research paper submission journal

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Your step-by-step guide to the submission form

Keep this page open for reference as you complete each task in the submission form. The form has 7 major sections, which are outlined below. 

After you provide the required information, Editorial Manager will compile your files into a PDF to send to the journal.

Sign in to the Editorial Manager , and click  Submit New Manuscript

Submission Steps

Article type selection.

Follow the on-screen instructions to select the appropriate article type:

• Research Article: reports the results of original primary research, including quantitative and qualitative studies, methods and software studies, systematic reviews, and other work.
• Clinical Trial: research that prospectively assigns human participants to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes.
• Registered Report Protocol: reports a study’s rationale, proposed methodology for data collection and analysis. Registered Report Protocols undergo peer-review to ensure that the planned research will meet the PLOS ONE publication criteria.
• Registered Report: primary research articles that describe the findings from a study preregistered as a Registered Report Protocol. After data collection, the Registered Report manuscript includes the Introduction and Methods from the original Registered Report Protocol plus the Results and Discussion outlining the findings and their interpretation. Available only as follow-up to a published PLOS ONE Registered Report Protocol.
• Lab Protocol:  describes verified methodologies and consists of a protocol posted to the protocols.io platform and a peer-reviewed PLOS ONE  article.
• Study Protocol:  describes detailed plans for research projects that have not yet generated results.

All primary research submissions are subject to the same publication criteria , but may require slightly different information in the submission form.

Attach Files

Upload the following submission files individually:

• Cover letter
• Manuscript (in DOC, DOCX, RTF)
• Supporting information (including supporting documentation for specific study types )

For each file uploaded, choose the matching Item Type from the dropdown menu. Enter or edit the autofill description for each file in the Description field .

Upload figures in TIFF or EPS format, at a 300-600 ppi resolution, and not exceeding 10MB in size. Supporting information files are acceptable in any format.

Before you upload, use PACE to check that the figures meet our requirements.

Upload LaTex manuscripts  in PDF format. If the article is accepted for publication, the .tex files will be required.

Preprint PDF

PLOS offers the option to have your submission forwarded to  bioRxiv  or medRxiv  for consideration for posting as a preprint. You will have a chance to opt in on the Additional Information screen.

If you plan to participate, you may upload a preprint PDF now, using the Preprint PDF item type. Alternatively, PLOS ONE can automatically compile a preprint PDF suitable for bioRxiv or medRxiv from the manuscript and figure files included in your submission. 

​ General Information

Select one of the categories provided that most closely matches the research area discussed in the manuscript.

Add keywords to help expedite processing of your manuscript (optional) . You will not have an opportunity to make changes, so make sure to add concise, accurate keywords now.

Review Preferences

Provide the names of any  Editors or reviewers  who should not assess the submission, and give the reason for opposition. Make sure to clearly indicate if the individual is an Editor in the explanation. 

The editorial team will respect these requests as long as they do not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

Additional Information

Required statements.

Check the boxes to indicate that you have read and agree with the 5 required statements regarding PLOS Editorial and Publishing Policies: 

• Reporting requirements  and  data availability
• Consideration of related manuscripts
• Contributors named in the Acknowledgments

United States Government employee

Specify if any of the authors are employees of the US Government. If accepted, the article will use a CC0 license .

Financial disclosure

Describe the sources of funding that supported the work, if any, and indicate whether they played a role at any point in the research or publication process. To draft the statement, consult the disclosure of funding sources policy and follow the in-system instructions.

This information will appear in the published article, if accepted. Ensure it is detailed and accurate.

Competing interests statement

Declare any author affiliations or relationships that could be viewed as potential competing interests. To draft the statement, consult the competing interests policy and follow the in-system instructions.

Ethics statement

If the study made use of human or animal subjects and/or tissue, you must provide an ethics statement. Make sure this information exactly matches the ethics statement included in the manuscript and that it fulfills our reporting requirements for human subjects research and animal research . 

We will evaluate your ethics statement to ensure that it meets our standards. Include as much information as possible.

Figure guidelines

Confirm that the figures comply with our image preparation guidelines , including those on image manipulation .

Copyrighted figures

If any of the images included in the submission fall under copyright or were adapted from images under copyright, provide the following additional details:

• Image source
• Permissions received from the copyright holder to publish under a CC BY license (CC0 for US Government employees)
• Where the image appears in the manuscript and how it is used (e.g. visualized, reproduced)
• For any adapted images, upload a copy of the original figure on the Attach Files screen

Dual publication

State whether any of the elements in the manuscript have been published or are under consideration for publication elsewhere. If yes, it is very important to provide full details in the event that the journal needs to consider copyright issues.

Calls for Papers and Collections

If you are submitting in response to a call for papers in a specific topic area, enter the title of the call in the space provided.

Request editors

Recommend 2-5 Academic Editors from the Editorial Board who you think are qualified to handle the submission.

New species

If the paper describes a new taxon, provide its name. Be sure that the manuscript includes the required nomenclature and identification details .

Data availability statement

Use the following guidance to construct your Data Availability statement. This information will appear in the article if accepted. 

• Confirm whether all data reported in the manuscript are publicly available. PLOS requires that authors deposit all reported data and related metadata underlying the study findings in an appropriate public repository unless already provided in the submission. See the data reporting guidelines .
• Describe where the data can be found in full sentences. Use the in-system instructions to draft a suitable statement.
• Check the boxes to specify if the data will be available in a repository upon acceptance or if you need journal assistance to make it available. Journal staff will follow up to help later on in the process.

Publication fees

Follow the in-system instructions to specify how payment will be handled if the manuscript is accepted for publication. If you have any questions, email the author billing department . 

Editors and reviewers have no access to payment information, therefore your ability to pay does not influence the decision to publish.

Preprint posting

Specify whether your manuscript is currently posted on a preprint server. If so, provide the DOI or identifier.

Group authors and consortia

If your author list includes a group author or consortium , provide the name here.

Enter any comments that you would like to send to the journal office. These comments will not be visible to Editors or reviewers or appear in the published article if accepted. 

If this manuscript has been returned to you with a request for corrections or clarifying information (e.g. about images under copyright, competing interests), provide a response here as directed in the email you received from the journal.

