Implementation Science Submission Guide

Source: Implementation Science author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the contribution is implementation-science

• whether theoretical grounding is rigorous

• whether implementation-outcomes measurement is appropriate

• a clear implementation-science contribution

• theoretical grounding in established implementation frameworks

• implementation-outcomes measurement

• rigorous methodology

• a cover letter establishing the implementation-science contribution

• Descriptive program evaluations without implementation-science framing.

• Missing theoretical grounding.

• Weak implementation-outcomes measurement.

• Clinical effectiveness research without implementation focus.

Implementation Science is the flagship implementation-research journal.

Theory-driven standard: the journal differentiates from clinical trial journals by demanding theory-driven implementation-research framing.

Implementation-outcomes expectation: editors expect measurement of adoption, fidelity, sustainability, or comparable implementation outcomes.

The editorial screen: Springer publishes no desk-rejection rate for the journal.

The strongest Implementation Science cover letters establish:

• the implementation-science contribution

• the theoretical grounding

• the implementation-outcomes measurement

• the methodological approach

Implementation Science requires these at first submission:

• Cover letter explaining why the manuscript should be published in Implementation Science, including the theoretical framework deployed and the rationale for its use (the journal asks that theories and frameworks not be applied in a superficial, tokenistic fashion)

• Populated reporting checklist appropriate for the study design (StaRI for implementation studies, CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational, COREQ for qualitative, etc.)

• Declaration of competing interests for all authors

• Ethics approval statement for research involving human participants, human data or human tissue, with the name of the ethics committee and its reference number where appropriate

• Informed consent statement where applicable

• Availability of data and materials statement (required for all manuscripts; where data cannot be shared publicly, state the conditions for access)

• Authors' contributions statement, using author initials

• Optional suggested reviewers in the cover letter, with institutional email addresses where possible and no recent collaborators or colleagues from the same institution (BMC editorial policies)

For Implementation Science submissions, the most common artifact-related desk-reject is a missing or incomplete reporting checklist. BMC editors check this at intake; submissions without the matched checklist for the study design are commonly returned for completion before scope screen.

For Implementation Science submissions, the editorial timeline runs through four phases. The journal page reports a median of 18 days from submission to first decision; Springer publishes no overall acceptance or desk-rejection rate, and the stage windows below are unofficial planning estimates.

Day 0 to 5: Springer Nature submission intake and editor assessment

Submissions received without the required populated reporting checklist are returned to the authors as incomplete, and every submission is assessed by an Editor who decides whether it is suitable for peer review (BMC editorial policies). The most common Day 0-5 hold-up: missing matched reporting checklist or weak theoretical-framework framing in the cover letter.

Day 5 to 29: Editor scope and theory screen

Implementation Science's editor filter prioritizes theoretically informed research where the deployed theory or framework is integral to the study design, not bolted on at the discussion stage. The most common Day 5-29 desk reject in our review work: descriptive implementation reports without a clearly framed theoretical contribution, or studies that name a framework (CFIR, RE-AIM, NPT) without substantively engaging with it.

Week 4 to 12: Peer review

Typically two or more experts evaluate each manuscript, and the journal operates transparent peer review: if the article is published, the reviewer reports are published online alongside it and the reviewer is not named. Springer publishes no standard review window.

Week 12 to 19: Decision and revision

Major revision is a common first decision after review (Manusights reading, not a published statistic). Springer publishes no median time to acceptance on the pages read. The open-access APC price is determined from the date of acceptance.

• Is Implementation Science a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through an Implementation Science theory and outcomes readiness check.

Follow the published mechanics, then judge the submission from the other side of the desk. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Implementation Science fit check before upload, especially around descriptive program evaluations without implementation-science framing, missing theoretical grounding in established frameworks, and weak implementation-outcomes measurement. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Across implementation manuscripts targeting Implementation Science, three patterns appear most often in desk-rejected submissions.

In our pre-submission review work, we see many Implementation Science desk rejections trace to descriptive program-evaluation framing. We also often find these cases involve missing theoretical grounding. A related pattern is that these cases often arise from weak implementation-outcomes measurement.

Descriptive program evaluations without implementation-science framing

Implementation Science editors look for theory-driven research, not just program-evaluation reports. We observe submissions framed as program implementations without theoretical grounding routinely desk-rejected.

Check descriptive program evaluations without implementation science framing before submitting to Implementation Science →

Missing theoretical grounding in established frameworks

Editors expect engagement with CFIR, PARIHS, RE-AIM, ERIC, or comparable frameworks. We see manuscripts using ad-hoc framing without established frameworks routinely returned.

Check missing theoretical grounding in established frameworks before submitting to Implementation Science →

Weak implementation-outcomes measurement

Implementation Science specifically expects measurement of implementation outcomes (adoption, fidelity, acceptability, feasibility, sustainability). We find papers reporting only clinical outcomes without implementation outcomes routinely declined. An Implementation Science theory and outcomes readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate 2026 JCR release bibliometric data places Implementation Science as the leading implementation-research journal.

Check weak implementation outcomes measurement before submitting to Implementation Science →

This page was researched from Implementation Science's author guidelines, BMC editorial-policy materials, Clarivate JCR data, SciRev community reports, and our pre-submission review work on submissions to Implementation Science and adjacent venues.

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top implementation-research journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, the contribution must be theory-driven, not descriptive; submissions framed as program-evaluation reports without theoretical framing fail at desk screening. Second, theoretical grounding should engage with established implementation frameworks (CFIR, PARIHS, RE-AIM, ERIC). Third, implementation outcomes (adoption, fidelity, sustainability) should be measured alongside any clinical outcomes. Fourth, methodology should be appropriate to the implementation-research question.

For Implementation Science-targeted manuscripts, the single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for Implementation Science is the descriptive-versus-theory-driven distinction. Implementation Science editors expect theoretical framing, not just program-implementation reports. Submissions framed as "we implemented program X in setting Y" routinely receive "where is the implementation theory?" feedback during desk screening.

We coach authors to lead with the implementation-research question and frame the program in service of that question. Papers framed as "we tested how implementation strategy X, grounded in CFIR construct Y, affected adoption and fidelity in setting Z" receive better editorial traction.

The same logic applies across implementation-research journals: editors are operating with limited slot inventory, and the submissions that get traction lead with the theory-driven implementation question.

For Implementation Science-targeted manuscripts, beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for Implementation Science. First, manuscripts where the abstract emphasizes clinical or program outcomes without implementation outcomes are flagged at desk for descriptive framing. We recommend the abstract's central sentences state the implementation question, the theoretical framework, and the implementation outcomes measured.

Second, manuscripts where implementation strategies are reported without explicit mapping to ERIC taxonomy or comparable framework are flagged for strategy-specification gaps. We recommend explicit mapping of strategies to established taxonomies. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with Implementation Science's recent issues are at risk of being told the contribution doesn't fit the publication conversation.