• Journal Of Experimental Biology

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.