Manuscript Data

Editorial Manager will extract details from the manuscript to gather the following information. Verify that they’re correct, and fill in any missing details:

• Author list (see instructions below)
• Funding information

Author list

Enter each author’s name, email address, institutional affiliation, and contributions . Ensure authors are listed in the same order as in the manuscript.

Do not list group authors here. Provide the names of group authors and consortia in the manuscript and in the group author question  on the Additional Information screen.

Corresponding author

The submitting author is automatically added to the author list and given the role of corresponding author in the submission system. If this author will not be available for an extended period of time, [email protected].

You can designate different corresponding authors on the manuscript who will receive post-publication correspondence if the submission is accepted.

Change the corresponding author

To transfer the role to another author in the list, click the pencil icon next to the author’s name, and check This is the corresponding author .

Read more about designating corresponding authors and corresponding author responsibilities.

Send to PLOS

When you supply all requested information, click Build PDF for Approval on the final screen. The system will merge the submission files into a PDF for your review. Click Approve to send it to the journal. 

Congratulations! You’re done. You will receive a confirmation message with a manuscript number to track the submission’s progress.

Revised Manuscripts

Submitting a revision? Read the instructions for revised manuscripts .

Questions about the submission process? Email [email protected] .

• Submit your paper

Publishing with Elsevier: step-by-step

Learn about the publication process and how to submit your manuscript. This tutorial will help you find the right journal and maximize the chance to be published.

1. Find a journal

Find out the journals that could be best suited for publishing your research. Match your manuscript using the JournalFinder tool, then learn more about each journal.

JournalFinder

Powered by the Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™, Elsevier JournalFinder uses smart search technology and field-of-research-specific vocabularies to match your article to Elsevier journals.

Find out more about a journal

Learn about each journal's topics, impact and submission policies.

Find a journal by name

• Read the journal's aims and scope to make sure it is a match
• Check whether you can submit – some journals are invitation only
• Use journal metrics to understand the impact of a journal
• If available, check the journal at Journal Insights for additional info about impact, speed and reach
• If you're a postdoc, check out our postdoc free access program

2. Prepare your paper for submission

Download our get published quick guide , which outlines the essential steps in preparing a paper. (This is also available in Chinese ). It is very important that you stick to the specific "guide for authors" of the journal to which you are submitting. This can be found on the journal's home page.

You can find information about the publishing process in the understanding the publishing process guide. It covers topics such as authors' rights, ethics and plagiarism, and journal and article metrics.

If you have research data to share, make sure you read the guide for authors to find out which options the journal offers to share research data with your article.

Read more on preparing your paper

Read about publishing in a special issue

• Use an external editing service, such as Elsevier’s Author Services if you need assistance with language
• Free e-learning modules on preparing your manuscript can be found on Researcher Academy
• Mendeley makes your life easier by helping you organize your papers, citations and references, accessing them in the cloud on any device, wherever you are

3. Submit and revise

You can submit to most Elsevier journals using our online systems.  The system you use will depend on the journal to which you submit. You can access the relevant submission system via the "submit your paper" link on the Elsevier.com journal homepage of your chosen journal.

Alternatively, if you have been invited to submit to a journal, follow the instructions provided to you.

Once submitted, your paper will be considered by the editor and if it passes initial screening, it will be sent for peer review by experts in your field. If deemed unsuitable for publication in your chosen journal, the editor may suggest you transfer your submission to a more suitable journal, via an article transfer service.

Read more on how to submit and revise

• Check the  open access options on the journal's home page
• Consider the options for sharing your research data
• Be accurate and clear when checking your proofs
• Inform yourself about copyright and licensing

4. Track your paper

Track your submitted paper.

You can track the status of your submitted paper online. The system you use to track your submission will be the same system to which you submitted. Use the reference number you received after submission to track your submission.

Unsure about what the submission status means? Check out this video .

In case of any problems contact the Support Center

Track your accepted paper

Once your paper is accepted for publication, you will receive a reference number and a direct link that lets you follow its publication status via Elsevier’s "Track Your Accepted Article" service.

However, even without a notification you can track the status of your article by entering your article reference number and corresponding author surname in Track Your Accepted Article .

Read more about the article tracking service

5. Share and promote

Now that your article is published, you can promote it to achieve a bigger impact for your research. Sharing research, accomplishments and ambitions with a wider audience makes you more visible in your field. This helps you get cited more, enabling you to cultivate a stronger reputation, promote your research and move forward in your career.

Read more on sharing your research After publication, celebrate and get noticed!

Elsevier.com visitor survey

We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier.com. We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit . If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website. Thanks in advance for your time.

• Search Search
• CN (Chinese)
• DE (German)
• ES (Spanish)
• FR (Français)
• JP (Japanese)
• Open Research
• Booksellers
• Peer Reviewers
• Springer Nature Group ↗
• Publish an article
• Roles and responsibilities
• Signing your contract
• Writing your manuscript
• Submitting your manuscript
• Producing your book
• Promoting your book
• Submit your book idea
• Manuscript guidelines
• Book author services
• Publish a book
• Publish conference proceedings

Author tutorials

How to submit a journal article

Access the course

Stay up to date.

Here to foster information exchange with the library community

Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development.

• Tools & Services
• Account Development
• Sales and account contacts
• Professional
• Press office
• Locations & Contact

We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. Visit our main website for more information.

• © 2024 Springer Nature
• General terms and conditions
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Your Privacy Choices / Manage Cookies
• Accessibility
• Legal notice
• Help us to improve this site, send feedback.

Guide to Getting Published in Journals

• Why publish in journals?
• Identifying potential journals
• Creating a journal comparison spreadsheet
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• How different journals approach peer review
• Different open access models
• Interpreting traditional metrics like the Impact Factor
• Alternative metrics
• Ethics and malpractice statements
• Recognising and avoiding predatory journals
• Instructions for authors
• Submitting your paper

Introduction

You have worked through your list of journals, investigating all your criteria and found the journal that is best suited to your paper and the goals you have for it. It is now time for you to submit!

