Publishing your first research paper can feel overwhelming. You have spent months — sometimes years — on the work, yet nobody explains the road from a finished manuscript to a published article in one place. This guide does exactly that, step by step, in the order it actually happens.
Fit matters more than fame. Check the journal's aims and scope against your topic, the article types it accepts, its peer review model, and its open access licence. A paper rejected as "out of scope" was never judged on quality — it was simply sent to the wrong journal. Read our detailed guide on how to choose the right journal for your research paper before you shortlist.
Before submitting anywhere, verify the basics: a clear aims-and-scope page, named editorial leadership, a written peer review policy, transparent publication charges, and a publication ethics policy. If any of these are missing, pause — that is how researchers protect themselves from predatory journals.
In double-blind peer review, reviewers do not know who you are and you do not know who they are. Your manuscript file must therefore contain no names, affiliations, or identifying acknowledgements — provide author details separately, exactly as the journal instructs.
Structure the paper clearly: a specific title; an abstract stating the question, method, main result, and conclusion; keywords; an introduction that ends with your contribution; methods described in enough detail to be evaluated and repeated; results; a discussion that is honest about limitations; and complete references in the journal's required style. Most desk rejections happen here — see the 5 common reasons research papers get rejected and fix them before you submit.
Every listed author should have made a meaningful contribution, approved the submitted version, and accepted responsibility for the work. Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria belong in the acknowledgements, with their permission. Disclose any conflict of interest. Confirm the work is original, properly cited, and not under consideration at another journal at the same time. Studies involving humans or animals must follow the applicable institutional and legal requirements — this is checked, and missing ethics statements delay decisions.
Submit only through the route the journal states, and keep your submission confirmation and manuscript ID. Read every field carefully: article type, licence choice, funding information, and author order are far easier to correct now than after publication. At Global Academic Publishers, manuscripts for the Global Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences are submitted through the journal's own submission page.
Very few papers are accepted or rejected outright — most come back for revision. Reply to every reviewer comment one by one: what you changed, where you changed it, and, when you respectfully disagree, why, with evidence. A revision a reviewer can verify in minutes is a revision that moves forward.
Open access journals may charge an Article Processing Charge (APC). A legitimate journal states its charges — and any waiver — transparently, and an editorial decision never depends on buying extra services. Learn how waivers work in our explainer on APC waivers in open access journals. Articles published open access at GAP appear under a CC BY 4.0 licence, so anyone can read, share, and reuse your work with proper credit to you.
Publication is the start of visibility, not the end. Add the article to your ORCID and institutional profile, share the publisher's link, and present the work in seminars and conferences. Open access removes the paywall; your own sharing does the rest.
A publishable paper is not a report of everything you did. It is one clear contribution, argued with evidence, that a reader in your field can understand, check, and build on. Before you draft, write down in one sentence what is new: the question you answered, the method you used, and the finding that matters. If you cannot write that sentence, the paper is not ready yet — not because the work is weak, but because its argument is not yet focused. Everything else in the manuscript should support that sentence; material that does not support it belongs in a second paper, in supplementary material, or nowhere at all.
Ask three honest questions at this stage. First, is the result complete enough to stand on its own, or does it depend on an experiment you have not finished? A paper that promises a conclusion in the discussion that the results do not support will struggle in review, however well it is written. Second, have you placed the work in its field? Read the recent literature closely enough to say what is already known, what remains uncertain, and where your study fits. Reviewers notice quickly when a paper ignores directly relevant earlier work. Third, can another researcher follow what you did? Keep your data, analysis notes, and records organised from the start, so that methods, numbers, and figures can be checked without reconstructing them from memory months later.
It also helps to decide the article type early. An original research article, a review, a case report, a short communication, and a methods paper are judged by different standards and have different structures and length expectations. A journal's author guidelines will define each type it accepts. Choosing the type before you write saves a painful restructuring later, when a full research format turns out to be the wrong shape for a focused finding, or a review is submitted where only original research is wanted.
Start with the journals you already read and cite. The references in your own manuscript are a practical shortlist: if a journal appears repeatedly in your reference list, its readers are the audience your paper is written for. Add journals recommended by supervisors or colleagues in your field, and journals that have published work closely related to yours. Then narrow the list by reading, not by reputation alone.
For each candidate journal, read its aims and scope page in full, then read two or three recent articles it has published on topics near yours. Ask: would my paper sit naturally alongside these articles? Is my method familiar to this readership, or would it need extensive explanation? Does the journal publish papers of my length, with my kind of tables and figures? A journal that publishes mainly large clinical trials is a poor home for a small exploratory study, even if the broad subject matches.
