How Does the International Journal Publication Process Work?

1. An overview of international publication

The process broadly comprises four stages. Before submission, authors finalize the manuscript, select a journal, check ethics, format the files and write a cover letter. Editorial screening assesses scope, contribution and suitability for external review. Independent reviewers then evaluate the paper and recommend acceptance, revision or rejection. Finally, production includes technical editing, DOI assignment and Online First or issue publication.

Procedures vary by discipline, publisher and journal. Review may be double-anonymous, single-anonymous or open. Policies also differ on preprints, open data, preregistration and ethics approval. Always consult the intended journal's Instructions for Authors rather than extrapolating from another journal.

2. Choosing a target journal: the first strategic decision

Journal selection should begin before the manuscript is finished. Journals differ in scope, readership, methodological expectations, word limits, types of contribution and argumentative style. A good study sent to the wrong journal can still be rejected quickly.

Scope matters more than general prestige

Start with aims and scope. A study of green consumption among Generation Z in Vietnam might suit marketing, consumer-behavior or emerging-market journals, but not a corporate-finance journal merely because its metrics are higher. Editors decide whether a paper suits their journal; finding another home for it is not their responsibility.

A practical check is to read 20–30 recent articles. Does your paper engage the same academic community? Does it offer a comparable theoretical approach, methodology and level of contribution? If not, desk rejection becomes more likely even when the manuscript is well written.

Journal metrics are signals, not the only objective

Universities and agencies use resources such as Scopus, Web of Science, SSCI, SCIE, ESCI, Journal Citation Reports, CiteScore, SJR, ABDC and ABS to assess journals. These do not replace academic judgment. An out-of-scope Q1 journal may be a poorer choice than a Q2 journal with the right readers, methods and publication history.

For doctoral researchers and early-career lecturers, aiming as high as possible is not always the most sensible strategy. Develop a tiered shortlist of preferred, realistic and backup journals before submission, so a rejection does not require restarting the search.

Avoid predatory journals and suspicious invitations

Beginners may confuse legitimate open access with predatory publishing. Many reputable journals are open access. Warning signs instead include promises of extremely fast review, generic invitations, unclear fees, unverifiable editorial boards, unprofessional websites and vague indexing claims.

3. Before submission: the manuscript and research record

Prepare a complete submission package, not just the manuscript. It may include a cover letter, title page, anonymized manuscript where required, correctly formatted tables and figures, supplementary data, ethics and conflict-of-interest statements, funding information, author contributions and sometimes reviewer suggestions.

Write for the intended journal

A strong manuscript needs more than good data. It should pose a clear question, establish a convincing literature gap, explain its academic contribution, describe methods in enough detail for assessment, and discuss findings in relation to existing theory. Some papers fail because editors cannot see their contribution to the journal's scholarly conversation, rather than because the analysis is incorrect.

The cover letter makes a case to the editor

Do not repeat the abstract. Briefly explain the problem, its importance, the new contribution and fit with this journal. Include the required assurances about originality, ethics, conflicts of interest and the absence of simultaneous submission.

A clear cover letter helps editors understand the paper's case. It cannot rescue a weak manuscript, but it can help a good manuscript receive an appropriate reading.

Ethics and transparency are central

Surveys, interviews, behavioral experiments and sensitive data require attention to ethics approval, informed consent, confidentiality and participants' withdrawal rights. Quantitative researchers should retain transparent records of data, code, measures and analytical decisions. Where AI is used for writing, translation, analysis or data processing, check the journal's current disclosure policy.

4. Online submission

Most international journals use online systems such as ScholarOne Manuscripts, Editorial Manager, Elsevier Editorial System, publisher-specific portals or Open Journal Systems. Interfaces differ, but typically require metadata, file uploads, author details, mandatory declarations and final confirmation.

Enter metadata accurately

The title, abstract, keywords, names, affiliations, ORCID identifiers, funding and corresponding-author details must match the manuscript. Inaccuracies can cause indexing, display or production problems.

Anonymized manuscript and title page

Double-anonymous review usually requires a separate title page and removal of identifying details from the reviewer manuscript. Check author and institution names, acknowledgments, funding, conspicuous self-citations and filenames. Even a small oversight can result in a technical return before assessment.

Use reviewer suggestions carefully

Some journals permit suggested or opposed reviewers. Suggest genuinely qualified experts without direct conflicts, shared institutional affiliations or recent collaborations. Suggestions do not oblige the editor to invite those individuals.

After submission, the system generally assigns a manuscript identifier and places the paper in the editorial queue. The waiting period begins.

5. Desk review and desk rejection

Desk review is the first screening by the editor or editorial office. It determines whether the paper fits and has enough potential to justify external review. This is a reasonable stage because reviewer capacity is limited and much reviewing is unpaid.

Desk rejection does not necessarily mean poor research. It may indicate scope mismatch, an unclear contribution, insufficient novelty for the readership, inadequate methods, weak presentation or an excess of similar submissions.

A good paper can still be desk-rejected when it does not address questions of interest to the journal and its readers.

Common reasons for desk rejection

• Scope mismatch: the topic, methods or context falls outside the journal's interests.
• Unclear contribution: the paper describes what was done without explaining what the field now knows that it did not know before.
• Weak literature gap: stating that no study exists in Vietnam without explaining how that context tests, extends or challenges theory.
• Unconvincing methods: the design, sample, measurement, analysis or bias controls are insufficient for the question.
• Inadequate presentation: language, structure, citations, tables or formatting do not meet the journal's basic expectations.

After desk rejection, read the letter, identify the type of problem, revise where needed and choose a better-fitting journal. Sending an unchanged paper elsewhere often repeats the same outcome.

6. How does peer review work?

If the paper passes screening, the editor invites scholars or specialists who can assess its topic, theory, methods or data. They provide academic evaluations and recommendations rather than administrative approval; the editor makes the decision.

Common review models

In single-anonymous review, reviewers know the authors' identities while authors do not know theirs. In double-anonymous review, both parties are anonymized from each other, although editors retain information needed to manage the process. Open review has several forms, from named reviewers to published reports. Each model balances transparency, fairness, accountability and reviewer availability differently.

What do reviewers assess?

Reviewers commonly ask whether the question is important and contributes to the field; whether the paper is positioned properly in the literature; whether the design and analysis support its conclusions; and whether the discussion explains the academic and practical significance convincingly.

Reviewers may disagree. One may emphasize theory, another methods and another interpretation. Editors do not merely count votes: they weigh the substance of each concern and judge whether the paper retains potential after revision.

7. Decisions after review

After receiving reports, the editor decides. Labels vary, but decisions usually fall into the following groups:

Major revision is not failure. In many fields, particularly economics, management and social science, published papers have undergone one or more major revisions. Revise and resubmit often signals that editors see value but consider the current argument insufficiently developed.

8. Revision and the response letter

Revision often produces the greatest improvement. Reviewers may request a clearer theoretical gap, additional reliability tests, robustness checks, discussion of endogeneity, a rewritten discussion, sensitivity analyses, measurement changes or clearer managerial implications. These demands can be stressful but can turn a promising idea into a convincing paper.

Respond point by point

An effective response letter briefly thanks the editor and reviewers, summarizes major changes and then addresses each comment. Quote or clearly restate the concern, explain the response and identify the revised passage. When agreeing, say what changed. When disagreeing, use academic reasoning and evidence rather than a defensive tone.

When reviewers make conflicting requests

Find a defensible balance and explain it to the editor. If one reviewer requests broader theory while another wants brevity, for example, add a focused theoretical paragraph and move secondary material to an appendix. Show that both concerns were understood and the choice was reasoned.

Several revisions are normal

A paper may undergo two or three rounds. Later rounds are often narrower, but additional analyses may reveal new concerns. This can be tiring without being unusual. International publishing calls for persistence as well as research skills.

9. Acceptance, production, DOI and Online First

Acceptance means the main academic assessment has been passed, but publication work continues. The publisher then handles copyediting, typesetting, references, tables, metadata and proofs.

Proofs are not an opportunity to rewrite the paper

Check author names, affiliations, numbers, tables, figures, symbols, references and layout carefully. Unless requested by the editor or production team, this is not the stage for major analytical changes or a rewritten argument.

DOI and Online First

A DOI is a persistent identifier for reliable identification, linking and citation. Many journals publish accepted, produced papers as Online First, Early View, Articles in Press or Advance Online Publication. A paper with an official online publication record and DOI can generally be cited before allocation to a particular issue.

The interval before issue allocation varies considerably. Some journals publish continuously using article numbers; others assemble scheduled volumes and issues. Check each journal's citation policy.

10. Timelines and expectations

There is no universal publication timetable. Desk rejection may arrive in days, while finding reviewers may take months. A review round might take 6–12 weeks or longer if invitations are declined, reports are late or additional reviewers are needed.

For dissertation and graduation deadlines, submit earlier than you think necessary. Include publication in the research plan from the start, allowing for revisions, rejection and a subsequent journal submission.

11. Publication ethics and avoidable risks

Publishing involves more than satisfying reviewers. Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, simultaneous submission, unjustified fragmentation of findings, concealed conflicts, inappropriate authorship or manipulated review can seriously damage an academic reputation.

Do not submit simultaneously

Most journals require the manuscript not to be under consideration elsewhere. Submitting to several journals to increase the chance of acceptance is a serious breach. Wait for rejection or complete formal withdrawal before submitting elsewhere.

Authorship should reflect contribution

Adding people without substantial contributions or omitting genuine contributors raises ethical concerns. Agree author order, responsibilities and dispute-resolution principles early rather than waiting until submission.

Be transparent about data, methods and AI

Many journals request data and code availability statements or AI disclosures. Sensitive data need not always be made public, but authors should explain where data can be accessed, why access is restricted or whom to contact. Follow the journal's AI policy and do not list AI as an author.

12. A quick checklist before Submit

Before submitting, ask:

• Does the journal genuinely fit the topic, methods and intended readership?
• Have I read and followed its Instructions for Authors?
• Does the introduction explain the gap and contribution clearly?
• Are methods detailed enough for reviewers to evaluate and others to understand?
• Are the abstract, keywords, title and cover letter consistent with the main contribution?
• Does the study require ethics approval, consent, data availability or conflict-of-interest statements?
• For double-anonymous review, have identifying details been removed?
• Are tables, figures, appendices, references and supplementary files correctly formatted?
• Have all coauthors read and approved the submission and agreed author order?
• Is a backup journal shortlist ready?