In this section, we will prepare you for what to expect when submitting to a journal, give some insights into the peer review process, how to respond to requests for revisions and resubmit a paper, and what steps to take should you receive a rejection decision.

Submitting a paper

Make sure you have prepared your paper according to the instructions for authors . Double-check the journal’s requirements with your article to be certain.

If you need to include a cover letter with your submission, you should address the editor by formal name (e.g. Dear Professor Name---) and include the name of the journal but make sure you use the correct one (especially if this is your second-choice journal)!

In the letter, explain why your article is suitable for that journal and how your paper will contribute to furthering its aims & scope. Pitch the value of your article, describing the main theme, the contribution your paper makes to existing knowledge, and its relationship to any relevant articles published in the journal. You should not repeat the abstract in the letter. Include information not typically mentioned in a manuscript.

You may also be requested by the journal to suggest some reviewers for your paper. Good sources for these include authors cited in your references and editorial board members from the journal, or from other journals in the field. You should not suggest anyone that you would have a conflict of interest with, such as co-workers.

You should also make some formal declarations regarding the originality of your work, that you have no conflicts of interest, and that all co-authors (if you have any) agree to the submission.

The review process

As we discussed in the earlier module on peer review , there are a wide range of timeframes over which your review process may be conducted.

It may take several months for the journal to complete the review process, which typically involves:

• Reading the article and deciding whether to send it for review.
• Acquiring sufficient reviewers and receiving all feedback.
• Assessing the reviews and rendering a decision on the paper.

Acquiring reviewers and then receiving those reviews back is the longest part of the process. It is very much dependent on the availability of academics, and is not an especially predictable process.

Journals which use web-based reviewing platforms often feature a status for each submission that authors can check. If this status has not changed for some time, in most cases, you will be able to send the journal administrator or editor an email. Some journals make their review times publicly available, giving you a good idea of how long their process might take, and when it may be appropriate to ask for an update. If you do not know what to expect, we suggest waiting around 2 months before asking for an update.

Desk reject

Hopefully you will have submitted your article to the perfect journal, exactly as they have requested, and your article will be sent for reviewing. However, some papers are rejected without being sent for peer review – this is commonly known as a desk reject – and of course, you want to avoid this happening to your paper.

To help you understand and minimise the risk, here are some of the most common reasons for desk rejection:

TECHNICAL SCREENING

• Language or writing issues which make it too hard for the editor to understand the paper.
• Similarity checking revealing a large amount of exact matching or plagiarised content.
• Formatting is not in the journal style
• Word count is too high
• Figures & Tables are incomplete or difficult to read
• References are incomplete

AIMS & SCOPE AND CONTENT

• Outside Aims & Scope.
• Hypothesis or purpose is not sufficiently clear.
• Methods are unclear or flawed.
• Results do not support conclusions.
• Incremental addition to knowledge.
• References miss key or recent literature.

Similarity (plagarism) checking

Many journals conduct some form of checking of article text to go alongside the reviewing of papers. Software such as iThenticate, Turnitin, PlagScan, among many others, are used either to look for similarities in text between the submitted article and published material available online.

These platforms cannot, by themselves, determine whether text has been plagiarised, only provide a score of how similar passages of text are to existing material. For this reason, these programs tend to be referred to as ‘similarity checker’, not ‘plagiarism checker’.

Papers which are processed and return high scores are likely to be investigated to determine whether the similarity does appear to be deliberate plagiarism. How a journal deals with such a paper depends on their own policies and procedures, and the extent of the plagiarism detected.

Many journals will refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines and Flowchart for dealing with “Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript”. See our module on Ethics and Malpractice Statements for more detail on COPE and journal ethics.

These similarity checking programs may be used at different stages of the process, depending on journal policy and situation. Some journals may screen all papers on submission, some only when some concerns are raised by the editor on first read or by referees during review.

Receiving a decision after peer review

Once the editor has received all comments, feedback and recommendations from the reviewers, they will make a decision on the paper. These decisions may be called by different terms, but will usually fit into one of four categories:

• Accept – it is very rare than a first submission will be accepted outright, without any changes being requested.
• Revisions likely to result in acceptance – This can be a ‘minor revisions’ decision, or a more major revision, but in both cases the editor shows positivity towards a final acceptance.
• Revisions with an uncertain outcome – Often referred to as ‘major revisions’, or ‘reject, revise and resubmit’, these decisions request extensive revisions, reinterpretations of information, or deeper, more thorough explanations of details, which ultimately may not be acceptable for the journal even when responses to all reviewer comments have been provided.
• Reject – The paper is unsuitable and/or unacceptable for the journal in this form, or any alternate version. With a reject decision, a revision is not invited, and should an author resubmit the paper as a new version, it may be immediately rejected.

If you are invited to revise your paper, make sure you are methodical in your approach to tackling the revisions requested by the editor.

• Read the letter and put it aside for a day or two. However well-framed the reviewer’s comments and criticisms of your paper, there is always a chance you may feel protective over the original paper you spent so much time writing. It is not always easy to receive criticism, so don’t rush to take action immediately.   Give yourself a few days to digest the reviewer comments before taking the next steps with your revision.
• In most cases, it is likely that you will be able to follow the recommendations of the reviewers.
• Organising the reviewer comments by ease of response or your ability to complete. For example, on a spectrum of requested revisions, spelling and grammar corrections would be at the easiest end, through to conducting extra experiments at the more difficult (or impossible) end.
• Numbering each of the comments from each reviewer.
• Taking a structured approach to revisions will also make it easier to respond. You will need to include a point-by-point response letter, detailing how you have addressed each reviewer point.   You do not need to perform every change requested of the reviewers, but you should provide a response as to why you have not done so. It may be that reviewers request conflicting things, or the additional experiments they suggest are not possible.
• If you disagree with a comment made by one of the reviewers, try to provide an evidence-based explanation in your response.
• Try to complete your revisions by the requested deadline. If you think you will need longer, let the journal know. They will probably be happy to grant you the extension, and it is courteous to keep them updated. In addition, some online review platforms may prevent you from submitting your revision once the due date expires, so asking for an extension will avoid this problem too.
• Once your revisions are complete and you have detailed all your responses in your letter, check with any co-authors that they are all happy with the final versions before re-submitting to the journal.
• For journals with online submission forms, be sure to submit as the revision of your original article so that it is easy for the editorial office and Editor to follow. Amend any relevant fields (such as title, abstract) that have changed during your revision process, provide related cover letters, revised manuscript files and reviewer response letter in the appropriate places in the forms.
• Revisions may be sent to the previous reviewers to re-assess, or the Editor may make a decision independently. In some cases, new reviewers may be sought. As with the first submission, once all reviews have been submitted, the Editor will make a decision from the same set of categories and hopefully your paper will be accepted in just one or two rounds of resubmission. Some very strict journals will not invite a second speculative revision, but others may be more lenient and continue to invite revisions until the editor is satisfied of a decision to either Accept or Reject.

