Submission readiness / Working record
Record an owner, status, and source for each final submission decision. Start with journal fit, then reconcile reporting, ethics, data, references, and files. This is not a quality score.
42 source-linked checks · Reviewed September 11, 2026 · Private browser progress · Ten-page print PDF
Work the decisions
Work from the selected journal's current instructions. Record status, responsibility, and evidence for each decision. “Not applicable” only counts as resolved after you record why it does not apply.
Private readiness workspace
Name the submission if you want a useful handoff, or leave context blank and start the checks. Entries stay in this browser until you export them.
Skip context and work the checksOptional context makes the exported docket useful to coauthors and support teams.
Current checkpoint: Add the target journal’s official source trail. Next action: Build a journal Evidence Pack.
Start with the controlling evidence
A generic checklist cannot settle journal-specific article type, anonymity, disclosure, or file-package rules.
This checkpoint orders recorded evidence and attestations. It does not verify compliance or predict acceptance.
02 · Work the evidence
Confirm that the venue, article type, audience, costs, and policies fit the work before the team spends time on final formatting.
Check the official scope page and several recent articles. A topic match alone is not enough if the article type, method, or audience differs.
Use the journal's own author instructions. Save the access date because requirements can change during revision.
Use Think. Check. Submit. when a journal or invitation is unfamiliar. Do not rely on indexing or a metric claim shown only on the journal's website.
Ask the library or research office about agreements and funder rules before selecting a paid open-access option.
Describe related manuscripts and reused material honestly. A preprint is not treated the same way by every journal.
Concurrent submission is prohibited by many journals. Confirm the selected journal's rule before submission.
Make the research record complete enough for readers, reviewers, and future researchers to understand what was planned and what was done.
For health research, search EQUATOR by study type and specialty. For other fields, check the journal, professional society, repository, or funder standard.
Do not mark an item as complete merely because the topic appears somewhere. Confirm that the requested information is actually reported.
State material deviations from the registered plan or protocol and explain why they occurred.
A qualified reader should not have to infer the basic design from scattered details.
A limitation section should explain what changes interpretation, not simply list generic cautions.
Make the first screen accurate, internally consistent, and appropriately calibrated to the evidence.
Remove claims the study did not test and labels that imply a stronger design than the methods support.
Check sample sizes, outcomes, effect estimates, dates, and conclusions against the final manuscript, not an earlier draft.
State what this work adds and for whom. Avoid claiming a field-changing contribution when the evidence supports a narrower advance.
Use association language for observational evidence unless the design and analysis justify a causal claim.
Use the journal's keyword rules and include established terms a researcher would actually search.
Check whether the evidence can be followed, evaluated, and reconciled across every part of the manuscript.
Use persistent identifiers and repository links when they improve reproducibility or access.
Report these decisions even when the study was exploratory or no formal power calculation was appropriate.
Involve a statistician or methods specialist when the validity of the analysis cannot be resolved by a checklist.
Check denominators, units, rounding, confidence intervals, p values, category labels, and figure-panel references.
Do not let the narrative hide results that qualify the central claim.
Resolve responsibility and disclosure questions before they become submission or publication disputes.
Resolve disputed additions, removals, and ordering before submission. Acknowledgment is different from authorship.
A contribution statement describes roles. It does not by itself determine who qualifies as an author.
Confirm ORCID identifiers and institutional names directly with each author where they are supplied.
Use the wording and identifiers required by the responsible institution, community, field, and journal.
Check each author's disclosure against the selected journal's form and policy.
Do not list an AI system as an author. Human authors remain responsible for accuracy, originality, citations, confidentiality, and the submitted text.
Make access claims true and settle repository, reuse, and permissions questions while the full research record is still available.
Name the repository, persistent identifier, embargo, license, and controlled-access process where applicable.
Include versions, dependencies, licenses, and a short README when code or digital materials are shared.
State the legitimate access path instead of promising open availability that would violate consent, law, contract, or community expectations.
Keep written permissions and the exact credit language with the submission records.
Ask the library before signing away rights or paying an avoidable charge.
Verify that sources support the claims and that visual evidence remains understandable across formats and users.
Open the source for high-stakes, disputed, surprising, or numerical claims. Do not verify only the citation metadata.
Check for retractions, expressions of concern, corrections, and newer versions that change the use of a source.
