publish my research paper in

• Privacy Policy
• SignUp/Login

Home » How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

Table of Contents

Publishing a research paper is an important step for researchers to disseminate their findings to a wider audience and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. Whether you are a graduate student, a postdoctoral fellow, or an established researcher, publishing a paper requires careful planning, rigorous research, and clear writing. In this process, you will need to identify a research question , conduct a thorough literature review , design a methodology, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Additionally, you will need to consider the appropriate journals or conferences to submit your work to and adhere to their guidelines for formatting and submission. In this article, we will discuss some ways to publish your Research Paper.

How to Publish a Research Paper

To Publish a Research Paper follow the guide below:

• Conduct original research : Conduct thorough research on a specific topic or problem. Collect data, analyze it, and draw conclusions based on your findings.
• Write the paper : Write a detailed paper describing your research. It should include an abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Choose a suitable journal or conference : Look for a journal or conference that specializes in your research area. You can check their submission guidelines to ensure your paper meets their requirements.
• Prepare your submission: Follow the guidelines and prepare your submission, including the paper, abstract, cover letter, and any other required documents.
• Submit the paper: Submit your paper online through the journal or conference website. Make sure you meet the submission deadline.
• Peer-review process : Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field who will provide feedback on the quality of your research, methodology, and conclusions.
• Revisions : Based on the feedback you receive, revise your paper and resubmit it.
• Acceptance : Once your paper is accepted, you will receive a notification from the journal or conference. You may need to make final revisions before the paper is published.
• Publication : Your paper will be published online or in print. You can also promote your work through social media or other channels to increase its visibility.

How to Choose Journal for Research Paper Publication

Here are some steps to follow to help you select an appropriate journal:

• Identify your research topic and audience : Your research topic and intended audience should guide your choice of journal. Identify the key journals in your field of research and read the scope and aim of the journal to determine if your paper is a good fit.
• Analyze the journal’s impact and reputation : Check the impact factor and ranking of the journal, as well as its acceptance rate and citation frequency. A high-impact journal can give your paper more visibility and credibility.
• Consider the journal’s publication policies : Look for the journal’s publication policies such as the word count limit, formatting requirements, open access options, and submission fees. Make sure that you can comply with the requirements and that the journal is in line with your publication goals.
• Look at recent publications : Review recent issues of the journal to evaluate whether your paper would fit in with the journal’s current content and style.
• Seek advice from colleagues and mentors: Ask for recommendations and suggestions from your colleagues and mentors in your field, especially those who have experience publishing in the same or similar journals.
• Be prepared to make changes : Be prepared to revise your paper according to the requirements and guidelines of the chosen journal. It is also important to be open to feedback from the editor and reviewers.

List of Journals for Research Paper Publications

There are thousands of academic journals covering various fields of research. Here are some of the most popular ones, categorized by field:

General/Multidisciplinary

• Nature: https://www.nature.com/
• Science: https://www.sciencemag.org/
• PLOS ONE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): https://www.pnas.org/
• The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/
• JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama

Social Sciences/Humanities

• Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp
• Journal of Consumer Research: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/jcr
• Journal of Educational Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/edu
• Journal of Applied Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl
• Journal of Communication: https://academic.oup.com/joc
• American Journal of Political Science: https://ajps.org/
• Journal of International Business Studies: https://www.jibs.net/
• Journal of Marketing Research: https://www.ama.org/journal-of-marketing-research/

Natural Sciences

• Journal of Biological Chemistry: https://www.jbc.org/
• Cell: https://www.cell.com/
• Science Advances: https://advances.sciencemag.org/
• Chemical Reviews: https://pubs.acs.org/journal/chreay
• Angewandte Chemie: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15213765
• Physical Review Letters: https://journals.aps.org/prl/
• Journal of Geophysical Research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2156531X
• Journal of High Energy Physics: https://link.springer.com/journal/13130

Engineering/Technology

• IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=5962385
• IEEE Transactions on Power Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=59
• IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=42
• IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=87
• Journal of Engineering Mechanics: https://ascelibrary.org/journal/jenmdt
• Journal of Materials Science: https://www.springer.com/journal/10853
• Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jcej
• Journal of Mechanical Design: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign

Medical/Health Sciences

• New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/
• The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal): https://www.bmj.com/
• Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama
• Annals of Internal Medicine: https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim
• American Journal of Epidemiology: https://academic.oup.com/aje
• Journal of Clinical Oncology: https://ascopubs.org/journal/jco
• Journal of Infectious Diseases: https://academic.oup.com/jid

List of Conferences for Research Paper Publications

There are many conferences that accept research papers for publication. The specific conferences you should consider will depend on your field of research. Here are some suggestions for conferences in a few different fields:

Computer Science and Information Technology:

• IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM): https://www.ieee-infocom.org/
• ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
• IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP): https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP/
• ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS): https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/
• ACM Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (CHI): https://chi2022.acm.org/

Engineering:

• IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA): https://www.ieee-icra.org/
• International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAE): http://www.icmae.org/
• International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering (ICCEE): http://www.iccee.org/
• International Conference on Materials Science and Engineering (ICMSE): http://www.icmse.org/
• International Conference on Energy and Power Engineering (ICEPE): http://www.icepe.org/

Natural Sciences:

• American Chemical Society National Meeting & Exposition: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/meetings/national-meeting.html
• American Physical Society March Meeting: https://www.aps.org/meetings/march/
• International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (ICEST): http://www.icest.org/
• International Conference on Natural Science and Environment (ICNSE): http://www.icnse.org/
• International Conference on Life Science and Biological Engineering (LSBE): http://www.lsbe.org/

Social Sciences:

• Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA): https://www.asanet.org/annual-meeting-2022
• International Conference on Social Science and Humanities (ICSSH): http://www.icssh.org/
• International Conference on Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (ICPBS): http://www.icpbs.org/
• International Conference on Education and Social Science (ICESS): http://www.icess.org/
• International Conference on Management and Information Science (ICMIS): http://www.icmis.org/

How to Publish a Research Paper in Journal

Publishing a research paper in a journal is a crucial step in disseminating scientific knowledge and contributing to the field. Here are the general steps to follow:

• Choose a research topic : Select a topic of your interest and identify a research question or problem that you want to investigate. Conduct a literature review to identify the gaps in the existing knowledge that your research will address.
• Conduct research : Develop a research plan and methodology to collect data and conduct experiments. Collect and analyze data to draw conclusions that address the research question.
• Write a paper: Organize your findings into a well-structured paper with clear and concise language. Your paper should include an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use academic language and provide references for your sources.
• Choose a journal: Choose a journal that is relevant to your research topic and audience. Consider factors such as impact factor, acceptance rate, and the reputation of the journal.
• Follow journal guidelines : Review the submission guidelines and formatting requirements of the journal. Follow the guidelines carefully to ensure that your paper meets the journal’s requirements.
• Submit your paper : Submit your paper to the journal through the online submission system or by email. Include a cover letter that briefly explains the significance of your research and why it is suitable for the journal.
• Wait for reviews: Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field. Be prepared to address their comments and make revisions to your paper.
• Revise and resubmit: Make revisions to your paper based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it to the journal. If your paper is accepted, congratulations! If not, consider revising and submitting it to another journal.
• Address reviewer comments : Reviewers may provide comments and suggestions for revisions to your paper. Address these comments carefully and thoughtfully to improve the quality of your paper.
• Submit the final version: Once your revisions are complete, submit the final version of your paper to the journal. Be sure to follow any additional formatting guidelines and requirements provided by the journal.
• Publication : If your paper is accepted, it will be published in the journal. Some journals provide online publication while others may publish a print version. Be sure to cite your published paper in future research and communicate your findings to the scientific community.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Students

Here are some steps you can follow to publish a research paper as an Under Graduate or a High School Student:

• Select a topic: Choose a topic that is relevant and interesting to you, and that you have a good understanding of.
• Conduct research : Gather information and data on your chosen topic through research, experiments, surveys, or other means.
• Write the paper : Start with an outline, then write the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion sections of the paper. Be sure to follow any guidelines provided by your instructor or the journal you plan to submit to.
• Edit and revise: Review your paper for errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Ask a peer or mentor to review your paper and provide feedback for improvement.
• Choose a journal : Look for journals that publish papers in your field of study and that are appropriate for your level of research. Some popular journals for students include PLOS ONE, Nature, and Science.
• Submit the paper: Follow the submission guidelines for the journal you choose, which typically include a cover letter, abstract, and formatting requirements. Be prepared to wait several weeks to months for a response.
• Address feedback : If your paper is accepted with revisions, address the feedback from the reviewers and resubmit your paper. If your paper is rejected, review the feedback and consider revising and resubmitting to a different journal.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Free

Publishing a research paper for free can be challenging, but it is possible. Here are some steps you can take to publish your research paper for free:

• Choose a suitable open-access journal: Look for open-access journals that are relevant to your research area. Open-access journals allow readers to access your paper without charge, so your work will be more widely available.
• Check the journal’s reputation : Before submitting your paper, ensure that the journal is reputable by checking its impact factor, publication history, and editorial board.
• Follow the submission guidelines : Every journal has specific guidelines for submitting papers. Make sure to follow these guidelines carefully to increase the chances of acceptance.
• Submit your paper : Once you have completed your research paper, submit it to the journal following their submission guidelines.
• Wait for the review process: Your paper will undergo a peer-review process, where experts in your field will evaluate your work. Be patient during this process, as it can take several weeks or even months.
• Revise your paper : If your paper is rejected, don’t be discouraged. Revise your paper based on the feedback you receive from the reviewers and submit it to another open-access journal.
• Promote your research: Once your paper is published, promote it on social media and other online platforms. This will increase the visibility of your work and help it reach a wider audience.

Journals and Conferences for Free Research Paper publications

Here are the websites of the open-access journals and conferences mentioned:

Open-Access Journals:

• PLOS ONE – https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
• BMC Research Notes – https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/
• Frontiers in… – https://www.frontiersin.org/
• Journal of Open Research Software – https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/
• PeerJ – https://peerj.com/

Conferences:

• IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) – https://globecom2022.ieee-globecom.org/
• IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) – https://infocom2022.ieee-infocom.org/
• IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) – https://www.ieee-icdm.org/
• ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication (SIGCOMM) – https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
• ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) – https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/CCS2022/

Importance of Research Paper Publication

Research paper publication is important for several reasons, both for individual researchers and for the scientific community as a whole. Here are some reasons why:

• Advancing scientific knowledge : Research papers provide a platform for researchers to present their findings and contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. These papers often contain novel ideas, experimental data, and analyses that can help to advance scientific understanding.
• Building a research career : Publishing research papers is an essential component of building a successful research career. Researchers are often evaluated based on the number and quality of their publications, and having a strong publication record can increase one’s chances of securing funding, tenure, or a promotion.
• Peer review and quality control: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal means that the research has been scrutinized by other experts in the field. This peer review process helps to ensure the quality and validity of the research findings.
• Recognition and visibility : Publishing a research paper can bring recognition and visibility to the researchers and their work. It can lead to invitations to speak at conferences, collaborations with other researchers, and media coverage.
• Impact on society : Research papers can have a significant impact on society by informing policy decisions, guiding clinical practice, and advancing technological innovation.