Having a submission rejected from your first-choice journal is something of an inevitability - every researcher has been rejected at some point in their careers. Even some of what we now consider ground-breaking and foundational studies were rejected from their first-choice journals. Hans Krebs' paper on citric acid cycle - the Krebs cycle – was rejected from Nature in 1937, and Kary Mullis’ first paper on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was rejected from Science in 1993, before going on to win the Nobel Prize. Rejection happens, quite literally, to the best of us.

If this should happen to you, try not be too disappointed. It does not mean there is no future for your paper. As with our revision recommendation, set aside the letter once you have read it and give yourself some time before tackling it.

When you are ready to proceed with your paper, consider the following steps:

• From your shortlist of suitable journals for your paper, you might now consider your second-choice journal.
• Another option to consider may be ‘Cascade Journals’. Some publishers now offer a chance to publish in a ‘Cascade journal’. These are usually open access titles, published by the same organisation. Some Cascade journals will require payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC). You may or may not be offered a reduced rate as part of the transfer to the related title. It is likely that the journal will transfer the reviews received at your first-choice journal to the ‘cascade journal’. This is intended to speed up the review process, or may mean the editor does not have to conduct any reviewing at all, but it does not guarantee acceptance at this journal. The editor will still need to make a decision as to whether your paper is suitable for the journal.
• Firstly, it is likely that the comments the reviewers provided will help you improve aspects of your paper such as focusing the aims and purpose of your paper, sharpening the inferences made from your results, fine tuning the message you wish to convey, or improving the readability among many other positive edits.
• Secondly, even in reasonably large research fields, there is a chance that the same reviewers who saw your paper at the first journal will be asked to review it at the new journal. It will not reflect favourably on you if you have not acknowledged or considered any of their comments from the first round of reviews.

When submitting the new version of your paper to your second journal, there is no need to include a letter responding to the original reviewers’ comments.

• Check that the format of your paper meets the submission criteria of the new journal and make the appropriate amendments (remember, failure to comply with a journals Instructions For Authors is one of the most common causes of immediate rejection).
• If you wish, write a cover letter to the new journal, explaining the relevance of your paper to the journal, and be sure to address the correct journal editor and journal name.
• Complete your new submission to the journal.

After acceptance, you will usually be required to sign copyright or licensing documents, to give the publisher the rights to publish your article. Be sure to read these documents thoroughly to understand what you are signing.

If you would like to publish your article Open Access, Article Processing Charges are usually requested at this stage, and go hand-in-hand with the license you select, if such options are available.

Accepted papers are usually sent to a production team to format into journal style. Some have dedicated professional typesetters, copyeditors and proof-readers. For some journals, the Editors may contribute to these roles.

Some journals publish the Accepted version online within just a few days, to make it officially available before the final ‘Version of Record’ journal-styled PDF is made available.

Some journals publish articles online as soon as they are ready, into a queue of early publication manuscripts. Other journals hold all articles offline until each issue is full and publish each issue according to a defined schedule (for example, 4 times per year).

There are many different ways in which publishers and journals manage their post-acceptance stages and publication schedules. If the information about your article is not provided to you, you may contact the journal office for an update.

These are some of the more common processes and procedures that you will encounter and come to rely on throughout your research publishing career, but there may be many more variations to deal with. The submission process can be a time-consuming, frustrating experience, but with these tips, and building up your own repertoire of tools, resources and techniques, you will soon master the arts of submission and peer review.

Good luck with all your future submissions!

Further resources

Hervé Stolowy (2017) Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk Rejected at European Accounting Review? , European Accounting Review, 26:3, 411-418

• << Previous: Instructions for authors
• Last Updated: Sep 18, 2023 1:28 PM
• URL: https://ifis.libguides.com/journal-publishing-guide

Publish with IEEE Journals

IEEE publications make the exchange of groundbreaking research possible. IEEE publishes more than 150 journals, transactions, and letters on a wide range of technologies. 

Get Started

Learn about ieee journals, video tutorials, author tools, ieee policies.

• SpringerLink shop

Cover letters

A good cover letter can help to “sell” your manuscript to the journal editor. As well as introducing your work to the editor you can also take this opportunity to explain why the manuscript will be of interest to a journal's readers, something which is always as the forefront editors’ mind. As such it is worth spending time writing a coherent and persuasive cover letter.

The following is an example of a poor cover letter:

Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled “Large Scale Analysis of Cell Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer” by Researcher et al. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest convenience. With my best regards, Sincerely yours, A Researcher, PhD

Instead, check to see whether the journal’s Instructions for Authors have any cover letter requirements (e.g. disclosures, statements, potential reviewers). Then, write a letter that explains why the editor would want to publish your manuscript. The following structure covers all the necessary points that need to be included.

• If known, address the editor who will be assessing your manuscript by their name. Include the date of submission and the journal you are submitting to.
• First paragraph: include the title of your manuscript and the type of manuscript it is (e.g. review, research, case study). Then briefly explain the background to your study, the question you sought out to answer and why.
• Second paragraph: you should concisely explain what was done, the main findings and why they are significant.
• Third paragraph: here you should indicate why the readers of the journal would be interested in the work. Take your cues from the journal’s aims and scope. For example if the journal requires that all work published has broad implications explain how your study fulfils this. It is also a good idea to include a sentence on the importance of the results to the field.
• To conclude state the corresponding author and any journal specific requirements that need to be complied with (e.g. ethical standards).

