European Respiratory Journal Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, ERS editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: ERJ author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the respiratory contribution is substantive
• whether methodology meets respiratory-research standards
• whether clinical implications are direct

• a clear respiratory-research contribution
• rigorous methodology with appropriate reporting
• direct clinical implications
• engagement with established methods
• a cover letter establishing the contribution

• Weak methodology in respiratory research.
• Narrow clinical relevance.
• Missing translational contribution.
• Basic research without respiratory focus.

ERJ is a flagship respiratory medicine journal.

Clinical-translational standard: the journal differentiates from American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (top-tier) and Thorax (broader respiratory) by serving the European Respiratory Society membership with focus on clinical and translational research.

Methodological-rigor expectation: editors expect appropriate research methods.

The 60-70% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest ERJ cover letters establish:

• the respiratory-research contribution
• the methodological approach
• the clinical implications
• the central finding

• Is European Respiratory Journal a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through an ERJ methodological readiness check.

In our pre-submission review work with respiratory manuscripts targeting ERJ, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

In our experience, roughly 35% of ERJ desk rejections trace to methodological gaps. In our experience, roughly 25% involve narrow clinical relevance. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from weak translational contribution.

• Methodological gaps in respiratory research. ERJ editors expect rigorous research methodology. We observe submissions with thin sample, weak design, or inadequate analysis routinely desk-rejected.

• Narrow clinical relevance. Editors expect findings that extend to broader respiratory practice. We see manuscripts framed around one institution or narrow population without broader relevance routinely declined.

• Weak translational contribution. ERJ specifically expects translational implications. We find papers reporting findings without articulating translational implications routinely returned. An ERJ methodological readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places ERJ among top respiratory medicine journals.

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top respiratory medicine journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, methodology must be rigorous with appropriate reporting standards. Second, clinical relevance must extend beyond narrow populations. Third, clinical implications should be direct. Fourth, engagement with established respiratory-research methods should be explicit.

The single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for ERJ is the methodology-versus-narrative distinction. ERJ editors expect rigorous methodology. Submissions framed as "we examined patients with respiratory condition X" without clear methodology routinely receive "what is the design?" feedback. We coach authors to lead with the clinical question and study design. Papers framed as "we conducted a prospective cohort study of X patients to test whether intervention Y improves outcome Z" receive better editorial traction.

Beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for ERJ. First, manuscripts where the abstract reports findings without clear methodology are flagged. Second, manuscripts where reporting standards are not followed are flagged for compliance gaps. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with ERJ's recent issues are at risk of being told the contribution doesn't fit.

The strongest manuscripts we coach distinguish themselves on three operational behaviors. First, they confine the cover letter to one page. Second, they include a one-sentence elevator pitch. Third, they identify the specific recent ERJ articles that this manuscript builds on.

Editorial triage at European Respiratory Journal operates on limited time per manuscript, with editors typically scanning the abstract, introduction, methodology, and conclusions before deciding whether to invite reviewer engagement. We coach researchers to design abstract, introduction, and conclusions for fast assessment, with each section independently conveying the respiratory contribution, the methodological rigor, and the clinical implications. Manuscripts that bury the central respiratory contribution or require multiple readings to identify the central argument fare worse than manuscripts that lead with their strongest signal in the first sentence of the abstract and the first paragraph of the introduction.

Beyond methodology and contribution, journals at this tier weight author-team authority within the specific subfield. Strong submissions reference the journal's recent papers explicitly in the introduction and discussion, signaling that the authors are operating inside the publication conversation. We coach researchers to identify 3-5 recent journal papers that this manuscript builds on or differentiates from.