Worked example: suppose your study examines feeding practices on small dairy farms in your region. A broad veterinary journal, a specialist animal nutrition journal, and a regional agricultural journal might all look relevant. The specialist journal may suit you best if your contribution is a nutritional finding; the regional journal may suit you better if the contribution is mainly about local farming practice and policy. Neither choice is right in the abstract — the right choice follows from what your paper actually contributes. Writing that reasoning down for two or three candidates, then choosing one journal to submit to, is a stronger approach than submitting to a long list in the hope that one will accept.
Check practical matters before you commit: the peer review model, the article types accepted, the licence offered, the charges and any waiver policy, and the submission route. Also verify the journal's identity carefully. A genuine journal has a stable website, named editors with verifiable affiliations, a clear review policy, and contact details that match its publisher. Claims about indexing or metrics should be checked against the official database or list concerned, not taken from a journal's own website alone. Our guide on how to avoid predatory journals explains these checks in detail.
Author guidelines are not background reading; they are the instructions your manuscript will be judged against at the first screening. Read them once before you write, and again before you submit. Note the required structure and section order, word and reference limits, abstract format, reference style, figure and table requirements, and file formats. Note also what must be supplied separately: author details, acknowledgements, funding statements, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics statements, and any supplementary files.
Formatting is not decoration. A manuscript that follows the guidelines signals to an editor that the author has taken the journal seriously, and it removes avoidable reasons for a manuscript to be returned before review. Common avoidable returns include a missing ethics statement, references in the wrong style, figures that are unreadable at publication size, and author information left inside a manuscript submitted for double-blind review. None of these reflects the quality of the research, and all of them cost time. For field-specific detail, see the animal science manuscript formatting guide and the animal sciences manuscript guidelines.
Pay particular attention to the reference style. Some journals number references in order of appearance; others use author and year in the text. Switching styles late is slow and error-prone, so set your reference manager to the journal's style at the start. Check every reference against the original source, not against a citation copied from another paper: errors in volume, page, or year propagate easily, and reviewers do notice them.
A good title is specific, honest, and searchable. It should name the subject, and where relevant the population, method, or setting, without overstating the result. Compare a vague title such as "A Study of Animal Health" with a specific one such as "Feeding Practices and Milk Yield on Small Dairy Farms in Punjab: A Cross-Sectional Study". The second tells a reader and a search engine what the paper is about; the first tells them almost nothing. Avoid abbreviations a reader outside your subfield would not recognise, and avoid claims the paper does not prove.
Many readers will read only your abstract, and editors and reviewers often judge a manuscript's promise from it. A strong abstract states the background in one or two sentences, the question or aim, the method in enough detail to judge the study, the main results with the key numbers, and the conclusion — without introducing results that do not appear in the paper. If the journal uses a structured abstract, follow its headings exactly; if it uses an unstructured abstract, keep the same logical order in a single paragraph.
Worked example of the logic, not a real study: background — feeding costs are a major constraint for small dairy farmers; aim — to examine how feeding practice relates to milk yield; method — a cross-sectional survey of a defined number of farms, with a stated method of recording yield; result — the feeding practice associated with the higher yield, with the figures that support it; conclusion — what the finding suggests for practice, stated cautiously. Notice what is missing: no new claim appears in the conclusion that the results do not support, and no method is mentioned that the paper does not describe. Write the abstract last, after the rest of the paper is settled, and check every sentence in it against the main text.
An introduction should move from what is known, to what is not known, to what this paper does about it. Open with the problem and why it matters, summarise the relevant literature fairly — including work that complicates your argument, not only work that supports it — and end with a clear statement of your aim and contribution. A common weakness is an introduction that reviews a whole field at length but never identifies a gap; another is an introduction that claims a gap without showing that the cited literature leaves one. Cite the sources you actually rely on, and make sure each citation supports the sentence it follows.
Methods exist so that a knowledgeable reader can judge whether the study was sound and, where applicable, repeat it. Describe the study design, the population or sample and how it was selected, the materials and procedures, the measurements and instruments, and the analysis, including how data were handled and what statistical approach was used. State ethics approval and consent arrangements where they apply, in the form the journal requires. Vague methods are a frequent reason for a major revision: if a reviewer cannot tell how many animals, samples, or participants were involved, how they were chosen, or how an outcome was measured, they cannot evaluate the results that follow.