TIP: All cover letters should contain these sentences:

• We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.
• All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the name of the target journal].

Submission checklist

Before submitting your manuscript, thoroughly check its quality one more time. Evaluate it critically—could anything be done better?

Be sure that:

• The manuscript follows the Instructions for Authors
• All files are in the correct file format and of the appropriate resolution or size
• The spelling and grammar are correct
• You have contact information for all authors
• You have written a persuasive cover letter

Back │ Next

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Research Paper >

Journal Article Submission

Now that you have finally accomplished your journal article and have already made sure the article is 100% mistake-free, it is time to submit and forward article for review.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Outline Examples
• Example of a Paper
• Write a Hypothesis
• Introduction

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Write a Research Paper
• 2 Writing a Paper
• 3.1 Write an Outline
• 3.2 Outline Examples
• 4.1 Thesis Statement
• 4.2 Write a Hypothesis
• 5.2 Abstract
• 5.3 Introduction
• 5.4 Methods
• 5.5 Results
• 5.6 Discussion
• 5.7 Conclusion
• 5.8 Bibliography
• 6.1 Table of Contents
• 6.2 Acknowledgements
• 6.3 Appendix
• 7.1 In Text Citations
• 7.2 Footnotes
• 7.3.1 Floating Blocks
• 7.4 Example of a Paper
• 7.5 Example of a Paper 2
• 7.6.1 Citations
• 7.7.1 Writing Style
• 7.7.2 Citations
• 8.1.1 Sham Peer Review
• 8.1.2 Advantages
• 8.1.3 Disadvantages
• 8.2 Publication Bias
• 8.3.1 Journal Rejection
• 9.1 Article Writing
• 9.2 Ideas for Topics

While it is true that every journal has its own protocols or set of rules regarding the submission process, here's a list of pointers your journal article must follow:

• Article. The journal article submission should demonstrate clear thoughts of the author by choosing words composed in direct, responsible and active syntax. If your paper was found deficient in style, form or clarity, your article will most likely be rejected and returned.
• Abstract - A brief abstract stating the principal points and concluding statements of the paper should be included in your submission. Ideally, an abstract should come out as a shortened version of your paper. Make sure it is short enough to submit; otherwise you'll have to rewrite it until it satisfies the word limit.
• Equations - Special typographical considerations and additional space and margin area should be provided to equations.
• Illustrations - Illustrations must be properly referenced in the text of your article, and numbered chronologically. Different journals have varying guidelines for submissions with illustrations but most of the time, submitting articles with illustrations produced by office-type copying machines is unacceptable and will therefore be rejected.
• Manuscript Format. Manuscripts should be double-spaced and typewritten with wide margins on one side of an 8 ½ x 11 inch paper.
• References. Reference entries should be numbered consecutively in the text with the use of bracketed numerals and listed in the same order at the end of the paper. Sources should be properly referenced , indicating the author/s' name, initials, the title of the source article, journal or book, volume, initial page number and the year of source publication.
• Footnotes. Footnotes should be AVOIDED.
• Submission. Journal submissions for review and publication should be submitted online. Submission of a manuscript is a representation that the paper has not been previously submitted in any publication elsewhere or published in any open literature. It also represents that the author/s have not assigned or transferred copyright for the material.
• Page Proof. This will be sent to the author for proofreading and making revisions as instructed by the editor, before finally returning it to the editor.

Now that you're already familiar with the key concepts of journal submission, let me share with you some tips to consider when submitting a journal article:

1. Write a Cover Letter

For most journals, you will need to write a cover letter that will indicate the title of the paper, the name of the author/s and the main idea or contribution of your article.

2. Gather Keywords

You're probably thinking keywords are not that important. Think again! Keywords actually matter immensely for a number of reasons. Since keywords primarily describe the content of your paper, these may also at the same time play a factor on how the associate editor will distribute your submission amongst reviewers. Once your paper is accepted, keywords help other researchers locate your paper whenever they're in search of references in the same topic or field. Now that you now how important keywords are, take some time in determining keywords that will represent your work.

3. Create a Summary of Changes

If you have had previous conference work, this short one-page document provides a description of the extensions and changes or differences of your journal article submission from your conference work. Since a journal submission is supposed to be a more "detailed" or "complete" work, you need to document and present all the differences between the current and the earlier work.

4. Prepare List of Reviewers

Some journals allow researchers to suggest reviewers by submitting a list of reviewers and associate editors they prefer or do not prefer. Although this is not necessary, some researchers feel there are particular individuals or research groups who might better understand their work.

5. Accomplish Copyright Form

After finally clicking the "Submit" button, you will be asked to accomplish an online copyright form. It's very simple for all you have to do is follow the provided instructions and type in your name to confirm that you agree to the rights and guidelines. Hopefully these tips helped. Good luck with your submissions!

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Explorable.com (Jul 23, 2009). Journal Article Submission. Retrieved May 26, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/journal-article-submission

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Check out the official book.

Learn how to construct, style and format an Academic paper and take your skills to the next level.

(also available as ebook )

Save this course for later

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

Journal of Student Research

Journal of Student Research (JSR) is an Academic, Multidisciplinary, and Faculty-reviewed Journal (Houston, Texas) devoted to the Rapid Dissemination of Current Research Published by High School Edition , Undergraduate and Graduate students.

Articles Indexed in Scholarly Databases

The journal seeks articles that are novel, integrative, and accessible to a broad audience, including an array of disciplines. The content of the journal ranges from Applied research to Theoretical research. In general, papers on all topics are welcome to submit. The journal uses an automated process from manuscript submission to publication. Manuscript submission, peer review, and publication are all handled online, and the journal automates all clerical steps during peer review.

Trusted By Student Authors Globally

Focus and Scope

Students strive to be successful at publications, and with JSR, authors aspiring to publish will receive scholarly feedback after the reviews of their submissions are received. This feedback will help authors identify areas of improvement to their submission and help them better understand the process to be successful at publication. Once published, we strive to provide a global platform for our authors to showcase their work.

