Every mapped journal needed multiple official sources
No journal in the sample could be resolved from a single official page.
Reproducible findings · version 1.8
Submission guidance is a source-tracing problem, not a one-page lookup.
Across this purposive sample of 30 journals, every submission job required more than one official source. 27 journals required three distinct surfaces to settle fit, package, review, policy, or editorial decisions.
Headline findings
What the mapped source paths show
These are exact descriptions of the maintained corpus. They are not population estimates for all journals.
Most mapped paths required three sources
The third source often supplied policy, review-model, or editorial context missing from the journal overview.
Official does not always mean automation-friendly
Some official URLs limit automated access. That is an evidence constraint, not proof that a rule changed or disappeared.
Supporting context is kept separate from controlling evidence
Editorial context can sharpen a decision without being misrepresented as a required submission rule.
Cross-journal analysis
The hard part is assigning evidence to the right decision
The corpus spans 26 official domains. More pages alone would not solve the author’s problem. A useful map has to say which page controls which decision, and where a second page adds context without becoming a rule.
journal-by-decision cells
Each cell records a decision that appears in a maintained journal path. Blank cells remain blank instead of being turned into inferred requirements.
decisions resolved by more than one source
These are the clearest collision points. Two official pages can contribute to the same decision, so role and provenance matter.
largest publisher-system share
Springer Nature is the largest group in the sample. No single publisher system controls the result.
Decision coverage
Six author decisions, with different evidence owners
A blank decision in the dataset means it was outside that journal's mapped path, not that no rule exists.
| Decision area | Journals mapped | Resolving sources |
|---|---|---|
| Package requirements | 29 | 29 |
| Scope & fit | 29 | 29 |
| Disclosure & data | 25 | 25 |
| Article type & genre | 22 | 22 |
| Review model & anonymity | 22 | 23 |
| Contribution framing | 17 | 17 |
Source roles
The source type tells you what it can settle
Journal overview
30 mapped surfaces30 were required for the core submission job. 10 limited automated retrieval during the review.
Author workflow
30 mapped surfaces30 were required for the core submission job. 8 limited automated retrieval during the review.
Policy or editorial
30 mapped surfaces27 were required for the core submission job. 5 limited automated retrieval during the review.
Open chart reuse
Use the figures without rebuilding them
Each SVG is stable for version 1.8, readable without JavaScript, and licensed under CC BY 4.0. The embed code includes the attribution. No tracking pixel and no required followed link.
Official sources required per submission path
The SVG is fixed to version 1.8. Copy the HTML to reuse it with visible attribution, or download the image directly.
Journal coverage by author decision
The SVG is fixed to version 1.8. Copy the HTML to reuse it with visible attribution, or download the image directly.
Reproducibility bundle
Check every count and every file
The codebook names the unit of observation, missing-value rule, and counting formulas. SHA-256 digests cover the canonical release files. This makes an accidental file change visible before anyone reruns the analysis.
Interpretation boundary
Use the finding without overstating it
- This is a purposive cross-disciplinary sample, not a random sample or prevalence estimate.
- Manusights classified source roles and decision areas; publishers own the underlying source content.
- The live official source controls whenever it differs from this reviewed record.
- Automated monitoring opens an evidence review. It cannot publish a factual change by itself.