Report what you found, in a logical order, without interpreting it at length — interpretation belongs in the discussion. Lead with the main finding, then supporting detail. Tables and figures should add information, not duplicate the text word for word: use the text to draw attention to the key pattern, and let the table carry the full detail. Give the numbers a reader needs to judge the result, and be consistent: a figure in the text, a table, and the abstract should agree. If a result was unexpected or negative, report it honestly; a paper that hides inconvenient results loses credibility, and negative findings are often valuable to the field.
The discussion explains what the results mean, how they compare with earlier work, and what their limits are. Start with the main finding and its interpretation, then relate it to the literature: where does it agree, where does it differ, and why might that be? Then state the limitations plainly — sample size, setting, measurement, or design constraints — and explain how they affect what can be claimed. End with the implications: what should researchers, practitioners, or policymakers take from this, and what should be studied next? A discussion that claims more than the data support, or that never mentions a limitation the reviewer can see, undermines an otherwise strong paper.
Every statement that rests on someone else's work needs a citation, and every citation needs a complete, accurate reference. Check that every in-text citation appears in the reference list and that every reference is cited in the text. For tables, give each one a clear title, define every abbreviation in a note beneath it, and make sure it can be understood without reading the whole paper. For figures, use legible labels at the size they will be published, explain symbols and units, and write a caption that states what the figure shows. A figure that only its author can read will not survive review, however good the underlying data are.
Authorship should be agreed before submission, not negotiated during revision. The corresponding author carries particular responsibility: submitting the manuscript, communicating with the editor and reviewers, keeping co-authors informed, and ensuring that every author has seen and approved the submitted version and any revision. If your field uses a contributor statement, record who did what — conceptualisation, data collection, analysis, writing, supervision — while the work is fresh, rather than reconstructing contributions months later.
Disagreements about author order or inclusion are best resolved early and in writing, with reference to the contribution each person actually made. Adding a name as a favour, or omitting someone who made a qualifying contribution, creates problems that are difficult to fix after publication. If authorship needs to change after submission, tell the editor promptly, explain the reason, and confirm that all authors agree; journals handle such changes formally, and a change made quietly after acceptance is far harder to resolve. Keep a record of approvals from every author for each version submitted.
A cover letter is a short, professional note to the editor, not a second abstract. Its job is to help the editor route the paper: what the paper is about, why it fits this journal, what type of article it is, and any declarations the journal asks for, such as originality, prior presentation, conflicts of interest, or funding. Mention the title, the article type, and confirm that the work is not under consideration elsewhere. If the journal invites suggested reviewers, name people with relevant expertise and no conflict of interest, and explain briefly why each is suitable; never suggest collaborators, recent co-authors, or anyone with a personal or financial interest in the outcome.
A useful structure is: one paragraph stating the submission and its fit with the journal's scope; one paragraph summarising the question, method, and main finding; and a short closing paragraph with the required declarations and the corresponding author's contact details. Keep it to about a page, use a courteous and factual tone, and do not claim more for the paper than the manuscript claims. An exaggerated cover letter raises expectations the paper must then meet, while a clear, modest letter lets the work speak for itself. Learn more about how editors assess a submission in our explainer on double-blind peer review explained.
Understanding the stages removes much of the anxiety of waiting. First, the editorial office checks that the submission is complete and fits the journal's basic requirements — this is the screening stage, and an incomplete or out-of-scope manuscript may be returned here, before any reviewer sees it. Next, an editor assesses scope, originality, and quality, and decides whether to send the paper for peer review. If it goes to review, reviewers are invited, and the editor waits for their reports before deciding. Each stage depends on other people's schedules, so the overall time varies a great deal by field, journal, and reviewer availability; a journal that publishes a typical timeframe on its website is describing its own process, not making a promise about any single paper.
Reviewers are asked to judge the paper on its merits: Is the question clear and worthwhile? Are the methods sound and adequately described? Do the results support the conclusions? Is the literature handled fairly? Is the writing clear? They also check for ethical concerns and for overlap with published work. Their reports go to the editor, who weighs them — reviewers may disagree, and the editor's decision reflects that judgement, not a vote count. A polite enquiry about progress is reasonable after a long silence, but repeated enquiries do not speed up review and can irritate the very people handling your paper.
Possible decisions include: accept, which is uncommon on first submission; minor revision, where small clarifications or corrections are needed; major revision, where substantial changes, reanalysis, or rewriting are required and the paper will usually be reviewed again; reject with an invitation to resubmit, where the editor sees potential but the current version needs reworking beyond an ordinary revision; and reject, where the paper is not suitable for that journal. Each outcome is a normal part of publishing, and a revision decision — even a major one — means the editor considers the paper worth further work.