Faculty-Refereed Review Process

This journal uses a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Authors need to ensure that their manuscripts do not give away their identity to facilitate this. To find out more about the review process, please visit the  Author Guidelines  page. We invite teachers and faculty interested in reviewing articles for this journal; please visit our  Reviewers  page for more information.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides access to its published content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Learn more about  Open Access .

Authors Retain Copyright

Articles published in this journal are under a  Creative Commons License , and the authors retain the copyright to their work.

Announcements

Call for papers: volume 13 issue 3.

If you are an undergraduate or graduate student at a college or university aspiring to publish, we are accepting submissions. Submit Your Article Now!

Deadline: 11:59 p.m. May 31, 2024

Main Navigation

• Contact NeurIPS
• Code of Ethics
• Code of Conduct
• Create Profile
• Journal To Conference Track
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Proceedings
• Future Meetings
• Exhibitor Information
• Privacy Policy

NeurIPS 2024

Conference Dates: (In person) 9 December - 15 December, 2024

Homepage: https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2024/

Call For Papers 

Abstract submission deadline: May 15, 2024

Full paper submission deadline, including technical appendices and supplemental material (all authors must have an OpenReview profile when submitting): May 22, 2024

Author notification: Sep 25, 2024

Camera-ready, poster, and video submission: Oct 30, 2024 AOE

Submit at: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference  

The site will start accepting submissions on Apr 22, 2024 

Subscribe to these and other dates on the 2024 dates page .

The Thirty-Eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024) is an interdisciplinary conference that brings together researchers in machine learning, neuroscience, statistics, optimization, computer vision, natural language processing, life sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, and other adjacent fields. We invite submissions presenting new and original research on topics including but not limited to the following:

• Applications (e.g., vision, language, speech and audio, Creative AI)
• Deep learning (e.g., architectures, generative models, optimization for deep networks, foundation models, LLMs)
• Evaluation (e.g., methodology, meta studies, replicability and validity, human-in-the-loop)
• General machine learning (supervised, unsupervised, online, active, etc.)
• Infrastructure (e.g., libraries, improved implementation and scalability, distributed solutions)
• Machine learning for sciences (e.g. climate, health, life sciences, physics, social sciences)
• Neuroscience and cognitive science (e.g., neural coding, brain-computer interfaces)
• Optimization (e.g., convex and non-convex, stochastic, robust)
• Probabilistic methods (e.g., variational inference, causal inference, Gaussian processes)
• Reinforcement learning (e.g., decision and control, planning, hierarchical RL, robotics)
• Social and economic aspects of machine learning (e.g., fairness, interpretability, human-AI interaction, privacy, safety, strategic behavior)
• Theory (e.g., control theory, learning theory, algorithmic game theory)

Machine learning is a rapidly evolving field, and so we welcome interdisciplinary submissions that do not fit neatly into existing categories.

Authors are asked to confirm that their submissions accord with the NeurIPS code of conduct .

Formatting instructions:   All submissions must be in PDF format, and in a single PDF file include, in this order:

• The submitted paper
• Technical appendices that support the paper with additional proofs, derivations, or results 
• The NeurIPS paper checklist  

Other supplementary materials such as data and code can be uploaded as a ZIP file

The main text of a submitted paper is limited to nine content pages , including all figures and tables. Additional pages containing references don’t count as content pages. If your submission is accepted, you will be allowed an additional content page for the camera-ready version.

The main text and references may be followed by technical appendices, for which there is no page limit.

The maximum file size for a full submission, which includes technical appendices, is 50MB.

Authors are encouraged to submit a separate ZIP file that contains further supplementary material like data or source code, when applicable.

You must format your submission using the NeurIPS 2024 LaTeX style file which includes a “preprint” option for non-anonymous preprints posted online. Submissions that violate the NeurIPS style (e.g., by decreasing margins or font sizes) or page limits may be rejected without further review. Papers may be rejected without consideration of their merits if they fail to meet the submission requirements, as described in this document. 

Paper checklist: In order to improve the rigor and transparency of research submitted to and published at NeurIPS, authors are required to complete a paper checklist . The paper checklist is intended to help authors reflect on a wide variety of issues relating to responsible machine learning research, including reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. The checklist forms part of the paper submission, but does not count towards the page limit.

Please join the NeurIPS 2024 Checklist Assistant Study that will provide you with free verification of your checklist performed by an LLM here . Please see details in our  blog

Supplementary material: While all technical appendices should be included as part of the main paper submission PDF, authors may submit up to 100MB of supplementary material, such as data, or source code in a ZIP format. Supplementary material should be material created by the authors that directly supports the submission content. Like submissions, supplementary material must be anonymized. Looking at supplementary material is at the discretion of the reviewers.

We encourage authors to upload their code and data as part of their supplementary material in order to help reviewers assess the quality of the work. Check the policy as well as code submission guidelines and templates for further details.

Use of Large Language Models (LLMs): We welcome authors to use any tool that is suitable for preparing high-quality papers and research. However, we ask authors to keep in mind two important criteria. First, we expect papers to fully describe their methodology, and any tool that is important to that methodology, including the use of LLMs, should be described also. For example, authors should mention tools (including LLMs) that were used for data processing or filtering, visualization, facilitating or running experiments, and proving theorems. It may also be advisable to describe the use of LLMs in implementing the method (if this corresponds to an important, original, or non-standard component of the approach). Second, authors are responsible for the entire content of the paper, including all text and figures, so while authors are welcome to use any tool they wish for writing the paper, they must ensure that all text is correct and original.

Double-blind reviewing:   All submissions must be anonymized and may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy.  This policy applies to any supplementary or linked material as well, including code.  If you are including links to any external material, it is your responsibility to guarantee anonymous browsing.  Please do not include acknowledgements at submission time. If you need to cite one of your own papers, you should do so with adequate anonymization to preserve double-blind reviewing.  For instance, write “In the previous work of Smith et al. [1]…” rather than “In our previous work [1]...”). If you need to cite one of your own papers that is in submission to NeurIPS and not available as a non-anonymous preprint, then include a copy of the cited anonymized submission in the supplementary material and write “Anonymous et al. [1] concurrently show...”). Any papers found to be violating this policy will be rejected.