Remove duplicates and confirm author names, title, venue, year, volume, pages or article number, and DOI where applicable.
A caption should let a reader interpret the display without reconstructing basic definitions from the main text.
Check contrast, labels, patterns, reading order, captions, and the journal's method for supplying alt text. Avoid using an image of a table when a real table is possible.
Submit the intended version with a complete package and a record the author team can reconstruct later.
Check file properties, acknowledgments, self-citations, tracked changes, comments, repository links, and supplement metadata.
Open every final file after export. Confirm that equations, fonts, links, symbols, figures, and tables render correctly.
Disclose related work, preprints, conflicts, and reviewer information exactly as requested. Do not copy an inflated abstract into the letter.
Record approval before the corresponding author presses submit.
Keep the final files, forms, cover letter, reporting checklist, submission date, manuscript ID, and portal confirmation in a shared location.
Worked example · Fictional
Fictional case: an observational readmission paper has 41 completed checks, but its abstract says n=240 and its final results table says n=214. The methods have not explained the difference.
Decision: Blocked. Do not treat a high completion percentage as permission to submit.
Reconcile the analysis population against the final output. Determine whether 26 exclusions were valid and documented, rather than changing the abstract to match a table blindly.
Evidence to retain: Final analysis log, exclusion reasons and dated output; checklist item 04.4.
Update the abstract, methods, tables and captions consistently after the denominator is resolved. Recheck the reporting checklist's page locations.
Evidence to retain: Revised manuscript version and location of the population definition.
Circulate the corrected package for author approval. Keep the submission on hold until the inconsistency and its implications are resolved.
Evidence to retain: Recorded approval of the exact files to submit; checklist item 08.4.
The example is a Manusights workflow recommendation, informed by ICMJE guidance on consistency between abstract and text. It is not a real submission or a publisher decision.
Choose the depth you need
This is a decision aid, not a score. A single unresolved ethics, authorship, reporting, or evidence problem can matter more than dozens of completed formatting checks.
Start here
Use the six red flags below. If one is unresolved, pause the submission and assign an owner.
Then check
Review the 29 items marked "Submission blocker" with the manuscript and journal instructions open.
Finish with
Complete all 42 checks, record exceptions, and archive the final package with the submission confirmation.
Pause before submission
These are not automatic-rejection predictions. They are unresolved issues that should have a named owner and a documented decision before submission.
Study-design module
These starting routes share the source record used by our reporting-guideline selector, checked September 11, 2026. Researchers outside health fields should use their journal or disciplinary standard. The PDF links to the full selector; it does not reproduce official checklists.
| Study type | Starting guideline | Official source |
|---|---|---|
| Randomized trial results | CONSORT 2025 | CONSORT 2025 source |
| Randomized trial protocol | SPIRIT 2025 | SPIRIT 2025 source |
| Systematic review of intervention effects | PRISMA 2020 | PRISMA 2020 source |
| Systematic review protocol | PRISMA-P 2015 | PRISMA-P 2015 source |
| Scoping review | PRISMA-ScR 2018 | PRISMA-ScR 2018 source |
| Cohort, case-control or cross-sectional study | STROBE | STROBE source |
| Observational routinely collected health data | RECORD + STROBE | RECORD + STROBE source |
| Diagnostic test accuracy | STARD 2015 | STARD 2015 source |
| Clinical prediction model | TRIPOD+AI 2024 | TRIPOD+AI 2024 source |
| In vivo animal research | ARRIVE 2.0 | ARRIVE 2.0 source |
| Individual clinical case report | CARE 2013 | CARE 2013 source |
| Qualitative interviews or focus groups | COREQ | COREQ source |
| Health economic evaluation | CHEERS 2022 | CHEERS 2022 source |
| Healthcare improvement work | SQUIRE 2.0 | SQUIRE 2.0 source |
Scope
Method
Manusights wrote operational prompts for the final submission workflow, informed by the sources below. Medical-journal recommendations are labeled as such. The prompts about project-specific approvals, rights and access are questions to investigate, not assurances of compliance.
The checklist converts those standards into operational questions. It does not reproduce or replace any source checklist. When this resource and a journal or disciplinary standard differ, follow the controlling standard.
This edition has passed Manusights internal publication review only; it has not been independently or peer reviewed.
Evidence ledger
Source sections below were checked September 11, 2026. Each keeps its own copyright and terms. Sources inform the sections identified below; they do not mandate every prompt. Repository choices, rights, funder terms, local ethics and community permissions must be checked against the actual project documents. COPE links from the older edition could not be reverified in this pass and are not used as current evidence.
Think. Check. Submit.
Journal identity, review transparency and charges. Not a journal whitelist or endorsement. Applies to checklist section(s) 01. Source section: Check; Submit. Checked 2026-09-11.
EQUATOR Network
Health-research design and reporting routes. Use disciplinary guidance outside this scope. Applies to checklist section(s) 02. Source section: Reporting guidelines for main study types. Checked 2026-09-11.
ICMJE
Medical-journal guidance for abstracts, methods, references and figures. Not a universal rule for all fields. Applies to checklist section(s) 03, 04, 07. Source section: Manuscript sections: Abstract; Methods; References; Illustrations. Checked 2026-09-11.
ICMJE
Medical-journal authorship criteria and responsibility. Apply the governing standard for your field. Applies to checklist section(s) 05, 08. Source section: Who Is an Author?; Non-Author Contributors. Checked 2026-09-11.
ICMJE
AI disclosure and human responsibility in medical publishing. Check your journal's exact scope and placement. Applies to checklist section(s) 05. Source section: Use of AI by Authors. Checked 2026-09-11.
ICMJE
Duplicate submission, related publications and preprints in medical publishing. Applies to checklist section(s) 01. Source section: Duplicate Submission; Duplicate and Prior Publication. Checked 2026-09-11.
ICMJE
Medical-research ethics reporting and participant privacy. Local approvals and consent remain controlling. Applies to checklist section(s) 05, 06. Source section: Protection of Research Participants. Checked 2026-09-11.
ICMJE
Medical-journal disclosure responsibilities. Not a claim about another journal's required form. Applies to checklist section(s) 05. Source section: Participants; Reporting Relationships and Activities. Checked 2026-09-11.
NISO CRediT
Vocabulary for describing contributions; not an authorship eligibility test. Applies to checklist section(s) 05. Source section: CRediT contributor roles. Checked 2026-09-11.
ORCID
Persistent researcher identification, not proof of an affiliation or author approval. Applies to checklist section(s) 05. Source section: What is ORCID?. Checked 2026-09-11.
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
Text alternatives based on image purpose. Check the journal's mechanism for supplying them. Applies to checklist section(s) 07. Source section: Informative images; Complex images; Images of text. Checked 2026-09-11.
ICMJE
Medical-journal submission information and author statements. File archiving is a Manusights workflow recommendation. Applies to checklist section(s) 08. Source section: Sending the Manuscript to the Journal. Checked 2026-09-11.
For libraries and research-support teams
You may link to the permanent HTML page, distribute the PDF, or adapt the checklist with attribution. No permission, reciprocal link, purchase, or institutional endorsement is required.
Suggested listing copy
Research Manuscript Submission Checklist
A free, evidence-linked 42-point checklist covering journal fit, reporting guidelines, authorship, research ethics, data and code, reference integrity, accessible figures, and final submission files. Available as HTML and print PDF. No login required. CC BY 4.0.
Cite this resource
License and disclosure
Original Manusights checklist text and downloadable files are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Attribute Manusights, name the resource, link to the permanent URL, and indicate whether you changed it.
Manusights is a for-profit manuscript review company. This checklist is an open educational resource. Access does not require a purchase, and a library link does not imply endorsement of Manusights or its services.
Edition 2026.09.11-submission2. First published February 20, 2026. Substantially revised August 5, 2026 to add multidisciplinary coverage, direct downloads, source mapping, open-license terms, accessibility checks, and institutional reuse guidance. The browser-local readiness workspace was added August 26, 2026. The 42 core checks and their saved-workspace identifiers are unchanged. This edition updates the reporting routes, source map, worked example and printable pack. These are Manusights workflow prompts, not 42 universal publisher requirements. The storage format remains v1.0.0, so this edition does not reset saved decisions. Recheck an existing record against current instructions before relying on it.
Maintenance policy: Recheck these source observations within 90 days and earlier when a named standard changes materially. This is a review policy, not a guarantee that every external policy change is detected. Corrections are dated in the version note. The permanent URL will remain unchanged.
Before you submit
Use official sources for requirements that can change, especially files, declarations, data, and reporting expectations.