Your response letter is as important as the revised manuscript. Reviewers should be able to verify every change without hunting for it. The most reliable format is a point-by-point reply: quote or summarise each comment, state what you changed, and give the location of the change by section and page or line. Where you have not made a suggested change, explain respectfully why, with evidence — a reasoned disagreement supported by data or literature is acceptable; ignoring a comment is not.
Worked example of the format: Reviewer comment — "The sample selection is not described clearly." Response — "Thank you for this observation. We have added a description of how farms were selected, the inclusion criteria, and the final sample size to the Methods section." Then make exactly that change in the manuscript, and highlight or track it in the way the journal asks. Repeat this for every comment, including comments from the editor. Before resubmitting, read the whole revised manuscript again: revisions can introduce inconsistencies, repeated paragraphs, or numbers that no longer match, and a clean revised version is part of what the reviewer is judging.
Tone matters throughout. Reviewers give their time voluntarily and often identify genuine weaknesses; thank them for specific helpful points, even when you disagree with others. Avoid defensive language, avoid attributing motives, and never dismiss a reviewer. If two reviewers contradict each other, say so plainly, explain the choice you made and why, and let the editor adjudicate. If a reviewer asks for an additional experiment or analysis you cannot do, explain the constraint honestly, offer the closest alternative you can provide, and discuss the limitation in the paper rather than pretending the gap does not exist.
Rejection is a routine outcome, not a verdict on you as a researcher. Read the decision letter carefully and separate three kinds of reasons: scope — the journal was the wrong home; quality or method — the study or its reporting needs strengthening; and presentation — the argument was unclear or incomplete. Scope rejections are the easiest to act on: revise the framing for a better-fitting journal and resubmit. Method or quality rejections deserve slower thought: can the analysis be improved, the limitations addressed, or the claim narrowed to what the data support?
Before resubmitting elsewhere, revise in light of the reviewers' comments, even when you disagree with some of them — a fresh set of reviewers at the next journal will often raise similar points. Update the cover letter and formatting for the new journal; never send the same file, with the previous journal's formatting and references style, to a new journal unchanged. Do not submit the same manuscript to two journals at once, and do not resubmit to the same journal after a rejection unless the editor has explicitly invited a resubmission. An appeal is appropriate only when you believe a clear factual error or procedural mistake affected the decision; it should be brief, specific, and supported by evidence, and it should accept that editors may still uphold the original decision.
After acceptance, the manuscript moves to production: copyediting, typesetting, and proofs. Check proofs carefully and promptly, against your accepted manuscript: errors in numbers, names, affiliations, tables, and figures are far easier to fix at proof stage than after publication. Proof corrections should be limited to errors; rewriting sections at proof stage is generally not possible, and extensive changes may be treated as a new version requiring further approval. Confirm author names, order, and affiliations character by character — these details travel with the paper permanently.
At this stage you will also confirm the licence under which the article is published. Under an open access licence such as CC BY 4.0, the article is free to read, and others may share and reuse it provided they give appropriate credit. That credit requirement is the condition that protects authors: reuse without attribution is not permitted by the licence. Keep a copy of the licence and the final published version, and record the publication details for your institutional profile and ORCID record. If you later discover an error in a published article, contact the journal promptly and explain it; journals correct the record through errata or corrections, and raising an error yourself is a mark of scholarly responsibility, not a failure.
Use this checklist on the final version, not on a draft, and have a co-author or colleague run through it independently if possible:
A final read-aloud pass catches problems silent reading misses: sentences that run too long, terms used before they are defined, and paragraphs that repeat an earlier point. If a sentence needs to be read twice to be understood, rewrite it before a reviewer has to do the same.
Several mistakes recur in first submissions, and all of them are avoidable. Submitting before the argument is focused, so the paper tries to answer three questions at once. Choosing a journal for prestige alone, without checking whether it publishes work like yours. Writing the abstract first and never updating it, so it promises findings the paper does not contain. Describing methods so briefly that reviewers cannot judge them. Overstating conclusions in the discussion, or omitting limitations that are obvious to a specialist reader. Treating reviewer comments as personal criticism rather than as a route to a stronger paper. And rushing the final check, so a manuscript with avoidable formatting or reference errors is returned before review. None of these requires more research to fix — they require time, a checklist, and a second reader.