OpenReview: We are using OpenReview to manage submissions. The reviews and author responses will not be public initially (but may be made public later, see below). As in previous years, submissions under review will be visible only to their assigned program committee. We will not be soliciting comments from the general public during the reviewing process. Anyone who plans to submit a paper as an author or a co-author will need to create (or update) their OpenReview profile by the full paper submission deadline. Your OpenReview profile can be edited by logging in and clicking on your name in https://openreview.net/ . This takes you to a URL "https://openreview.net/profile?id=~[Firstname]_[Lastname][n]" where the last part is your profile name, e.g., ~Wei_Zhang1. The OpenReview profiles must be up to date, with all publications by the authors, and their current affiliations. The easiest way to import publications is through DBLP but it is not required, see FAQ . Submissions without updated OpenReview profiles will be desk rejected. The information entered in the profile is critical for ensuring that conflicts of interest and reviewer matching are handled properly. Because of the rapid growth of NeurIPS, we request that all authors help with reviewing papers, if asked to do so. We need everyone’s help in maintaining the high scientific quality of NeurIPS.  

Please be aware that OpenReview has a moderation policy for newly created profiles: New profiles created without an institutional email will go through a moderation process that can take up to two weeks. New profiles created with an institutional email will be activated automatically.

Venue home page: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference

If you have any questions, please refer to the FAQ: https://openreview.net/faq

Abstract Submission: There is a mandatory abstract submission deadline on May 15, 2024, six days before full paper submissions are due. While it will be possible to edit the title and abstract until the full paper submission deadline, submissions with “placeholder” abstracts that are rewritten for the full submission risk being removed without consideration. This includes titles and abstracts that either provide little or no semantic information (e.g., "We provide a new semi-supervised learning method.") or describe a substantively different claimed contribution.  The author list cannot be changed after the abstract deadline. After that, authors may be reordered, but any additions or removals must be justified in writing and approved on a case-by-case basis by the program chairs only in exceptional circumstances. 

Ethics review: Reviewers and ACs may flag submissions for ethics review . Flagged submissions will be sent to an ethics review committee for comments. Comments from ethics reviewers will be considered by the primary reviewers and AC as part of their deliberation. They will also be visible to authors, who will have an opportunity to respond.  Ethics reviewers do not have the authority to reject papers, but in extreme cases papers may be rejected by the program chairs on ethical grounds, regardless of scientific quality or contribution.  

Preprints: The existence of non-anonymous preprints (on arXiv or other online repositories, personal websites, social media) will not result in rejection. If you choose to use the NeurIPS style for the preprint version, you must use the “preprint” option rather than the “final” option. Reviewers will be instructed not to actively look for such preprints, but encountering them will not constitute a conflict of interest. Authors may submit anonymized work to NeurIPS that is already available as a preprint (e.g., on arXiv) without citing it. Note that public versions of the submission should not say "Under review at NeurIPS" or similar.

Dual submissions: Submissions that are substantially similar to papers that the authors have previously published or submitted in parallel to other peer-reviewed venues with proceedings or journals may not be submitted to NeurIPS. Papers previously presented at workshops are permitted, so long as they did not appear in a conference proceedings (e.g., CVPRW proceedings), a journal or a book.  NeurIPS coordinates with other conferences to identify dual submissions.  The NeurIPS policy on dual submissions applies for the entire duration of the reviewing process.  Slicing contributions too thinly is discouraged.  The reviewing process will treat any other submission by an overlapping set of authors as prior work. If publishing one would render the other too incremental, both may be rejected.

Anti-collusion: NeurIPS does not tolerate any collusion whereby authors secretly cooperate with reviewers, ACs or SACs to obtain favorable reviews. 

Author responses:   Authors will have one week to view and respond to initial reviews. Author responses may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy. Authors may not submit revisions of their paper or supplemental material, but may post their responses as a discussion in OpenReview. This is to reduce the burden on authors to have to revise their paper in a rush during the short rebuttal period.

After the initial response period, authors will be able to respond to any further reviewer/AC questions and comments by posting on the submission’s forum page. The program chairs reserve the right to solicit additional reviews after the initial author response period.  These reviews will become visible to the authors as they are added to OpenReview, and authors will have a chance to respond to them.

After the notification deadline, accepted and opted-in rejected papers will be made public and open for non-anonymous public commenting. Their anonymous reviews, meta-reviews, author responses and reviewer responses will also be made public. Authors of rejected papers will have two weeks after the notification deadline to opt in to make their deanonymized rejected papers public in OpenReview.  These papers are not counted as NeurIPS publications and will be shown as rejected in OpenReview.

Publication of accepted submissions:   Reviews, meta-reviews, and any discussion with the authors will be made public for accepted papers (but reviewer, area chair, and senior area chair identities will remain anonymous). Camera-ready papers will be due in advance of the conference. All camera-ready papers must include a funding disclosure . We strongly encourage accompanying code and data to be submitted with accepted papers when appropriate, as per the code submission policy . Authors will be allowed to make minor changes for a short period of time after the conference.

Contemporaneous Work: For the purpose of the reviewing process, papers that appeared online within two months of a submission will generally be considered "contemporaneous" in the sense that the submission will not be rejected on the basis of the comparison to contemporaneous work. Authors are still expected to cite and discuss contemporaneous work and perform empirical comparisons to the degree feasible. Any paper that influenced the submission is considered prior work and must be cited and discussed as such. Submissions that are very similar to contemporaneous work will undergo additional scrutiny to prevent cases of plagiarism and missing credit to prior work.

Plagiarism is prohibited by the NeurIPS Code of Conduct .

Other Tracks: Similarly to earlier years, we will host multiple tracks, such as datasets, competitions, tutorials as well as workshops, in addition to the main track for which this call for papers is intended. See the conference homepage for updates and calls for participation in these tracks. 

Experiments: As in past years, the program chairs will be measuring the quality and effectiveness of the review process via randomized controlled experiments. All experiments are independently reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Financial Aid: Each paper may designate up to one (1) NeurIPS.cc account email address of a corresponding student author who confirms that they would need the support to attend the conference, and agrees to volunteer if they get selected. To be considered for Financial the student will also need to fill out the Financial Aid application when it becomes available.

2024 awards in the journal of plant research

• Published: 22 May 2024

Cite this article

• Maki Katsuhara 1  

45 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The Botanical Society of Japan honors excellence in publications of the Journal of Plant Research through the Best Paper Awards and the Most-Cited Paper Award every year. We are proud to announce the 2024 recipients.

Best paper awards

Two papers were selected among regular papers published in 2023.

Mycoheterotrophic plants have faced challenges in revealing species-level diversity due to their reduced morphology. Suetsugu et al. ( 2023 ) described a new species, Monotropastrum kirishimense Suetsugu. The genus Monotropastrum was previously considered monotypic, comprising a single species, Monotropastrum humile , widely distributed throughout eastern Asia, from the Himalayas to Japan. Through field surveys and specimen investigations, the authors discovered significant morphological differences between M. kirishimense and M. humile . Additionally, phylogenetic analysis revealed genetic distinctions between the two species. Field observations also indicated difference of flowering periods for both species. Furthermore, the authors found that the associated fungi of M. kirishimense are unique compared to those of M. humile . These ecological characteristics not only suggest potential reproductive isolation between the two species, but also offer valuable insights into their evolutionary processes. The discovery of a new species within the relatively well-studied Japanese flora, particularly within the prominent genus Monotropastrum , has surprised many researchers, as well as the general public. The multidisciplinary approach combining morphological, phylogenetic, and ecological information to describe the new species has received high praise.

In Noda et al. ( 2023 ), the distinctive salt tolerance mechanisms of Vigna riukiuensis are reported. Vigna riukiuensis accumulates a high amount of sodium in the leaves, whereas the close relative Vigna nakashimae suppresses sodium allocation to the leaves as was shown previously using radio-Na imaging. The authors assumed that V. riukiuensis would have developed vacuoles for sodium sequestration, but there were no differences in size among salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive accessions. The authors observed high starch level in the chloroplasts of V. riukiuensis . Forced degradation of leaf starch by shading treatment resulted in no radio-Na ( 22 Na) accumulation in the leaves. SEM-EDX showed that Na is located in leaf sections and Na was detected in chloroplasts of V. riukiuensis , especially around the starch granules but not in the middle of those. These results represent the second evidence of a Na-trapping system by starch granules, following similar observation in common reed that accumulates starch granule at the shoot base. It is suggested to apply this system for developing salt-tolerant crops. The paper is remarkable not only with respect to its interesting results but also due to its slightly un-conventional structure. The logic of the experiments and the experiments themselves are very well explained and the results are illustrated in a very convincing way. It would be great to see more publications from this group to better understand this phenomenon of salt tolerance.

Most-cited paper award

Based on citation data from the Web of Science Core collection, Singh et al. ( 2021 ) with the highest number of citations, excluding self-citations, was selected from the papers published in 2021 (the 134th volume of JPR).

The world is facing global climate change and food shortages. Plant science can contribute to solving these problems. That is the use of new bioengineering techniques to improve crop productivity and elucidate mechanisms of environmental tolerance. Singh et al. ( 2021 ) review the latest findings on crop improvement using NAC, a plant-specific transcription factor involved in growth, environmental stress response, and others.

Maki Katsuhara.

Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Plant Research .

Noda Y, Hirose A, Wakazaki M, Sato M, Toyooka K, Kawachi N, Furukawa J, Tanoi K, Naito K (2023) Starch-dependent sodium accumulation in the leaves of Vigna Riukiuensis . J Plant Res 136:705–714

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Singh S, Koyama H, Bhati KK, Alok A (2021) The biotechnological importance of the plant-specific NAC transcription factor family in crop improvement. J Plant Res 134:475–495

Suetsugu K, Hirota SK, Hsu T-C, Kurogi S, Imamura A, Suyama Y (2023) Monotropastrum kirishimense (Ericaceae), a new mycoheterotrophic plant from Japan based on multifaceted evidence. J Plant Res 136:3–18

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Plant Science and Resources (IPSR), Okayama University Address, 2-20-1, Chuo, 710-0046, Kurashiki, Japan

Maki Katsuhara

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maki Katsuhara .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Katsuhara, M. 2024 awards in the journal of plant research. J Plant Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10265-024-01549-w

Download citation

Published : 22 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10265-024-01549-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 14 May 2024

2023 summer warmth unparalleled over the past 2,000 years

• Jan Esper   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3919-014X 1 , 2 ,
• Max Torbenson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2720-2238 1 &
• Ulf Büntgen 2 , 3 , 4  

Nature ( 2024 ) Cite this article

6968 Accesses

3426 Altmetric

Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

• Climate change
• Palaeoclimate

Including an exceptionally warm Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer 1 ,2 , 2023 has been reported as the hottest year on record 3-5 . Contextualizing recent anthropogenic warming against past natural variability is nontrivial, however, because the sparse 19 th century meteorological records tend to be too warm 6 . Here, we combine observed and reconstructed June-August (JJA) surface air temperatures to show that 2023 was the warmest NH extra-tropical summer over the past 2000 years exceeding the 95% confidence range of natural climate variability by more than half a degree Celsius. Comparison of the 2023 JJA warming against the coldest reconstructed summer in 536 CE reveals a maximum range of pre-Anthropocene-to-2023 temperatures of 3.93°C. Although 2023 is consistent with a greenhouse gases-induced warming trend 7 that is amplified by an unfolding El Niño event 8 , this extreme emphasizes the urgency to implement international agreements for carbon emission reduction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

The economic commitment of climate change

Urban development pattern’s influence on extreme rainfall occurrences

The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Department of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany

Jan Esper & Max Torbenson

Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic

Jan Esper & Ulf Büntgen

Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Ulf Büntgen

Department of Geography, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Esper .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Esper, J., Torbenson, M. & Büntgen, U. 2023 summer warmth unparalleled over the past 2,000 years. Nature (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07512-y

Download citation

Received : 16 January 2024

Accepted : 02 May 2024

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07512-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.