Blood Submission Guide: How to Get Published in ASH's Flagship

The stages below follow the process ASH describes on its Peer Review page. ASH reports an average of 15 days from submission to first decision for unsolicited submissions.

• Submission intake and editorial screen: The Editors screen each submission, and at their discretion a manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it is deemed uncompetitive or outside the scope of the journal.
• Portfolio transfer: Authors can opt in at submission to transfer a manuscript that is not accepted to another journal in the Blood Journals portfolio, such as Blood Advances, and the editor notes and reviewer reports transfer with the manuscript files.
• Reviewer selection: Manuscripts that pass initial screening are reviewed by at least 2 (typically 3) external experts, and the Editors select the reviewers.
• External peer review: Reviewers judge whether the methods are adequate, whether the conclusions are justified by the data, and whether the results are important and novel enough to advance the field.
• Decision: The Editors make the final decision. A major revision means the new data and manuscript changes should be achievable within 3 months of the decision, and revised manuscripts received after 3 months are treated as new submissions.

Run a Blood pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit, or work through this guide manually.

Blood wants complete hematological stories that advance understanding of blood cell biology or clinical blood disorders. Submit through eJournalPress with your complete manuscript, figures sized for peer review (the combined PDF should not exceed 5 MB), and a compelling cover letter that explains your work's hematologic relevance.

Timeline expectations vary, but early editorial screening is usually where scope mismatch and incomplete mechanistic stories get filtered out.

Essential requirements: original research with direct blood cell relevance, rigorous methodology spanning bench to bedside when applicable, and findings that matter beyond narrow subspecialty audiences. Blood editors particularly value papers that close significant open questions in hematology rather than opening new ones without resolution.

Blood covers the complete spectrum of hematology, from basic blood cell biology to clinical hematologic disorders. The journal publishes several article types, each with distinct scope requirements.

• Regular Articles represent Blood's core content. These papers present complete mechanistic stories about blood cell development, function, or disease pathology. Successful Regular Articles typically combine molecular mechanisms with functional validation and often include translational components. The journal particularly values papers that reveal new therapeutic targets or diagnostic approaches for blood disorders.

• Brief Reports focus on significant novel findings that don't require a full Regular Article. These papers must still present complete stories but can do so more concisely. Brief Reports often describe new methodologies, unexpected clinical observations with mechanistic follow-up, or focused studies that definitively answer specific hematologic questions.

• Clinical Trials and Observations is one of Blood's scientific categories, and trial papers report results from interventional studies in hematologic diseases. Blood considers only trials that were registered before patient enrollment began, and reports must include the clinical trial protocol.

• Reviews synthesize current understanding of specific hematologic topics. Blood publishes both comprehensive reviews covering broad areas and focused reviews addressing specific controversies or emerging areas. Review authors typically have established expertise in their topic areas.

The common thread across all article types: clear relevance to blood cells, blood diseases, or hematologic physiology. Papers using blood cells as convenient experimental models without addressing hematologic questions rarely succeed at Blood. The journal wants research that matters to hematologists, not just cell biologists who happen to work with blood cells.

Blood competes directly with Nature Medicine and Cell for top-tier hematology papers. The journal's advantage lies in its focused scope and engaged hematology readership, making it the natural home for definitive hematologic studies.

Blood accepts submissions only through eJournalPress. Create your account at the Blood submission portal before starting your submission.

• Manuscript Structure: Regular Articles follow this order: Title page, Key Points, Abstract (250 words maximum), Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Acknowledgments, Authorship Contributions, Conflict of Interest Disclosures, References, Tables, Figure legends, and Figures. Blood doesn't use a separate Conclusion section.

The Abstract must include Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions subsections, according to ASH's Manuscript Preparation page; its Article Types page instead describes a single paragraph with no subheadings, so check the current instructions before you format. Write the abstract as continuous prose, not bullet points. The Results section should include your key numerical findings, not just qualitative statements.

• Figure and Table Requirements: Blood accepts up to 7 figures for Regular Articles and 3 figures or tables combined for Brief Reports. Each figure can include multiple panels labeled A, B, C, etc. Accepted upload formats for peer review are GIF, JPEG, PDF, TIFF and EPS, and the total PDF for peer review should not exceed 5 MB. High-resolution files are not preferred at initial submission and are required once a paper is accepted.

Figure legends must be self-contained, meaning readers should understand the figure without referring to the main text. Include statistical methods used, sample sizes, and definitions for all error bars.

Tables should complement figures, not duplicate them. Use tables for numerical data that readers might want to reference precisely. ASH recommends no more than 8 columns per table so that it fits on one US Letter page.

• Reference Format: Blood uses a numbered reference system with superscript numbers in the text. References appear at the end in numerical order of citation. ASH asks authors to format references per the Blood Style Guide. Citations to papers prepublished in Blood First Edition must include the DOI.

For the exact format of each source type, follow the Blood Style Guide rather than a generic template.

• Word Limits: Regular Articles: 4,000 words maximum, counting only the Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. Brief Reports: 1,500 words maximum on the same basis. Count words carefully before submission since ASH says submissions exceeding the limits are not considered for review and are returned to the author.

• Cover Letter Requirements: Blood requires a cover letter for all submissions, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. The letter should be concise and explain why your work fits Blood's scope. Include statements about prior publication, conflicts of interest, and any special considerations for review.

Your cover letter makes the first impression on Blood editors. Write it specifically for Blood, not as a generic template you send everywhere.

Start with a direct statement about your paper's hematologic significance. Don't bury the lead with background information. For example: "We report the first mechanistic explanation for why patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia develop Richter transformation at different rates" works better than "Chronic lymphocytic leukemia is a heterogeneous disease with variable clinical outcomes."

• Key Elements to Include: Explain your work's relevance to Blood's hematology audience. Blood editors see many papers that use blood cells without addressing hematologic questions. Make your hematologic focus explicit. If you're studying T cell development, explain how your findings inform understanding of hematologic malignancies or immune deficiencies.

Highlight translational relevance when applicable. Blood values papers that bridge basic science and clinical hematology. If your mechanistic findings suggest new therapeutic approaches or diagnostic strategies, state this clearly.

Address any potential scope concerns proactively. If your paper might seem outside Blood's typical scope, explain why it belongs in a hematology journal. Papers on vascular biology, for instance, should emphasize connections to hemostasis or vascular hematologic disorders.

• Common Cover Letter Mistakes: Don't oversell your work with hyperbolic language. Phrases like "first-ever discovery" or "paradigm-shifting results" signal inexperience. Let your data speak for itself.

Avoid generic statements about journal prestige. Don't write "Blood is the premier hematology journal" or similar obvious statements. Blood editors know their journal's reputation.

Don't include irrelevant details about your institution or funding. Focus on the science and its fit with Blood's scope.

Never suggest reviewers who are close collaborators or share your institutional affiliation. Blood editors can identify these relationships and will question your judgment.

Blood usually begins with a fairly quick editorial screen. Papers that clearly fit and look technically complete then move to external peer review with expert hematology reviewers.

• Desk Decision Factors: Blood editors desk-reject papers that lack clear hematologic relevance, present incomplete mechanistic stories, or have obvious methodological flaws. Papers using blood cells as convenient experimental models without addressing hematologic questions face high desk rejection rates.

Scope mismatches represent the most common desk rejection reason. Papers on general cell biology, immunology without blood cell focus, or clinical studies without mechanistic insights rarely survive initial editorial review.

• Peer Review Process: Papers that pass desk review go to expert peer reviewers within the hematology community. The Editors select the reviewers, who may be Editorial Board members or other experts in the field, and ASH says at least 2 (typically 3) external experts review each manuscript that passes initial screening. Review is single-anonymized: reviewers remain unknown to the authors, while the authors are known to the reviewers.

Blood editors synthesize reviewer comments into editorial decisions. Editors make final decisions based on reviewer feedback and their own assessment of the work's significance.

• Timeline Expectations: First decisions can move quickly when scope and reviewer matching are straightforward, but complex or specialized papers can take longer. Revised manuscripts are usually handled more efficiently than first submissions because the editor is already anchored on the paper's role and reviewer set.

Blood can also move faster when a paper carries real clinical urgency, but that depends on editorial judgment rather than a simple guaranteed timetable.

Before submitting to Blood, a Blood manuscript fit check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Blood editors see predictable patterns in unsuccessful submissions. Understanding these common mistakes helps you avoid them in your submission strategy.

• Scope Mismatches: The most frequent rejection reason involves papers that use blood cells without addressing hematologic questions. Studies of T cell activation using peripheral blood lymphocytes, for instance, need clear connections to hematologic diseases or blood cell development to succeed at Blood.

Papers on general inflammation, cancer biology, or immunology rarely succeed unless they focus specifically on blood cell biology or hematologic diseases. Blood editors look for research that advances understanding of hematologic physiology, pathophysiology, or clinical management.

Clinical papers without mechanistic components face similar challenges. Case series, retrospective analyses, and descriptive clinical studies rarely meet Blood's standards unless they include mechanistic insights or represent definitive clinical trials.

• Incomplete Mechanistic Stories: Blood values papers that present complete mechanistic explanations, not just novel observations. Papers describing new phenomena without mechanistic follow-up face rejection, even if the observations are interesting.

Successful Blood papers typically progress from observation to mechanism to functional validation. Papers stopping at the observation stage, regardless of novelty, don't meet the journal's standards for complete hematologic stories.

This requirement particularly affects papers describing new biomarkers or clinical associations. Blood wants mechanistic explanations for why these associations exist, not just statistical correlations.

• Pure Basic Biology Without Hematologic Context: Many papers use blood cells as experimental models for general biological processes without connecting findings to hematologic physiology. Studies of apoptosis, cell cycle regulation, or signal transduction in blood cells need explicit connections to blood cell development, function, or disease.

Blood editors distinguish between research using blood cells and research about blood cells. The journal publishes research about blood cells and their unique biology, not general biology that happens to use blood cells as experimental models.

• Methodological Inadequacies: Blood maintains high methodological standards across basic science and clinical research. Common methodological problems include insufficient sample sizes, inappropriate statistical analyses, and lack of proper controls.

Basic science papers must include functional validation of mechanistic findings. Papers describing new signaling pathways, for instance, need loss-of-function and gain-of-function studies to demonstrate functional relevance.

Clinical papers require robust statistical design with appropriate power calculations and clearly defined primary endpoints. Retrospective studies need adequate sample sizes and appropriate matching of control groups.

• Mouse-Only Studies Without Human Validation: Blood increasingly expects papers to include human validation of findings discovered in mouse models. Pure mouse studies face higher rejection rates unless they address questions that can't be studied in humans or represent foundational basic science discoveries.

The journal particularly values papers that validate mouse findings in human samples or demonstrate clinical relevance of basic discoveries. This reflects Blood's mission to bridge basic hematology research with clinical practice.

For manuscripts targeting Blood, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

ASH's Peer Review page says most articles are rejected on grounds of insufficient priority or lack of relevance to hematology, not data quality or technical issues. The patterns below come from our own pre-submission review work, not from a list published by ASH, and addressing them before submission should reduce early-rejection risk.

Hematologic relevance not established from the first page

The Blood author guidelines position the journal as publishing original research that advances understanding of blood cell biology, hematologic disease, or hematological practice. In our pre-submission review work, we see many desk rejections involve manuscripts that use blood cells as experimental models for general cell biology questions without connecting the findings to hematologic physiology or pathology. Editors specifically screen for a clear hematologic argument from the introduction rather than inferring it from the experimental model used.

Mechanistic story incomplete at the time of submission

We also often find many submissions report a novel observation without the functional validation Blood editors expect before the paper goes out for review. In practice, editors consistently reject manuscripts where the observation is interesting but the mechanism has not been pursued, because Blood's threshold requires complete hematologic stories rather than promising beginnings.

Mouse model findings submitted without human validation data

A related pattern is that many submissions present mouse-only findings in areas where human validation is expected and feasible. Editors consistently screen for human validation alongside murine results, because Blood increasingly expects papers to bridge mouse model findings to hematologic physiology relevant to patients.

Check mouse model findings submitted without human validation data before submitting to Blood →

Methodological design insufficient for the stated hematologic claim

A related pattern is that many submissions use sample sizes, statistical methods, or control designs that fall below the evidence standard Blood reviewers apply. In our analysis of desk rejections at Blood, this pattern is most common in clinical or translational papers where power calculations, appropriate comparators, or functional validation are absent.

Check methodological design insufficient for the stated hematologic claim before submitting to Blood →

Cover letter framing the work as cell biology rather than hematology

A related pattern is that many submissions arrive with cover letters that describe the molecular or cellular finding without stating its significance to the hematology community. Editors explicitly consider whether the cover letter explains hematologic relevance before routing for specialist review.

SciRev author-reported review times and Clarivate 2026 JCR release bibliometric data provide additional benchmarks when planning your submission timeline.

Before submitting to Blood, a Blood submission readiness check identifies whether your hematologic argument, mechanistic depth, and evidence package meet the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Check cover letter framing the work as cell biology rather than hematology before submitting to Blood →