Finally, keep perspective on the process. Peer review is slow because it depends on busy experts giving careful attention to work outside their own projects. Delays, revisions, and rejections are part of the system, not signs that your work has failed. The authors who publish steadily are usually not those who never face rejection; they are those who choose a fitting journal, prepare a complete manuscript, respond to criticism precisely, and resubmit a better paper. Start with one clear contribution, follow the journal's instructions, and let the quality of the work carry the submission.
| Stage | What happens | Typical time |
|---|---|---|
| Drafting | Write the manuscript, tables and references | Weeks to months |
| Journal selection | Match scope, audience and licence, check the journal | A few days |
| Submission | Submit through the journal system with a cover letter | 1 day |
| Peer review | Independent experts assess quality and originality | 4 to 12 weeks |
| Revision | Address reviewer comments and resubmit | 2 to 6 weeks |
| Publication | Article published open access with a DOI | Days to weeks |
These authoritative external resources explain the standards and tools mentioned in this guide:
How long does peer review take?
It varies by field and journal. What you control is the completeness of your submission and the speed and clarity of your revision.
Can first-time authors and PhD scholars publish?
Yes. Manuscripts are judged on scope, originality, quality, and ethics — not on whether it is your first paper.
What is the difference between open access and subscription publishing?
In open access, the article is free for anyone to read immediately on publication. In subscription publishing, readers or their institutions pay to access it.
How do I publish in the Global Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences?
Check your manuscript against the journal scope and the animal sciences manuscript guidelines, then submit through the journal page linked from our journals page.
Can I submit the same manuscript to two journals at the same time?
No. Simultaneous submission is not permitted: it wastes reviewers' time, risks duplicate publication, and can lead to rejection by both journals. Submit to one journal, wait for its decision, and only then submit elsewhere if the paper is rejected or withdrawn.
What is double-blind peer review?
It is a review model in which reviewers do not know the authors' identities and authors do not know the reviewers' identities. Your manuscript file must therefore contain no names, affiliations, or identifying details, with author information supplied separately as the journal instructs. See our full explainer on double-blind peer review explained.
What should I do if a reviewer asks for work I cannot do?
Explain the constraint honestly, provide the closest alternative you can, and address the limitation in the manuscript. Reviewers and editors generally accept a reasoned explanation supported by evidence; what damages a revision is ignoring the comment or claiming work that was not done.
Can I suggest reviewers for my own paper?
Only if the journal invites suggestions, and only people with relevant expertise and no conflict of interest — never collaborators, recent co-authors, supervisors of the work, or anyone with a personal or financial interest in the outcome. The editor decides whom to invite, and may use none of your suggestions.
Can I publish a chapter of my thesis as a journal article?
Often, yes, but a thesis chapter usually needs substantial revision: a journal article is shorter, more focused, and written for readers who have not read the thesis. Check the journal's policy on prior work, disclose the thesis in your cover letter if the journal asks for it, and make sure the article stands on its own.
What is a preprint, and does it count as prior publication?
A preprint is a version of a manuscript shared publicly before peer review. Some journals welcome submissions that have been posted as preprints, while others treat prior public posting differently, so check the journal's policy before posting. A preprint is not a peer-reviewed publication, and posting one does not replace submission to a journal.
Does open access mean anyone can reuse my work without credit?
No. Under a CC BY 4.0 licence, others may read, share, and reuse the work, but they must give appropriate credit to the author. Reuse without attribution does not comply with the licence. Check the licence stated on the article itself for the exact terms that apply to it.
How do I handle a disagreement among co-authors?
Raise it early, refer to the contributions each author made, and seek agreement in writing before submission. If a disagreement arises during revision, the corresponding author should circulate the proposed response and obtain approval from all authors before resubmitting. Unresolved authorship disputes should be brought to the editor promptly rather than left until after publication.
What happens if I find an error after publication?
Contact the journal promptly, describe the error precisely, and provide the correction. Journals address errors in the published record through corrections or errata, depending on the nature of the error. Raising an error yourself protects both your work and the readers who rely on it.
How can I tell whether a journal's indexing claims are genuine?
Check the claim against the official source: search the database or list itself for the journal title, rather than relying on a badge or statement on the journal's website. A journal that cannot be found in a database it claims to be listed in should be treated with caution, and the checks in our guide on how to avoid predatory journals will help you verify the journal's identity.
Submit your manuscript ← Back to GAP Insights
Useful publishers, databases, funders, tools and institutions for researchers: