By Renata Torres da Costa
As scientists, we often talk about how to write a scientific manuscript, but much less about where to publish it and how to get it noticed. Fortunately, iJOBS recently hosted a seminar on navigating the publication process and careers in scientific publishing led by Dr. Andrea Marat, a deputy editor at the Journal of Cell Biology at Rockefeller University Press. Dr. Marat provided an editor’s perspective on the editorial process, offering an insider’s look at the manuscript publishing process, the editorial workflow, and potential career paths for scientific editors. This article highlights the key takeaways from Dr. Marat’s seminar.
Know your audience
Dr. Marat began her seminar with a simple, but essential question: Who is your main audience, and what journals do they read? Scientific publishing is not just about adding another line to your CV, it’s about joining a conversation in your field. Journals shape what scientists see, trust, and build upon. When choosing a journal, consider both the appropriate audience and a reputable peer-review process that ensures the reliability of published results. Dr. Marat also expressed the importance of diversity and independence in the scientific publishing ecosystem. A healthy publishing landscape should include a wide range of journals across disciplines, regions, and perspectives rather than relying on only a small number of dominant outlets.
Writing a scientific manuscript
A well-written manuscript has a higher chance of being accepted after submission. Dr. Marat emphasized that clear and consistent formatting is essential. Manuscripts with many formatting mistakes are distracting and less likely to be read during the peer review process.
Dr. Marat also highlighted the importance of precise and concise writing in a scientific manuscript. Be considerate of your audience’s time by focusing on the quality of your writing. Avoid jargon, use the active voice, clearly state cause and effect, and use narrative flow to guide the reader. No amount of writing will make your findings more novel; however, poor writing can prevent even strong findings from gaining attention they deserve.
The Editorial Process: What happens after you click “submit”
Including a cover letter with your manuscript submission can be helpful, as it provides an opportunity to briefly explain the significance of your work and why it is a good fit for the journal. The cover letter should explain the big-picture question of your work and what the manuscript aims to address. It can also help editors select reviewers, assess expertise for the peer review, and explain conflicts of interest.
Once submitted, the manuscript enters the editorial triage stage. Either a professional editor employed by the journal or an academic editor takes the first look at submitted manuscripts. These editors pay attention to the:
- Novelty: Does the study change the way scientists think about a question?
- Conceptual advance: Does the study settle a long-standing debate or unresolved question?
- Journal scope: Is the topic a good fit for the journal’s scope?
Many manuscripts are filtered out in this phase. A rejection after the editorial triage (also called a desk rejection) does not always mean the work is bad. Often articles are rejected because they do not align with the journal’s audience and aims.
Peer Review
After a manuscript passes through the editorial triage, it moves on to the peer review process. In this phase, the editors assign the manuscript to experts in the field to examine the quality of data, the scientific soundness of the methods/analysis, the strength and logic of the conclusions, and the relevance of the findings to the field.
Dr. Marat explained how editors typically select scientists with technical expertise, with broad knowledge of the field, familiar with the journal and its scope, and within their network while avoiding obvious conflicts of interest. Reviewers’ identities are usually kept anonymous to prevent subjective reviews, reduce opportunities for favor trading, and help preserve professional relationships within the scientific community.
In most cases, the peer review process involves two or more experts in the manuscript's field. After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers generate a report for the editor. The reviewers’ reports and comments are also shared with the manuscript's authors. Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor must make a judgment call.
Editorial Decision
After considering the review reports, the editor can accept, reject, or request revisions. Most manuscripts that eventually get accepted go through at least one round of revision. The key in this step, as Dr. Marat explained, is to understand what editors and reviewers are really looking for. From an editor’s perspective, the editorial decision should provide authors with clear guidance for revisions or an explanation for rejection.
Revision and Resubmission
Resubmissions should address all points raised by the reviewers, including the experimental data required. When addressing each point, it is important to determine when and how to argue with reviewers. If any questions or clarifications are needed from the peer review report, the authors should contact the editors to discuss the unclear points.
Most of the time, revisions are requested to be addressed within two to three months. Authors are expected to meet this deadline. When long-term experiments make it infeasible to deliver the response within the deadline, the authors should contact the editors for further discussion and guidance. Finally, when resubmitting revisions to a manuscript, be concise and specific, ensure proper document formatting, and use highlights to color the text and make revisions in the manuscript easier to locate.
Challenging a rejection
Rejection is a routine part of academic publishing, but sometimes the decision feels wrong. Dr. Marat discussed when it makes sense to challenge a rejection, how to do it constructively, and when you are better off moving on.
- When it’s reasonable to appeal: Appeals are appropriate when the decision to reject the manuscript is based on factual errors, the interpretation of your findings is clearly flawed, or you can fully address the criticisms with new data.
- When appealing probably won’t help: Not all rejections are appealable in a meaningful way. Rejections based on the “degree of conceptual advance” are very hard to overturn.
To have a constructive appeal, authors should provide a scientific argument for any disagreements or misunderstandings and list new data or planned experiments that would be included in the revised manuscript. Avoid accusing reviewers of being unfair, guessing the identity of a reviewer, questioning the expertise of the reviewers, and personal or professional attacks.
What if you don’t hear back from a journal within the response timeframe? Waiting can be one of the most frustrating parts of publishing. Dr. Marat gave some simple, practical guidelines on this topic. First, keep in mind that the editorial triage typically takes around two weeks. The peer review process often takes about one to two months. If these time frames have passed and you haven’t received a response, it’s acceptable to politely contact the editor to request an update.
Rigor, reproducibility, and journal rules
Beyond individual scientific manuscripts, journals have a broader mission to protect the quality and accuracy of the scientific record. Dr. Marat outlined how rigor and reproducibility are now baked into editorial policies.
Fraud detection and data integrity: Editors and publishers use multiple tools and checks to safeguard integrity, including plagiarism detection software, image analysis to detect manipulation, and raw-data requirements, such as supplementary information and images.
Reporting standards: Most reputable journals now require detailed, transparent reporting in several areas, including the materials and methods, reagent information (catalog numbers and sources), author information (ORCID), and statistics (sample size, use of blinding and randomization, statistical tests, and thresholds). They also request documentation for human research (institutional review board, approval, consent), animal ethics approvals, and welfare statements for ethical compliance. In some cases, datasets, codes, and large-scale data are requested to be deposited in appropriate online repositories.
Inside the life of a scientific editor – an alternative career path
Dr. Marat received a bachelor’s in anatomy and cell biology before starting a Ph.D. in neuroscience at McGill University in Canada. She took a postdoctoral research position at Freie Universität of Berlin, Germany and an editorial position at Rockefeller University Press before becoming deputy editor. She noted that a typical path to an editing position in science requires strong academic training, a postdoctoral experience, and then a transition into publishing.
Scientific editors usually are required to read and evaluate new submissions to their journal (the editorial triage stage) and lead discussions with the editorial team through emails or meetings to reach an initial decision during the editorial triage stage. Additionally, editors manage the peer review process, invite scientists to write reviews and perspectives, coordinate special issues or themed collections, and suggest or select cover images. Scientific editors also attend conferences, visit institutions, give seminars and workshops, and network with researchers as part of the community and outreach activities.
A very important point Dr. Marat made about the editor role is that native-level English is not required. What matters more is your ability to understand and evaluate science critically. A good scientific editor enjoys being immersed daily in cutting-edge research across a broad range of topics, constant practice of critical scientific thinking, and listening and evaluating other results more than running experiments themselves.
Scientific Editor vs Researcher Position
Workload and time pressure: In comparison to a traditional academic research position, the deadlines are shorter and more frequent in a scientific editor role, but the work hours can be more predictable than in lab roles. You may also have less control over the workload. For example, editors cannot control how many manuscripts arrive or the flow of revisions and reviews.
Work environment: In scientific editor roles, the work environment is more corporate or office-like, often with hybrid or remote work options, and a more regular work schedule than in some research labs. The work involves substantial solo reading and decision-making, intercalated by periods of intense networking at conferences, meetings, and lab visits.
Where an editorial career can lead: According to Dr. Marat, the editorial career path does not have a single endpoint. Scientific editors can be promoted within the same journal/publisher, move between journals/publishing houses, transition to the business or strategy side of publishing, join funding agencies, freelance science journalism or other media, or move to pharmaceutical roles.
A key takeaway from Dr. Marat’s talk is that scientific publishing is designed to highlight rigorous, field advancing science. By choosing journals strategically, framing your big-picture question clearly, and understanding how editors think about novelty, impact, and rigor, you can navigate submissions and even rejections more effectively. At the same time, seeing the process from the editorial side—whether as an author or as a potential editor—helps you tell a sharper story, respond constructively to criticism, and engage more fully in the broader scientific conversation.
For trainees interested in careers beyond the bench, scientific editing represents a career deeply engaged with research while shaping how new discoveries enter the scientific record.
This article was edited by Junior Editor E. Beyza Guven and Senior Editor Antonia Kaz.