Advantages of Research Paper Publication

There are several advantages to publishing a research paper, including:

• Recognition: Publishing a research paper allows researchers to gain recognition for their work, both within their field and in the academic community as a whole. This can lead to new collaborations, invitations to conferences, and other opportunities to share their research with a wider audience.
• Career advancement : A strong publication record can be an important factor in career advancement, particularly in academia. Publishing research papers can help researchers secure funding, grants, and promotions.
• Dissemination of knowledge : Research papers are an important way to share new findings and ideas with the broader scientific community. By publishing their research, scientists can contribute to the collective body of knowledge in their field and help advance scientific understanding.
• Feedback and peer review : Publishing a research paper allows other experts in the field to provide feedback on the research, which can help improve the quality of the work and identify potential flaws or limitations. Peer review also helps ensure that research is accurate and reliable.
• Citation and impact : Published research papers can be cited by other researchers, which can help increase the impact and visibility of the research. High citation rates can also help establish a researcher’s reputation and credibility within their field.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Figures in Research Paper – Examples and Guide

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing...

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

ScienceDirect Support Center

To post social content, you must have a display name. The page will refresh upon submission. Any pending input will be lost.

How do I publish my article with Elsevier?

Follow these steps to submit your article using our online submission system Editorial Manager:

• This option may not always be available as some journals do not accept submissions.
• Sign in to Editorial Manager, or register if you are a first-time user.
• Follow the steps to submit your article. 

Helpful tools and pages

These helpful tools and pages available can help you navigate the publication process.

Finding the right journal

• Browse Calls for papers
• JournalFinder

Help with submitting and tracking your article

• Publishing with Elsevier: step-by-step — provides a good overview of the publication process for first-time authors.
• Track your accepted article — tool to track your submitted article after it has been accepted.
• Journal Article Publishing Support Center — support portal for any questions related to publishing with Elsevier (e.g., open access, publication costs, fees, submission timelines) and contact information.

Was this answer helpful?

Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch.

Help us to help you:

Thank you for your feedback!

• Why was this answer not helpful?
• It was hard to understand / follow.
• It did not answer my question.
• The solution did not work.
• There was a mistake in the answer.
• Feel free to leave any comments below: Please enter your feedback to submit this form

Related Articles:

• How do I use the advanced search?
• What are journal pre-proofs?
• What can I do on a journal home page?
• What are corrected proofs?
• How do I buy an article or chapter?

For further assistance:

• SpringerLink shop

How to publish an article? – Step by step

If you plan to submit an article to one of our journals, or have any questions during the publication process, this helpdesk will guide you through manuscript submission, production and the services you can expect after your article’s publication.

1. Before you start

The following topics will be important during the early stages of writing your article.

• Publishing Ethics
• Open Access
• Impact Factor
• Rights, permissions and licensing
• Copyright and plagiarism

2. Turning your manuscript into an article

Preparation, publication.

- Find the right journal for your manuscript

- The Springer Journal Selector

- Manuscript preparation (reference styles, artwork guidelines, etc.)

Read more about Preparation

- Electronic submission

- Reviewing and acceptance

- Managing copyright  – The "MyPublication" process

Read more about Submission

- Copy editing and language polishing

- Data processing and type setting

- Article Tracking

- Checking your article: proofing procedure

- e.Proofing – Makes editing easy!

Read more about Production

- Publishing your article "Online First"

- Publishing your article in a journal issue

Read more about Publication

3. After publication

If your article has been published, the following topics are important for you:

• Abstracting & Indexing
• Online access to my article
• Citation Alert
• Book discounts
• Marketing to worldwide audiences

How to Publish a Research Article

• Submit your Research
• My Submissions
• Article Guidelines
• Article Guidelines (New Versions)
• Data Guidelines
• Article Processing Charges
• Finding Article Reviewers
• The Peer Review Process
• The Editorial Team’s Role
• Reviewer Criteria
• Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
• Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
• The work is original. The article (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Articles previously posted on a preprint server, such as arXiv, SSRN, BioRxiv, MedRxiv can be submitted for publication in Open Research Europe.
• At least one author must have or previously had Horizon 2020 funding (for details, see our Publication criteria ).
• The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
• Where applicable, all methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
• All authors have understood Routledge Open Research’s policies for article publication and its author-led publishing model , which requires authors to actively suggest suitable peer reviewers for their article until at least 2 reviews have been received.
• Your article includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.

• ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
• An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.
• we collect and store authenticated ORCID iDs for authors and reviewers
• we publicly display the iDs with the iD icon for those authors and reviewers, linked to their ORCID account
• we connect to the user's ORCID record and update it with new published works

Stay Informed

Sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Routledge Open Research.

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Routledge Open Research

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

The 5 Best Platforms to Publish Your Academic Research

Academic research is a central component of scientific advancements and breakthrough innovations. However, your research journey is complex and ever-changing. You must take into consideration funding options, how to securely store your information, choosing where to publish your research, finding manuscript peer reviewers, and many more.

To keep up with the change, you and other researchers require modern, easy-to-navigate research platforms to help you uncover, store, verify, compile, and share content, data, and important insights to continue to carry out breakthrough research.

This article explains how to identify the best platforms for publishing your research and gives you a list of five platforms to help you publish. Towards the end, you’ll also see a mention of how Orvium can further assist you with publishing.

How to Identify the Best Platforms for Publishing

When trying to identify the best platforms for publishing your research, you have to consider several factors, including:

• Does the platform support your research journey ? Can you collaborate with other authors and researchers, discover public groups and research papers and manuscripts (including Open Access work), view interactive graphs, images, tables, etc., track citations, and build a professional research profile?
• Is the platform easy to use ? Does it offer rich functionalities that are easy to understand, and if so, which ones?
• Does it use artificial intelligence and machine learning ? Automated actions (email alerts, etc.) can help you unlock breakthroughs faster and deliver deeper insights.
• What security and governance does it have ? Platforms must be secure and compliant according to local regulations since researchers often deal with sensitive data.

The 5 Best Platforms to Publish Academic Research

Researchgate.

ResearchGate is a platform hosting over 135 million publication pages with a community of 20 million scientists. The platform allows you to show off your work, access papers and advice from other researchers, make contacts and even find jobs. Some of its more prominent features include:

• Dedicated Q&A section with searchable keywords to target experts in your particular field or area of study
• Ability to create a personal profile page where you can display all research-specific details about yourself, including up to five pieces of work (including datasets and conference papers)
• In-depth stats on who reads your work and the ability to track your citations
• A private messaging service that allows you to send messages to other researchers
• A comments section to provide feedback when viewing a paper
• A “projects” section to tell others about your upcoming work.

In addition, it's completely free to use!

Academia is a research-sharing platform with over 178 million users, 29 million papers uploaded, and 87 million visitors per month. Their goal is to accelerate research in all fields, ensure that all research is available for free and that the sharing of knowledge is available in multiple formats (videos, datasets, code, short-form content, etc.). Some of their more prominent features include:

• Mentions and search alerts that notify you when another researcher cites, thanks, or acknowledges your work, and automatic reports of search queries
• Ability to create a personal profile page
• “Profile visitor” and “readers” features let you know the title and location of those who visit your profile or read your papers so you can learn about their research interests and get in touch
• A “grants” feature to allow you to find new grants and fellowships in your field
• Advanced research discovery tools allow you to see full texts and citations of millions of papers.

The platform is based on a “freemium” business model, which provides free access to research for everyone, and paid capabilities to subscribers.

ScienceOpen

ScienceOpen is a discovery platform that empowers researchers to make an impact in their communities. The platform is committed to Open Science, combining decades of experience in traditional publishing, computing, and academic research to provide free access to knowledge to drive creativity, innovation, and development. Some of their more prominent features include:

• You can publish your most recent paper as a preprint that’s citable and includes a DOI to share with peers immediately and enhance visibility
• A multidimensional search feature for articles with 18 filters and the ability to sort results by Altmetric scores , citations, date, and rating
• Ability to create a personal profile with minimal upkeep necessary
• Access to a suite of metrics (usage, citations, etc.) of your publications
• Ability to follow other researchers to stay up-to-date on their work and expand your network.

The platform is free to use, although some features (like publishing your preprint) may cost money.

IOPscience is a platform that embraces innovative technologies to make it easier for researchers to discover and access technical, scientific, and medical content while managing their own research content. They participate in several programs that offer researchers in developing countries several ways to gain access to journals at little or no cost. Some of their other features include:

• An enhanced search filtering feature allows you to find relevant research faster
• A social bookmarking feature allows you to interact with other researchers and share articles
• Ability to create a personal profile, customize your alerts, view recently published articles within your field or area of interest, and save relevant papers or articles
• Ability to receive email alerts and RSS feeds once new content is published.

IOPscience is free to use and functions on an Open Access policy, which you can check here .

Orvium is an open, community-based research platform that allows researchers, reviewers, and publishers to share, publish, review, and manage their research. Orvium protects your work with built-in blockchain integration to ensure that you maintain the copyright of your work and not only. Some of our more notable features include:

• Access to a modern web platform with Google indexing, notifications, and mobile-ready features
• Ability to manage your entire publication process, with control over when you submit, receive peer reviews, and publish your paper
• “Collaboration” and “full traceability” features allow you to track your profile impact, get in touch with other researchers, and have ownership over your work
• Recognition badges or economic rewards are given when you peer-review.

Orvium is completely free to use.

Orvium Makes Choosing a Platform Easy

No matter what platform or community you choose to be a part of, you now know what you need to look for when choosing one. You also learned about five excellent platforms where you can publish your academic research. Orvium will remain your one-stop-shop platform for all your research needs. Do you want to know how Orvium and our communities work? Check out our platform or contact us with any questions you may have.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox.

Now check your inbox and click the link to confirm your subscription.

Please enter a valid email address

Oops! There was an error sending the email, please try later.

Leyre Martínez

Recommended for you.

How to Write a Research Funding Application | Orvium

Increasing Representation and Diversity in Research with Open Science | Orvium

Your Guide to Open Access Week 2023

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing
• Research Papers

How to Publish a Research Paper

Last Updated: August 17, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Matthew Snipp, PhD and by wikiHow staff writer, Christopher M. Osborne, PhD . C. Matthew Snipp is the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor of Humanities and Sciences in the Department of Sociology at Stanford University. He is also the Director for the Institute for Research in the Social Science’s Secure Data Center. He has been a Research Fellow at the U.S. Bureau of the Census and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He has published 3 books and over 70 articles and book chapters on demography, economic development, poverty and unemployment. He is also currently serving on the National Institute of Child Health and Development’s Population Science Subcommittee. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin—Madison. There are 7 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 686,680 times.

Publishing a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal is an important activity within the academic community. It allows you to network with other scholars, get your name and work into circulation, and further refine your ideas and research. Getting published isn’t easy, but you can improve your odds by submitting a technically sound and creative yet straightforward piece of research. It’s also vital to find a suitable academic journal for your topic and writing style, so you can tailor your research paper to it and increase your chances of publication and wider recognition.

Submitting (and Resubmitting) Your Paper

• Have two or three people review your paper. At least one should be a non-expert in the major topic — their “outsider’s perspective” can be particularly valuable, as not all reviewers will be experts on your specific topic.

• Journal articles in the sciences often follow a specific organizational format, such as: Abstract; Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; Conclusion; Acknowledgements/References. Those in the arts and humanities are usually less regimented.

• Submit your article to only one journal at a time. Work your way down your list, one at a time, as needed.
• When submitting online, use your university email account. This connects you with a scholarly institution, which adds credibility to your work.

• Accept with Revision — only minor adjustments are needed, based on the provided feedback by the reviewers.
• Revise and Resubmit — more substantial changes (as described) are needed before publication can be considered, but the journal is still very interested in your work.
• Reject and Resubmit — the article is not currently viable for consideration, but substantial alterations and refocusing may be able to change this outcome.
• Reject — the paper isn’t and won’t be suitable for this publication, but that doesn’t mean it might not work for another journal.

• Do not get over-attached to your original submission. Instead, remain flexible and rework the paper in light of the feedback you receive. Use your skills as a researcher and a writer to create a superior paper.
• However, you don’t have to “roll over” and meekly follow reviewer comments that you feel are off the mark. Open a dialogue with the editor and explain your position, respectfully but confidently. Remember, you’re an expert on this specific topic! [6] X Research source

• Remember, a rejected paper doesn’t necessarily equal a bad paper. Numerous factors, many of them completely out of your control, go into determining which articles are accepted.
• Move on to your second-choice journal for submission. You might even ask for guidance on finding a better fit from the editor of the first journal.

Choosing the Right Journal for Submission

• Read academic journals related to your field of study.
• Search online for published research papers, conference papers, and journal articles.
• Ask a colleague or professor for a suggested reading list.

• “Fit” is critical here — the most renowned journal in your field might not be the one best suited to your specific work. At the same time, though, don’t sell yourself short by assuming your paper could never be good enough for that top-shelf publication.

• However, always prioritize peer-reviewed journals — in which field scholars anonymously review submitted works. This is the basic standard for scholarly publishing.
• You can increase your readership dramatically by publishing in an open access journal. As such, it will be freely available as part of an online repository of peer-reviewed scholarly papers. [11] X Research source

Strengthening Your Submission

• “This paper explores how George Washington’s experiences as a young officer may have shaped his views during difficult circumstances as a commanding officer.”
• “This paper contends that George Washington’s experiences as a young officer on the 1750s Pennsylvania frontier directly impacted his relationship with his Continental Army troops during the harsh winter at Valley Forge.”

• This is especially true for younger scholars who are breaking into the field. Leave the grand (yet still only 20-30 page) explorations to more established scholars.

• Your abstract should make people eager to start reading the article, but never disappointed when they finish the article.
• Get as many people as you can to read over your abstract and provide feedback before you submit your paper to a journal.

Research Paper Help

Expert Q&A

• Do not immediately revise your paper if you are upset or frustrated with the journal's requests for change. Set your paper aside for several days, then come back to it with "fresh eyes." The feedback you received will have percolated and settled, and will now find a comfortable place within your article. Remember this is a big project and final refinements will take time. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://owl.excelsior.edu/research/revising-and-editing-a-research-paper/
• ↑ http://www.canberra.edu.au/library/start-your-research/research_help/publishing-research
• ↑ http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/publish.aspx
• ↑ Matthew Snipp, PhD. Research Fellow, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Expert Interview. 26 March 2020.
• ↑ https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/how-to-get-your-first-research-paper-published/2015485.article#survey-answer
• ↑ https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20140615095526/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/briefingpaper/2010/bppublishingresearchpapersv1final.pdf
• ↑ https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/abstract

About This Article

To publish a research paper, ask a colleague or professor to review your paper and give you feedback. Once you've revised your work, familiarize yourself with different academic journals so that you can choose the publication that best suits your paper. Make sure to look at the "Author's Guide" so you can format your paper according to the guidelines for that publication. Then, submit your paper and don't get discouraged if it is not accepted right away. You may need to revise your paper and try again. To learn about the different responses you might get from journals, see our reviewer's explanation below. Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

RAMDEV GOHIL

Oct 16, 2017

Did this article help you?

David Okandeji

Oct 23, 2019

Revati Joshi

Feb 13, 2017

Shahzad Khan

Jul 1, 2017

Apr 7, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in 7 Steps

What comes next after you're done with your research? Publishing the results in a journal of course! We tell you how to present your work in the best way possible.

This post is part of a series, which serves to provide hands-on information and resources for authors and editors.

Things have gotten busy in scholarly publishing: These days, a new article gets published in the 50,000 most important peer-reviewed journals every few seconds, while each one takes on average 40 minutes to read. Hundreds of thousands of papers reach the desks of editors and reviewers worldwide each year and 50% of all submissions end up rejected at some stage.

In a nutshell: there is a lot of competition, and the people who decide upon the fate of your manuscript are short on time and overworked. But there are ways to make their lives a little easier and improve your own chances of getting your work published!

Well, it may seem obvious, but before submitting an academic paper, always make sure that it is an excellent reflection of the research you have done and that you present it in the most professional way possible. Incomplete or poorly presented manuscripts can create a great deal of frustration and annoyance for editors who probably won’t even bother wasting the time of the reviewers!

This post will discuss 7 steps to the successful publication of your research paper:

• Check whether your research is publication-ready
• Choose an article type
• Choose a journal
• Construct your paper
• Decide the order of authors
• Check and double-check
• Submit your paper

1. Check Whether Your Research Is Publication-Ready

Should you publish your research at all?

If your work holds academic value – of course – a well-written scholarly article could open doors to your research community. However, if you are not yet sure, whether your research is ready for publication, here are some key questions to ask yourself depending on your field of expertise:

• Have you done or found something new and interesting? Something unique?
• Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
• Have you checked the latest results or research in the field?
• Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
• Have the findings been verified?
• Have the appropriate controls been performed if required?
• Are your findings comprehensive?

If the answers to all relevant questions are “yes”, you need to prepare a good, strong manuscript. Remember, a research paper is only useful if it is clearly understood, reproducible and if it is read and used .

2. Choose An Article Type

The first step is to determine which type of paper is most appropriate for your work and what you want to achieve. The following list contains the most important, usually peer-reviewed article types in the natural sciences:

Full original research papers disseminate completed research findings. On average this type of paper is 8-10 pages long, contains five figures, and 25-30 references. Full original research papers are an important part of the process when developing your career.

Review papers present a critical synthesis of a specific research topic. These papers are usually much longer than original papers and will contain numerous references. More often than not, they will be commissioned by journal editors. Reviews present an excellent way to solidify your research career.

Letters, Rapid or Short Communications are often published for the quick and early communication of significant and original advances. They are much shorter than full articles and usually limited in length by the journal. Journals specifically dedicated to short communications or letters are also published in some fields. In these the authors can present short preliminary findings before developing a full-length paper.

3. Choose a Journal

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Submit to journals that you already read, that you have a good feel for. If you do so, you will have a better appreciation of both its culture and the requirements of the editors and reviewers.

Other factors to consider are:

• The specific subject area
• The aims and scope of the journal
• The type of manuscript you have written
• The significance of your work
• The reputation of the journal
• The reputation of the editors within the community
• The editorial/review and production speeds of the journal
• The community served by the journal
• The coverage and distribution
• The accessibility ( open access vs. closed access)

4. Construct Your Paper

Each element of a paper has its purpose, so you should make these sections easy to index and search.

Don’t forget that requirements can differ highly per publication, so always make sure to apply a journal’s specific instructions – or guide – for authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc.) It will save you time, and the editor’s.

Also, even in these days of Internet-based publishing, space is still at a premium, so be as concise as possible. As a good journalist would say: “Never use three words when one will do!”

Let’s look at the typical structure of a full research paper, but bear in mind certain subject disciplines may have their own specific requirements so check the instructions for authors on the journal’s home page.

4.1 The Title

It’s important to use the title to tell the reader what your paper is all about! You want to attract their attention, a bit like a newspaper headline does. Be specific and to the point. Keep it informative and concise, and avoid jargon and abbreviations (unless they are universally recognized like DNA, for example).

4.2 The Abstract

This could be termed as the “advertisement” for your article. Make it interesting and easily understood without the reader having to read the whole article. Be accurate and specific, and keep it as brief and concise as possible. Some journals (particularly in the medical fields) will ask you to structure the abstract in distinct, labeled sections, which makes it even more accessible.

A clear abstract will influence whether or not your work is considered and whether an editor should invest more time on it or send it for review.

4.3 Keywords

Keywords are used by abstracting and indexing services, such as PubMed and Web of Science. They are the labels of your manuscript, which make it “searchable” online by other researchers.

Include words or phrases (usually 4-8) that are closely related to your topic but not “too niche” for anyone to find them. Make sure to only use established abbreviations. Think about what scientific terms and its variations your potential readers are likely to use and search for. You can also do a test run of your selected keywords in one of the common academic search engines. Do similar articles to your own appear? Yes? Then that’s a good sign.

4.4 Introduction

This first part of the main text should introduce the problem, as well as any existing solutions you are aware of and the main limitations. Also, state what you hope to achieve with your research.

Do not confuse the introduction with the results, discussion or conclusion.

4.5 Methods

Every research article should include a detailed Methods section (also referred to as “Materials and Methods”) to provide the reader with enough information to be able to judge whether the study is valid and reproducible.

Include detailed information so that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment. However, use references and supplementary materials to indicate previously published procedures.

4.6 Results

In this section, you will present the essential or primary results of your study. To display them in a comprehensible way, you should use subheadings as well as illustrations such as figures, graphs, tables and photos, as appropriate.

4.7 Discussion

Here you should tell your readers what the results mean .

Do state how the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses and how the findings relate to those of other studies. Explain all possible interpretations of your findings and the study’s limitations.

Do not make “grand statements” that are not supported by the data. Also, do not introduce any new results or terms. Moreover, do not ignore work that conflicts or disagrees with your findings. Instead …

Be brave! Address conflicting study results and convince the reader you are the one who is correct.

4.8 Conclusion

Your conclusion isn’t just a summary of what you’ve already written. It should take your paper one step further and answer any unresolved questions.

Sum up what you have shown in your study and indicate possible applications and extensions. The main question your conclusion should answer is: What do my results mean for the research field and my community?

4.9 Acknowledgments and Ethical Statements

It is extremely important to acknowledge anyone who has helped you with your paper, including researchers who supplied materials or reagents (e.g. vectors or antibodies); and anyone who helped with the writing or English, or offered critical comments about the content.

Learn more about academic integrity in our blog post “Scholarly Publication Ethics: 4 Common Mistakes You Want To Avoid” .

Remember to state why people have been acknowledged and ask their permission . Ensure that you acknowledge sources of funding, including any grant or reference numbers.

Furthermore, if you have worked with animals or humans, you need to include information about the ethical approval of your study and, if applicable, whether informed consent was given. Also, state whether you have any competing interests regarding the study (e.g. because of financial or personal relationships.)

4.10 References

The end is in sight, but don’t relax just yet!

De facto, there are often more mistakes in the references than in any other part of the manuscript. It is also one of the most annoying and time-consuming problems for editors.

Remember to cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based. But do not inflate the manuscript with too many references. Avoid excessive – and especially unnecessary – self-citations. Also, avoid excessive citations of publications from the same institute or region.

5. Decide the Order of Authors

In the sciences, the most common way to order the names of the authors is by relative contribution.

Generally, the first author conducts and/or supervises the data analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results. They put the paper together and usually submit the paper to the journal.

Co-authors make intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contribute to data interpretation. They review each paper draft. All of them must be able to present the paper and its results, as well as to defend the implications and discuss study limitations.

Do not leave out authors who should be included or add “gift authors”, i.e. authors who did not contribute significantly.

6. Check and Double-Check

As a final step before submission, ask colleagues to read your work and be constructively critical .

Make sure that the paper is appropriate for the journal – take a last look at their aims and scope. Check if all of the requirements in the instructions for authors are met.

Ensure that the cited literature is balanced. Are the aims, purpose and significance of the results clear?

Conduct a final check for language, either by a native English speaker or an editing service.

7. Submit Your Paper

When you and your co-authors have double-, triple-, quadruple-checked the manuscript: submit it via e-mail or online submission system. Along with your manuscript, submit a cover letter, which highlights the reasons why your paper would appeal to the journal and which ensures that you have received approval of all authors for submission.

It is up to the editors and the peer-reviewers now to provide you with their (ideally constructive and helpful) comments and feedback. Time to take a breather!

If the paper gets rejected, do not despair – it happens to literally everybody. If the journal suggests major or minor revisions, take the chance to provide a thorough response and make improvements as you see fit. If the paper gets accepted, congrats!

It’s now time to get writing and share your hard work – good luck!

If you are interested, check out this related blog post

[Title Image by Nick Morrison via Unsplash]

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

How “Second-Hand Libraries” Breathe New Life into Old Buildings

Subscribe to open: how to make the shift to open access more inclusive, five ways to boost your online presence at academic conferences, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

Scholarly Communication Services : Publishing

We can help you navigate the evolving scholarly publishing process — not only for your “final” manuscript, but also your other critical research and publishing outputs, such as: preprints, data, interactive models, conference proceedings, posters, working papers, blog posts, and much more.

More information

The lifecycle, peer review, research impact, research data, economic overview.

You want to build your academic reputation, but how do you know to what journals or academic presses you should submit your work? You’ll want to consider norms in your field, recommendations from peers or advisors, and the extent of your desire for open access.

We’ve put together some guidelines.

Evaluating journals

With journal publishing, you will often be making choices based on the “impact” of various journals — meaning how those journals are recognized and perceived in the scholarly community, the frequency of citation of articles from those journals, and the like. (We discuss various statistical measures of impact in the  Research Impact and Scholarly Profiles  section.) But you should also consider impact in terms of openness. That is: Who can access the scholarship being published by that journal? Is it open for reading by all, or confined to only those institutions able to pay?

Gauging journal subject matter fit and impact

If you’re unfamiliar with the journals in your field, there are comparison tools that can help with the evaluation process:

Journal Citation Reports :  JCR provides citation data for journals across nearly two hundred subject categories. You can browse by subject category or by known title. JCR enables you to identify journals with high impact factors, understand the ranking of journals within a subject category, and more. 

Eigenfactor.org :  Offers valuable information about the Eigenfactor Score and the Article Influence Score for various journals. You can also explore the cost effectiveness of journals for both  subscription journals  (which search ranks subscription-based journals according to the value-per-dollar that they provide) and  open access journals  (which compares the article-processing fees charged by open access journals).

CiteScore :  Identify and compare journal impact metrics across a wide range of journal titles and disciplines.

UlrichsWeb :  Provides key information about journals’ publishing frequency, location, audience, peer review status and more.

Evaluating open access journals

If you’re interested in open access publishing, but unfamiliar with a particular OA journal you’ve come across, you can also find out more about it by checking these additional sites:

Is the journal included in the Directory of Open Access Journals ( DOAJ )? DOAJ is comprehensive, “community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.” To be included, journals must be peer-reviewed or employ editorial quality control. This also means the journals do not employ deceptive marketing practices to solicit papers to get the article processing charge that authors may pay. (See our page on  open access publishing models .)

Is the publisher a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association ( OASPA )? 

Has the publication been evaluated by scholars in the  Quality Open Access Market ?

The  Scholarly Communication Toolkit  page on  Evaluating Journals   also has tremendous information about how to select open access journals for publication.

Concerned about deception?

If you’ve checked the above sources, but still have questions about the legitimacy of a journal solicitation you’ve received, there are several ways you can screen for propriety.

Are you getting  confusing spam?  If you’ve been receiving unsolicited e-mails from journals that are  not  indexed in the above reputable sources, this may be an indication of deceptive practices.

Have you checked for  deceptive characteristics ?   Researchers in 2017 identified  various characteristics of deceptive journals. They went on to  summarize these as : “low article-processing fees (less than US$150); spelling and grammar errors on the website; an overly broad scope; language that targets authors rather than readers; promises of rapid publication; and a lack of information about retraction policies, manuscript handling or digital preservation. Manuscript submissions by e-mail and the inclusion of distorted images are also common.”

Have you done a “ Think, Check, Submit ?”  Thinkchecksubmit.org , a campaign from many leading open access publishers, also helps researches identify trusted journals for their research by offering them a simple checklist to assess journal or publisher credentials. This is another great way to evaluate journal quality and spot unscrupulous activity. In addition to their checklist, you can check out their Think, Check, Submit video:

Remember,  we can help!   If you’re not sure about a journal, email us at  [email protected] .  And you can always consult advisors or  subject specialist librarians  in your field to provide more tailored advice.

Evaluating academic presses

Choosing a book publisher can be daunting, especially if you are looking to be published for the first time. The most useful advice and guidance will likely come from peers, colleagues, and academic advisors familiar with publishing in your discipline. They’ll be most knowledgeable about the logistics, publishing terms, marketing efforts, and prestige of particular presses.

Another way to get started is to consult resources that reveal various presses’ goals, target audiences, and interests. Some of the best resources that do that are the publishers' catalogs — that is, inventories and descriptions of the books they’ve published.

American Association of University Presses (AAUP) has a  list of member university presses . By going to the websites of particular publishers, you can find these catalogs and see exactly what the press is publishing in your discipline.

Not sure which publishers’ websites to look at? AAUP also has a Subject Area Grid that identifies the interest areas of member publishers.

Explore presses with open access programs

Increasingly, presses offer open access book publishing. Open access books have tremendous potential to increase your readership and impact, while also still fostering print sales for readers who prefer it. They also can facilitate advanced media innovation in the publishing process. 

With open access books, as with some open access journals, there may be an author fee assessed as a cost recovery mechanism for the press — given that they may sell fewer print copies to libraries since the book will be made available openly online. At UC Berkeley, we have a program that subsidizes any such fees! Check out our  Get Funding to Publish Open Access  page for details.

Other networking

Finally, there’s some networking you could do. Anali Perry of Arizona State University, on the  Select a Venue  page of her  Getting Published  guide, offers some great advice for outreach that can lead to a more streamlined press selection process.

As she explains:

If you’re attending conferences, you can set up meetings with editors to review a book idea and discuss whether this might be of interest. Another option is to contact editors directly with book ideas, written as a long essay (in the style of the press’s book catalog) stating the problem, what are you proposing, and how it is yours. Do this before writing the entire book - it’s better to work with an editor while you’re writing the book, not after. You can also be in contact with more than one publisher until you decide to accept an offer — just be honest that you’re investigating multiple options.

You can also check out this video from the AAUP. In 2015, AAUP convened a virtual panel to “take the scary out of scholarly publishing.” Their experts discussed tips and strategies for working with scholarly presses throughout the publishing process.

Contact us  to set up a consultation!

What is “peer review”?

At its core, peer review (or the process called “refereeing”) is the effort of scholars within a similar discipline or area of research to critique and evaluate the scholarly contribution from others within that same domain, and determine whether that scholarship should be disseminated or how it can be improved. Peer review results in over 1.5 million scholarly articles published each year .

Journals differ in the percentage of submitted papers that they accept and reject. Higher impact factor journals such as Science or Nature can reject even good quality research papers if an editor deems it not ground-breaking enough. Other journals, such as PLoS One , instead take the approach of getting more scholarship out and circulated. They have utilized a review process that focuses on satisfaction of scientific rigors rather than assessment of innovativeness. 

Basic models for peer review

As scholarly publishing changes, so too have peer review models. Typically, though, peer review involves authors (who conduct research and write the manuscript), reviewers (“peers” in the domain who provide expert opinions and advice), and editors (who make acceptance and publishing decisions). A basic model could like like the following, though there are multiple approaches. 

In this model: A paper is submitted to a journal. A journal editor screens the manuscript to determine whether it should be passed through to the critique stage, or rejected outright. The editor collects reviewers who then undertake analysis and critique of the work. The reviewers pass opinions and suggested edits back to the editor, who asks the author to revise accordingly. This process of revision could go through several iterations. After author revisions are complete, the editor will decide whether to accept the paper for publication, or reject it.

Note, too, that some publishers have implemented a “cascading” approach so as not to squander reviewers’ efforts if a paper is ultimately rejected by an editor at the final stage. As Dan Morgan, Digital Science Publisher at the University of California Press, explains (at p. 10 of the Standing up for Science 3 guide to peer review):

Cascading peer review (a.k.a. ‘waterfall peer review’) is when a paper that has been rejected after peer review is passed on to another journal along with the reviewers’ reports. The peer review process at the second journal can be kept relatively short because the editor considers the reports from an earlier round of peer review, along with any new reviews. Variations on this process exist, according to the type of journal — but essentially reviews can ‘cascade’ down through various journals.

Cascading peer review can accelerate the time to publication so that valuable review efforts are not lost. Moreover, many publishing groups that issue multiple journals will automatically apply this process — helping to find the right journal for your particular manuscript.

Transparency

Within this basic peer review model, journals can employ different approaches to how and whether authors get to know their reviewers, and vice versa. The idea behind masking or revealing this information is that such knowledge may introduce bias, or affect how honest and critical the reviews are. These various approaches include, for example:

• Single-blind review: Reviewers know who authors are, but authors do not know who reviewers are. 
• Double-blind review: Neither reviewers nor authors are informed about who the others are.
• Open review: Reviewers and authors know who each other are, and this review can also include the transmission of reviewer commentary in the open final publication.
• Post-publication open review: Here, readers and reviewers can submit public comments on published articles. Often, these comments are mediated by the editor.

If working papers are uploaded to a repository (such as ArXiv for mathematics, physics, and non-life sciences), there is also an opportunity for pre-publication peer review via the comments submitted by readers and downloaders at those sites.

You can learn a lot more about the mechanics of peer review, and tips for how to conduct peer review, in the following guide:

• Peer Review the Nuts-and-Bolts: A Guide for Early Career Researchers  ( Standing up for Science 3 , 2017)

And you can contact with questions at  [email protected] ! 

Why are we talking about impact?

Among other things, awareness of your scholarly impact can help you:

•  Strengthen your case when applying for promotion or tenure.
•  Quantify return on research investment for grant renewals and progress reports.
•  Strengthen future funding requests by showing the value of your research.
•  Understand your audience and learn how to appeal to them.
•  Identify who is using your work and confirm that it is appropriately credited.
•  Identify collaborators within or outside of your subject area.
•  Manage your scholarly reputation.

Measuring your impact

Measuring impact is not a perfect science, and there are many who argue against its implications altogether. Here, we just want to present information about the statistical measures that exist so that you can make informed decisions about how and whether to gauge your impact.

Often, measuring impact relies on metrics such as:  article-level metrics ,  author-level metrics ,  journal or publisher metrics , and  alt-metrics .

Article-level metrics

Article-level metrics quantify the reach and impact of published research. For this, we can look to various measures such as citation counts, field-weighted citation impact, or social networking readership statistics. 

e.g. Citation count : How many times has your article been cited? This can be difficult to assess and assign meaning to. How recent your article is obviously affects how many times it’s been cited. Additionally, the database or source of the statistic greatly impacts the count because the database needs to be able to scan a large number of possible places where your article could be cited — and not all databases have access to the same information in that regard.

e.g. Field-weighted citation impact : Since it takes time for publications to accumulate citations, it is normal that the total number of citations for recent articles is lower. Moreover, citations in research from one field may accumulate faster than others because that field simply produces more publications. Therefore, instead of comparing absolute counts of citations you might want to consider another citation measure called field-weighted citation impact (also known as FWCI) that adjusts for these differences. Field-weighted citation impact divides the number of citations received by a publication by the average number of citations received by publications in the same field, of the same type, and published in the same year. The world average is indexed to a value of 1.00. Values above 1.00 indicate above-average citation impact, and values below 1.00 likewise indicate below-average citation impact. It’s a proprietary statistic, though, meaning you’d need access to Elsevier’s SCOPUS product, which UC Berkeley provides.

e.g. Social Networking Site Readership : Another article-level metric is something like  Mendeley Readership , which indicates the number of Mendeley users who have added a particular article into their personal library.  This number can be considered an early indicator of the impact a work has, and typically Mendeley readership counts correlate moderately with future citations. 

Author-level metrics

Author-level metrics address an author’s productivity and diversity of reach. We can look to measures of overall scholarly output, journal count, journal category count, and H-index or H-graph.

e.g. Journal count:  Journal count indicates the diversity of an author’s publication portfolio: In how many of the distinct journals have this author’s publications appeared? This can be useful to show the excellence of authors who work across traditional disciplines and have a broad array of journals available in which to submit.

e.g. Journal category count : Journal category count addresses in how many journal categories has someone published. This can be useful for tracking breadth/reach of scholarship, and inter-disciplinariness.

• e.g. H-index: H-index is an author-level metric that attempts to measure both the productivity and citation impact of the publications of a scientist or scholar. The definition of the index is that a scholar with an index of h has published h papers, each of which has been cited in other papers at least h times. It is believed that after 20 years of research, an h index of 20 is good, 40 is outstanding, 60 is truly exceptional.

e.g. Scholarly output:  Scholarly   output demonstrates an author’s productivity: How many publications does this author have? This is a good metric for comparing authors who are similar, and at similar stages of career.

​ Journal or publisher metrics

Journal or publisher metrics address weights or prestige that particular publications are seen to carry. Some measures include:

e.g. ​ SCImago Journal & Country Rank : SCImago Journal & Country Rank can be considered the “average prestige per article,” and is based on the idea that not all citations of your work are the same. (In other words, your articles could be cited in publications of varying prestige.) Here, the subject field, quality, and reputation of the journals in which your publications are cited have a direct effect on the “value” of a citation. 

e.g. Impact per publication  (IPP): IPP gives you a sense of the average number of citations that a publication published in the journal will likely receive. It measures the ratio of citations per article published in a journal. Unlike the standard impact factor, the IPP metric uses a three-year citation window, widely considered to be the optimal time period to accurately measure citations in most subject fields.

e.g. Source-normalized impact per paper:  When normalized for the citations in the subject field, the raw Impact per Publication (IPP) becomes the Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP). SNIP measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field. The impact of a single citation is given higher value in subject areas where citations are less likely, and vice versa.

Altmetrics 

​ Altmetrics account for “non-traditional” citations of your scholarly work. They address the fact that scholarly conversations have expanded beyond the peer-reviewed article. People are now Tweeting and blogging about your articles, for instance, and altmetrics accumulate these mentions. To find out how your work is being cited and used in these ways, learn more at  Altmetric.com .

Monitoring your impact

There are numerous existing and emerging tools available to help you track your scholarly impact by enabling you to create a virtual scholarly profile in which you input and keep track of all your professional activities and publications. 

When selecting one of these tools, it’s helpful to consider:

• What sources of information are your chosen tools “pulling from” or indexing? The greater number of sources that the tool can “read,” the more comprehensive your metrics will be.
• What is the business model of your tool? Is it for-profit and available with premium features for a fee, or is it a free platform available to all? For instance, Symplectic’s Elements and Elsevier’s Pure are licensed platforms that come often at substantial cost to an institution, whereas Impact Story, ORCID, and Google Scholar offer free profile services.
• Have you made a copy of your scholarly materials available also through your institutional repository? Many of the profiling tools are not geared toward actually preserving a copy of your work. So, to ensure that a copy of your work remains publicly available, it’s best to make sure you also deposit a copy in your institutional repository (in the case of UC, this is eScholarship.org).

With all that in mind, here are a few profiling tools from which you can choose:

ImpactStory

From their site: Impactstory is an open-source website that helps researchers explore and share the the online impact of their research.By helping researchers tell data-driven stories about their work, we're helping to build a new scholarly reward system that values and encourages web-native scholarship. We’re funded by the National Science Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

From their site: ORCID provides an identifier for individuals to use with their name as they engage in research, scholarship, and innovation activities. We provide open tools that enable transparent and trustworthy connections between researchers, their contributions, and affiliations. We provide this service to help people find information and to simplify reporting and analysis.

Google Scholar Citations

From their site: Google Scholar Citations provide a simple way for authors to keep track of citations to their articles. You can check who is citing your publications, graph citations over time, and compute several citation metrics. You can also make your profile public, so that it may appear in Google Scholar results when people search for your name...Best of all, it's quick to set up and simple to maintain - even if you have written hundreds of articles, and even if your name is shared by several different scholars. You can add groups of related articles, not just one article at a time; and your citation metrics are computed and updated automatically as Google Scholar finds new citations to your work on the web. You can choose to have your list of articles updated automatically or review the updates yourself, or to manually update your articles at any time.

ResearchGate

From their site: Share your publications, access millions more, and publish your data. Connect and collaborate with colleagues, peers, co-authors, and specialists in your field. Get stats and find out who's been reading and citing your work.

Academia.edu

From their site: Academia.edu is a platform for academics to share research papers. The company's mission is to accelerate the world's research. Academics use Academia.edu to share their research, monitor deep analytics around the impact of their research, and track the research of academics they follow.

From their site: LinkedIn operates the world’s largest professional network on the internet with more than 500 million members in over 200 countries and territories.

Fee-based or proprietary profiling systems like  Elements  or  Pure .

These are software systems to help collect, understand, and showcase scholarly activities. These are not currently available at UC Berkeley.

Increasing your impact

In general, we recommend three overarching strategies to increase your scholarly impact:

A.  Get your work seen and cited. B.  Promote your work and be social. C.  Develop and execute a personal plan.

We discuss each of these strategies with specifics below.

A.  Get your work seen and cited

Publish pre-prints or post-prints in open access repositories.  

Institutional or discipline-specific open access repositories (e.g. eScholarship.org for UC publications, BioArXiv, Humanities Commons, etc.) enable you to self-archive a copy of your work so that it is accessible for free by readers around the world. Moreover, these repositories are indexed on Google so that your scholarship can easily be found. This is a terrific way to build readership and impact, while also contributing to progress and knowledge by making a version of your work available to all. To choose a repository that’s right for you, you can check the DOAR (Directory of Open Access Repositories).

As a UC faculty member, staff, or student, you are automatically authorized under the UC open access policies to post a pre-print copy of your scholarly articles (defined broadly) to the UC repository, eScholarship. You can also check the web tool Sherpa/ROMEO to determine whether there are other versions of your scholarship that your publisher has authorized for deposit.

Publish open access.

Open access is the free, immediate, online availability of scholarship. This means that when people publish a scholarly article in an open access journal, it is put online for anyone to access — without readers (or readers’ institutions) having to pay any fees or subscription charges for it (also known as “paywalls”).

Paywalls limit readership. The great value of publishing open access means that barriers between readers and scholarly publication are removed, making it easier for everyone to find, use, cite, and build upon knowledge and ideas. In this way, open access connects your scholarship to the world, and helps build your impact. Publishing open access is often a condition of research funding, so you should check your grants.

Open access publishers may ask for a fee to publish your scholarship open online in lieu of the fees they would ordinarily have collected from institutional memberships to the journal or publication. The UC Berkeley Library has a fund to cover these costs. You can learn more in our  BRII (Berkeley Research Impact Initiative) Guide  about applying for this funding.

There’s an open access place for all research outputs.

Your “final” publication — traditionally, an article, chapter, or scholarly monograph — is not the only thing readers desire to access and cite. You can publish your research data, code, software, presentations, working papers, and other supporting documents and documentation open access as well. In fact, in some cases, your funders might require it. Sharing these other research instruments not only advances knowledge and science, but also can help increase your impact and citation rates.

You can find the right open place for all your outputs. For instance, it’s possible to:

• Publish code on  GitHub .
• Publish data sets on  FigShare  or  Dryad .
• Publish presentations on  SlideShare .

Publish several pieces on same topic.

If you’ve written a journal article, you can spread the word about it by supplementing it with a blog post or magazine article — thereby attracting greater attention from readers interested in your topic. What’s more, publishing your article open access to begin with also helps your work get discovered by journalists, making it easier for them to write their own supplemental magazine articles about your research, too.

Write for your audience and publish in sources they read.

Of course, many of us would like to be able publish in high impact journals or ones targeted to our audience. To find the best fit journals, it can be helpful to review the journal’s scope and submission criteria, and compare that to whom you believe your intended audience to be.

Use persistent identifiers to disambiguate you and your work from other authors.

There are more than 7 billion people in the world. If someone searches for your articles by your name, how can you be sure that they find yours and not someone else’s? How can you be sure that citations really reflect citations of your work and not someone else’s? Persistent identifiers — both for you and your publications — help disambiguate the chaos.

• ORCID : Much in the same way that a social security number uniquely identifies you, an  ORCID  “provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between you and your professional activities ensuring that your work is recognized.”  Increasingly, publishers and funders ask for your ORCID upon article submission or application so that they can disambiguate you from other researchers, too. ORCIDs are free to create and doing so takes just moments. They also enable you to set up a personal web profile page where you can link all of your scholarship to your unique identifier — creating a profile that is uniquely yours.
• Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) : A DOI is a type of persistent identifier used to uniquely identify digital objects like scholarly articles, chapters, or data sets. Metadata about the digital object is stored in association with the DOI, which often includes a URL where the object can be found. The value of the DOI is that the identifier remains fixed over the lifetime of the digital object  even if you later change the particular URL where your article is hosted.  Thus, referring to an online document by its DOI provides more stable linking than simply using its URL. Publishers and repositories often assign DOIs to each of your publications for this reason. If you are a UC Berkeley researcher depositing in eScholarship, you can obtain a DOI through a service called  EZID .

B.  Promote your work and be social

Although it might seem too self-laudatory for some people’s tastes, speaking up about issues of interest to you and your audience can help position you as a thought leader in your space. Therefore, it can be helpful to participate and collaborate in promoting and discussing your work through social networking, blogging, list serves, personal networks, and more. 

And don’t overlook your research that’s still underway! Discussing what’s in progress can help build interest.

C.  Develop and execute a personal plan.

Perhaps the best way to increase your impact is to develop a plan that is tailored for your own needs, and check in with yourself periodically about whether it’s working. Your plan should focus on tactics that make your work visible, accessible, and reusable .

What might such a plan look like? Here is a sample that you can adapt.

• Create and maintain an online profile (GoogleScholar, etc.).
• Use persistent identifiers (e.g. ORCIDs, DOIs) to disambiguate/link.
• Publish in fully OA journals or choose OA options.
• Creative Commons license your work for re-use.
• Post pre- or post-prints to repositories (eScholarship, PubMed Central, etc.).
• Make social media engagement a habit.
• Engage your audience in meaningful conversations.
• Connect with other researchers.
• Appeal to various audiences via multiple publications.
• Check back in on your goals.

Do you want to talk more about tailoring strategies so that they are right for you? Please contact us at  [email protected] !

You’ve invested significant time and resources into preparing your final publication. So, after peer review, you’re done, right? Not necessarily. You may desire (or be required) to also publish the data underlying your research.

Why should we care about publishing data?

Sharing research data promotes transparency, reproducibility, and progress. In some fields, it can spur new discoveries on a daily basis. It’s not atypical for geneticists, for example, to sequence by day and post research results the same evening — allowing others to begin using their datasets in nearly real time (see, for example,  Pisani and AbouZahr’s paper ). The datasets researchers share can inform business or regulatory policymaking, legislation, government or social services, and more.

Publishing your research data can also increase the impact of your research, and with it, your scholarly profile. Depositing datasets in a repository makes them both visible and citable. You can include them in your CV and grant application biosketches. Conversely, scholars around the world can begin working with your data and crediting you. As a result, sharing detailed research data can be associated with increased citation rates (check out  this Piwowar et al. study , among others).

Publishing your data may also be required. Federal funders (e.g.  National Institutes of Health ), granting agencies (e.g.  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ), and journal publishers (e.g.  PLoS ) increasingly require datasets be made publicly available — often immediately upon associated article publication.

How do we publish data?

Merely uploading your dataset to a personal or departmental website won’t achieve these aims of promoting knowledge and progress. Datasets should be able to link seamlessly to any research articles they support. Their metadata should be compatible with bibliographic management and citation systems (e.g.  CrossRef  or  Ref Works ), and be formatted for crawling by abstracting and indexing services. After all, you want to be able to find other people’s datasets, manage them in your own reference manager, and cite them as appropriate. So, you’d want your own dataset to be positioned for the same discoverability and ease of use.

How can you achieve all this? It sounds daunting, but it’s actually pretty straightforward and simple. You’ll want to select a data publishing tool or repository that is built around both preservation and discoverability. It should:

• Offer you a stable location or DOI (which will provide a persistent link to your data’s location). 
• Help you create sufficient metadata to facilitate transparency and reproducibility.
• Optimize the metadata for search engines.

You can learn about a variety of specific tools through the  Research Data Management program website , on their  Data Preservation and Archiving  page. Briefly, here are some good options:

Sample tools

• Dryad : Dryad is an open-source, research data curation and publication platform. UC Berkeley Library is a proud partner of Dryad and offers Dryad as a free service for all UC Berkeley researchers to publish and archive their data. Datasets published in Dryad receive a citation and can be versioned at any time. Dryad is integrated with hundreds of journals and is an easy way to both publish data and comply with funder and publisher mandates. Check out published datasets or submit yours at:  https://datadryad.org/stash . 
• Figshare: Figshare is a multidisciplinary repository where users can make all of their research outputs available in a citable, shareable and discoverable manner. Figshare allows users to upload any file format to be made visualisable in the browser so that figures, datasets, media, papers, posters, presentations and filesets can be disseminated. Figshare uses Datacite DOIs for persistent data citation. Users are allowed to upload files up to 5GB in size and have 20 GB of free private space. Figshare uses Amazon Web Services - backups are performed on a daily basis, which are kept for 5 days. 
• re3data : re3data.org is a global registry of research data repositories that covers research data repositories from different academic disciplines. It presents repositories for the permanent storage and access of data sets to researchers, funding bodies, publishers and scholarly institutions. re3data.org promotes a culture of sharing, increased access and better visibility of research data. The registry went live in autumn 2012 and is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

To explore others, check out  OpenDOAR , the Directory of Open Access Repositories.

We also recommend that, if your chosen publishing tool enables it, you should include your  ORCID (a persistent digital identifier)  with your datasets just like with all your other research. This way, your research and scholarly output will be collocated in one place, and it will become easier for others to discover and credit your work.

What does it mean to license your data for reuse?

Uploading a dataset — with good metadata, of course! — to a repository is not the end of the road for shepherding one’s research. We must also consider what we are permitting other researchers to do with our data. And, what rights do we, ourselves, have to grant such permissions — particularly if we got the data from someone else, or the datasets were licensed to us for a particular use?

To better understand these issues, we first have to distinguish between attribution and licensing.

Citing datasets, or providing attribution to the creator, is an essential scholarly practice.

The issue of someone properly  citing  your data is separate, however, from the question of whether it’s  permissible  for them to reproduce and publish the data in the first place. That is, what license for reuse have you applied to the dataset?

The type of reuse we can grant depends on whether we own our research data and hold copyright in it. There can be a number of possibilities here.

• Sometimes the terms of contracts we’ve entered into (e.g. funder/grant agreements, website terms of use, etc.) dictate data ownership and copyright. We must bear these components in mind when determining what rights to grant others for using our data.
• Often, our employers own our research data under our employment contracts or university policies (e.g. the research data is “work-for-hire”).

Remember, the dataset might not be copyrightable to begin with if it does not constitute original expression. We could complicate things if we try to grant licenses to data for which we don’t actually hold copyrights. For an excellent summary addressing these “Who owns your data?” questions, including copyright issues, check out  this blog post by Katie Fortney  written for the UC system-wide Office of Scholarly Communication.

What’s the right license or designation for your data?

To try to streamline ownership and copyright questions, and promote data reuse, often data repositories will simply apply a particular  “Creative Commons” license  or public domain designation to all deposited datasets. For instance:

Dryad  and  BioMed Central  repositories apply a Creative Commons Zero (CC0) designation to deposited data — meaning that, by depositing in those repositories, you are not reserving any copyright that you might have. Someone using your dataset still should cite the dataset to comply with scholarly norms, but you cannot mandate that they attribute you and cannot pursue copyright claims against them.

It’s worth considering what your goals are for sharing the data to begin with, and selecting a designation or license that both meets your needs  and  fits within whatever ownership and use rights you have over the data. We can help you with this. Ambiguity surrounding the ability to reuse data inhibits the pace of research. So, try to identify clearly for potential users what rights are being granted in the dataset you publish.

Please contact us at  [email protected] .

Basics of scholarly publishing

The scholarly communication landscape is impacted by various shifting economic forces, such as changes in:

• Publishing platforms and markets (e.g. emergence of open access business models, consortial funding for subscriptions, funder publishing platforms)
• Ways research is conducted (e.g. social research networks fostering global collaboration)
• Public policies (e.g. open access mandates, copyleft licensing models) 

In the traditional publishing model , scholars produce and edit research and manuscripts, which publishers then evaluate, assemble, publish, and distribute. Libraries at the institutions where scholars are employed then pay for subscriptions to license or purchase this content that researchers have created. Typically these are large subscription packages with academic publishers that encompass dozens if not hundreds of journal titles.

The costs of scholarly journal subscriptions have risen unsustainably over many decades, outstripping inflation even relative to higher education markets. As costs have risen, so has the portion of the global research community operating without full access to the scholarly record (including nearly all U.S. universities). The open access (OA) movement, discussed elsewhere on these pages (see Open Access Publishing ), is in part a response to this affordability crisis.

Open access overview

In an OA world, libraries would not be paying for these out-of-reach subscriptions. But, if academic publishers are still distributing scholarly content through traditional journal systems, they of course would want some other form of cost recovery if subscriptions are off the table. OA publishing models differ in how and whether they address this issue.  

As we discuss in the Open Access Publishing  section, two of the predominant open access publishing models are “Gold Open Access” and “Green Open Access.”

Gold open access

Gold OA provides immediate access on the publisher’s website. Some Gold OA publishers recoup production costs via charges for authors to publish (“article processing charges” or “book processing charges”) rather than having readers (or libraries) pay to access and read it. This is a system in which “author pays” rather than “reader pays.” The charges to be paid by the author can come from many sources, such as: research accounts, research grants, the university, the library, scholarly societies, and consortia. Production costs can also be offset by the sale of memberships, add-ons, and enhanced services by the publisher. 

Green open access

Also known as self-archiving, in the Green OA model authors continue to publish as they always have in all the same journals. Once the article has been published in a traditional journal, however, the author then posts the “final author version” of the article to an institutional or subject matter repository. Those uploaded manuscripts are open to all to be read. Often, publishers do not allow the formatted publication version to be deposited, but instead only permit the unformatted “post-print” (refereed) or “pre-print” (author submitted) version to be uploaded.

The (real) non-economic value of OA

While open access publishing has the potential to reduce costs, this is not the only (or even the main) driving force behind open access advocacy. The benefits to individual scholars, related institutions, scholarly communication, and the general researching public are also primary motivating factors.

Open access literature is free, digital, and available to anyone online. Providing greater access to scholarship can help attract more readers and build impact.

Moreover, in most cases open access literature is also free of downstream copyright restrictions apart from attributing the original author. This type of OA literature can be reused, remixed, and built upon to further spur innovation and progress.

New open access publishing models are continuing to emerge and be evaluated for sustainability. We have much more to say about them and all things open access on our Open Access  page. 

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Open Choice

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Clara busse.

1 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599 Chapel Hill, NC USA

Ella August

2 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029 USA

Associated Data

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig.  1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table ​ Table1 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table ​ Table2 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common methods section pitfalls and recommendations

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table ​ Table3 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common results section pitfalls and recommendations

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig.  2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table ​ Table4 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. ​ (Fig.3) 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

(PDF 362 kb)

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Data Availability

Compliance with ethical standards.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

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

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2020
• volume  36 ,  pages 909–913 ( 2021 )

You have full access to this open access article

• Clara Busse   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-1000 1 &
• Ella August   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1036 1 , 2  

230k Accesses

13 Citations

712 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Cite this article

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig.  1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig.  2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

Data Availability

Michalek AM (2014) Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ 29:4–5

Article   Google Scholar  

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authosrs-and-contributors.html . Accessed 15 January, 2020

Vetto JT (2014) Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ 29(1):194–195

Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Clara Busse & Ella August

Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA

Ella August

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ella August .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

(PDF 362 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Busse, C., August, E. How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36 , 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Download citation

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

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

• Manuscripts
• Scientific writing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
• 2 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. [email protected].
• 3 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA. [email protected].
• PMID: 32356250
• PMCID: PMC8520870
• DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1, we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Keywords: Manuscripts; Publishing; Scientific writing.

© 2020. The Author(s).

• Communication
• Publishing*

• How to Publish a Research Paper: A Complete Guide
• Self Publishing Guide

Publishing a research paper in a reputable journal is a significant achievement for any academic researcher. It not only showcases your expertise in a particular field but also contributes valuable insights to the scientific community. However, the process of publication can be daunting, especially for early-career researchers. In this comprehensive guide, we will walk you through the essential steps on how to publish a research paper successfully. From selecting the right journal to addressing reviewer feedback, we have you covered!

Read:  Learn How to Write & Craft a Compelling Villain for Your Story.

Here’s a list of steps to keep in mind before publishing a research paper :

• Step 1: Identifying the Right Journal
• Step 2: Preparing Step 3: Your Manuscript

Step 3: Conducting a Thorough Review

Step 4: Writing a Compelling Cover Letter

Step 5: Navigating the Peer Review Process

Step 6: Handling Rejections

Step 7: Preparing for Publication

Step 8: Promoting Your Published Paper

Step 1: Identifying the Right Journal 

The first step in publishing a research paper is crucial, as it sets the foundation for the entire publication process. Identifying the right journal involves carefully selecting a publication platform that aligns with your research topic, audience, and academic goals. Here are the key considerations to keep in mind during this step:

• Scope and Focus : Assess the scope and focus of your research to find journals that publish articles in your field of study. Look for journals that have previously published papers related to your topic or research area.
• Readership and Impact Factor : Consider the target audience of the journal and its readership. Higher-impact factor journals typically attract a broader readership and can enhance the visibility and credibility of your research.
• Publication Frequency : Investigate the publication frequency of the journal. Some journals publish issues monthly, quarterly, or annually. Choose a journal that aligns with your timeline for publication.
• Indexing and Reputation : Check if the journal is indexed in reputable databases, such as Scopus or PubMed. Indexed journals are more likely to be recognized and accessed by researchers worldwide.
• Journal Guidelines : Familiarise yourself with the journal’s submission guidelines, available on their website. Pay attention to manuscript length limits, reference styles, and formatting requirements.
• Open Access Options : Consider whether the journal offers open access publishing. Open-access journals allow unrestricted access to your paper, potentially increasing its visibility and impact.
• Ethical Considerations : Ensure the journal follows ethical publication practises and abides by industry standards. Verify if the journal is a member of reputable publishing organisations, such as COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics).
• Publication Fees : Check if the journal charges any publication fees or article processing charges (APCs). These fees can vary significantly among journals and may influence your decision.
• Target Audience : Consider the journal’s target audience and the level of technical detail appropriate for that audience. Some journals cater to a more specialised readership, while others aim for a broader appeal.
• Journal Reputation : Research the reputation of the journal within your academic community. Seek advice from colleagues or mentors who have published in similar journals.

By carefully considering these factors, you can make an informed decision on the most suitable journal for your research paper. Selecting the right journal increases your chances of acceptance and ensures that your work reaches the intended audience, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Step 2: Preparing Your Manuscript

After identifying the appropriate journal, the next step is to prepare your manuscript for submission. This stage involves meticulous attention to detail and adherence to the journal’s specific author guidelines. Here’s a comprehensive guide to preparing your manuscript:

• Read Author Guidelines : Carefully read and understand the journal’s author guidelines, which are available on the journal’s website. The guidelines provide instructions on manuscript preparation, the submission process, and formatting requirements.
• Manuscript Structure : Follow the standard structure for a research paper, including the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Ensure that each section is clear and well-organised.
• Title and Abstract : Craft a concise and informative title that reflects the main focus of your research. The abstract should provide a summary of your study’s objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Introduction : The introduction should introduce the research problem, provide context, and state the research objectives or questions. Engage readers by highlighting the significance of your research.
• Methodology : Describe the research design, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques used in your study. Provide sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate your study.
• Results : Present your findings in a clear and logical manner. Use tables, graphs, and figures to enhance the presentation of data. Avoid interpreting the results in this section.
• Discussion : Analyse and interpret your results in the discussion section. Relate your findings to the research objectives and previously published literature. Discuss the implications of your results and any limitations of your study.
• Conclusion : In the conclusion, summarise the key findings of your research and restate their significance. Avoid introducing new information in this section.
• Citations and References : Cite all sources accurately and consistently throughout the manuscript. Follow the journal’s preferred citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago.
• Proofreading and Editing : Thoroughly proofread your manuscript to correct any grammatical errors, typos, or inconsistencies. Edit for clarity, conciseness, and logical flow.
• Figures and Tables : Ensure that all figures and tables are clear, properly labelled, and cited in the main text. Follow the journal’s guidelines for the formatting of figures and tables.
• Ethical Considerations : Include any necessary statements regarding ethical approval, conflicts of interest, or data availability, as required by the journal.

By meticulously preparing your manuscript and adhering to the journal’s guidelines, you increase the likelihood of a successful submission. A well-structured and polished manuscript enhances the readability and impact of your research, ultimately increasing your chances of acceptance for publication.

The process of conducting a thorough review of your research paper is a critical step in the publication journey. This step ensures that your work is polished, accurate, and ready for submission to a journal. A well-reviewed paper increases the chances of acceptance and demonstrates your commitment to producing high-quality research. Here are the key aspects to consider during the review process:

• Grammatical Errors and Typos : Start by carefully proofreading your paper for any grammatical errors, typos, or spelling mistakes. Even minor errors can undermine the credibility of your research and distract readers from your main points. Use grammar-checking tools, but also read your paper line by line to catch any issues that zated tools might miss.
• Consistency and Clarity : Ensure that your writing is consistent throughout the paper. Check that you have used the same terminology, abbreviations, and formatting consistently. Additionally, pay attention to sentence structure and coherence, making sure that each paragraph flows logically into the next.
• Accuracy of Data, Graphs, and Tables : Review all the data presented in your research, including figures, graphs, and tables. Verify that the data is accurate, correctly labelled, and represented in a clear and understandable manner. Any errors in data representation can lead to misinterpretations and undermine the reliability of your findings.
• Citation and Referencing : Verify that all the sources you have cited are accurate and properly formatted according to the citation style required by the target journal. Missing or incorrect citations can lead to accusations of plagiarism and harm the integrity of your work.
• Addressing Feedback : If you have received feedback from colleagues, mentors, or peer reviewers during the pre-submission process, carefully consider their suggestions and address any concerns raised. Engaging with feedback shows your willingness to improve and strengthen your paper.
• Objective Evaluation : Try to read your paper with a critical eye, as if you were a reviewer assessing its merits. Identify any weaknesses or areas that could be improved, both in terms of content and presentation. Be open to rewriting or restructuring sections that could benefit from further clarity or depth.
• Seek Feedback : To ensure the highest quality, seek feedback from colleagues or mentors who are knowledgeable in your research field. They can provide valuable insights and offer suggestions for improvement. Peer review can identify blind spots and help you refine your arguments.
• Formatting and Guidelines : Review the journal’s specific formatting and submission guidelines. Adhering to these requirements demonstrates your attention to detail and increases the likelihood of acceptance.

In conclusion, conducting a thorough review of your research paper is an essential step before submission. It involves checking for grammatical errors, ensuring clarity and consistency, verifying data accuracy, addressing feedback, and seeking external input. A well-reviewed paper enhances its chances of publication and contributes to the overall credibility of your research.

The cover letter is your opportunity to make a strong first impression on the journal’s editor and to persuade them that your research paper is a valuable contribution to their publication. It serves as a bridge between your work and the editor, highlighting the significance and originality of your study and explaining why it is a good fit for the journal. Here are the key elements to include in a compelling cover letter:

• Introduction : Start the letter with a professional and cordial greeting, addressing the editor by their name if possible. Introduce yourself and provide your affiliation, including your academic title and institution. Mention the title of your research paper and its co-authors, if any.
• Brief Summary of Research : Provide a concise and compelling summary of your research. Clearly state the research question or problem you addressed, the methodology you employed, and your main findings. Emphasise the significance of your research and its potential impact on the field.
• Highlight Originality : Explain what sets your study apart from existing research in the field. Highlight the original contributions your paper makes, whether it’s a novel approach, new insights, or addressing a gap in the literature. Demonstrating the novelty of your work will capture the editor’s attention.
• Fit with the Journal : Explain why your research is a good fit for the target journal. Refer to recent articles published in the journal that are related to your topic and discuss how your research complements or extends those works. Aligning your paper with the journal’s scope and objectives enhances your chances of acceptance.
• Addressing Specific Points : If the journal’s author guidelines include specific requirements, address them in your cover letter. This shows that you have read and followed their guidelines carefully. For example, if the journal requires you to highlight the practical implications of your research, briefly mention these in your letter.
• Previous Engagement : If you have presented your research at a conference, workshop, or seminar, or if it has been previously reviewed (e.g., as a preprint), mention it in the cover letter. This indicates that your work has already undergone some scrutiny and may strengthen its appeal to the journal.
• Declaration of Originality : State that the paper is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under simultaneous consideration by any other publication. This declaration reassures the editor that your work meets the journal’s submission policies.
• Contact Information : Provide your contact details, including email and phone number, and express your willingness to address any queries or provide additional information if needed.
• Expression of Gratitude : Thank the editor for their time and consideration in reviewing your submission.

In conclusion, a well-crafted cover letter complements your research paper and convinces the journal’s editor of the significance and originality of your work. It should provide a succinct overview of your research, highlight its relevance to the journal’s scope, and address any specific points raised in the author guidelines. A compelling cover letter increases the likelihood of your paper being seriously considered for publication.

The peer review process is a crucial step in scholarly publishing, designed to ensure the quality, accuracy, and validity of research papers before they are accepted for publication. After you submit your manuscript to a journal, it is sent to peer reviewers who are experts in your field. These reviewers carefully assess your work, providing feedback and recommendations to the editor. Navigating the peer review process requires patience, open-mindedness, and a willingness to engage constructively with reviewers. Here’s a detailed explanation of this step:

• Submission and Assignment : Once you submit your paper, the journal’s editorial team performs an initial screening to check if it aligns with the journal’s scope and guidelines. If it does, the editor assigns peer reviewers who have expertise in the subject matter of your research.
• Reviewing Process : The peer reviewers evaluate your paper’s methodology, data analysis, conclusions, and overall contribution to the field. They may assess the clarity of your writing, the strength of your arguments, and the relevance of your findings. Reviewers also look for potential flaws or limitations in your study.
• Reviewer Feedback : After the reviewers have thoroughly examined your paper, they provide feedback to the editor. The feedback usually falls into three categories: acceptance, revision, or rejection. In the case of a revision, reviewers may specify the changes they believe are necessary for the paper to meet the journal’s standards.
• Editor’s Decision : Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes a decision about your paper. The decision could be acceptance, conditional acceptance pending minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. Even if your paper is rejected, remember that the peer review process provides valuable feedback that can help improve your research.
• Responding to Reviewer Comments : If your paper requires revisions, carefully read the reviewer comments and suggestions. Address each comment in a respectful and diligent manner, providing clear responses and incorporating the necessary changes into your manuscript.
• Revised Manuscript Submission : Submit the revised version of your paper along with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. Explain the changes you made and how you addressed their concerns. This demonstrates your commitment to enhancing the quality of your research.
• Reiteration of the Review Process : Depending on the revisions, the editor may send your paper back to the same reviewers or to new reviewers for a second round of evaluation. This process continues until the paper is either accepted for publication or deemed unsuitable for the journal.
• Acceptance and Publication : If your paper successfully navigates the peer review process and meets the journal’s standards, it will be accepted for publication. Congratulations on reaching this milestone!

In conclusion, the peer review process is an essential part of academic publishing. It involves expert evaluation of your research by peers in the field, who provide valuable feedback to improve the quality and rigour of your paper. Embrace the feedback with an open mind, respond diligently to reviewer comments, and be patient during the review process. Navigating peer review is a collaborative effort to ensure that only high-quality and significant research contributes to the scholarly community.

Receiving a rejection of your research paper can be disheartening, but it is a common and normal part of the publication process. It’s important to remember that rejection does not necessarily reflect the quality of your work; many groundbreaking studies have faced rejection before finding the right publication platform. Handling rejections requires resilience, a growth mindset, and the willingness to learn from the feedback. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

• Understanding the Decision : When you receive a rejection, take the time to carefully read the editor’s decision letter and the feedback provided by the peer reviewers. Understand the reasons for the rejection and the specific concerns raised about your paper.
• Embrace Constructive Feedback : Peer reviewer comments can provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of your research. Embrace the feedback constructively, recognising that it presents an opportunity to improve your work.
• Assessing Revisions : If the decision letter includes suggestions for revisions, carefully consider whether you agree with them. Evaluate if implementing these revisions aligns with your research goals and the core message of your paper.
• Revising the Manuscript : If you decide to make revisions based on the feedback, thoroughly address the reviewer’s comments and consider making any necessary improvements to your research. Pay close attention to the areas identified by the reviewers as needing improvement.
• Resubmission or Alternative Journals : After revising your manuscript, you have the option to either resubmit it to the same journal (if allowed) or consider submitting it to a different journal. If you choose the latter, ensure that the new journal aligns with your research topic and scope.
• Tailoring the Submission : When submitting to a different journal, tailor your manuscript and cover letter to fit the specific requirements and preferences of that journal. Highlight the relevance of your research to the journal’s readership and address any unique guidelines they have.
• Don’t Lose Hope : Rejections are a natural part of the publication process, and many researchers face them at some point in their careers. It is essential not to lose hope and to remain persistent in pursuing publication opportunities.
• Learn and Improve : Use the feedback from the rejection as a learning experience. Identify areas for improvement in your research, writing, and presentation. This will help you grow as a researcher and improve your chances of acceptance in the future.
• Seek Support and Guidance : If you are struggling to navigate the publication process or interpret reviewer comments, seek support from colleagues, mentors, or academic advisors. Their insights can provide valuable guidance and encouragement.

In conclusion, handling rejections is a normal part of the publication journey. Approach rejection with a growth mindset, embracing the feedback provided by reviewers as an opportunity to improve your research. Revise your manuscript diligently, and consider submitting it to other journals that align with your research. Remember that persistence, learning from feedback, and seeking support are key to achieving success in the scholarly publishing process.

After successfully navigating the peer review process and receiving acceptance for your research paper, you are one step closer to seeing your work published in a reputable journal. However, before your paper can be published, you need to prepare it for production according to the journal’s specific requirements. This step is essential to ensuring that your paper meets the journal’s formatting and style guidelines and is ready for dissemination to the academic community. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

• Reviewing the Acceptance Letter : Start by carefully reviewing the acceptance letter from the journal’s editor. This letter will outline any final comments or suggestions from the reviewers that need to be addressed before publication.
• Addressing Reviewer Comments : If there are any outstanding revisions or clarifications requested by the reviewers, address them promptly and thoroughly. Reviewer feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing the quality and clarity of your paper, so it’s essential to give each comment due attention.
• Adhering to Journal Guidelines : Familiarise yourself with the journal’s production requirements and guidelines for formatting, referencing, and figure preparation. Ensure that your paper adheres to these guidelines to avoid delays in the publication process.
• Finalising the Manuscript : Once all revisions have been made and the paper aligns with the journal’s requirements, finalise your manuscript. Carefully proofread the entire paper to catch any remaining grammatical errors or typos.
• Handling Permissions and Copyright : If your paper includes copyrighted material (e.g., figures, tables, or excerpts from other publications), obtain permission from the original copyright holders to reproduce that content in your paper. This is crucial to avoid potential copyright infringement issues.
• Completing Authorship and Affiliation Details : Verify that all authors’ names, affiliations, and contact information are accurate and consistent. Ensure that the corresponding author is clearly identified for communication with the journal during the publication process.
• Submitting the Final Manuscript : Follow the journal’s instructions to submit the final version of your manuscript along with any required supplementary materials. This may include high-resolution figures, data sets, or additional supporting information.
• Waiting for Publication : After submitting the final version, the journal’s production team will work on typesetting, formatting, and preparing your paper for publication. This process may take some time, depending on the journal’s workflow and schedule.
• Proofing and Corrections : Once the typeset proof is ready, carefully review it for any formatting errors or typographical mistakes. Respond to the journal promptly with any necessary corrections or clarifications.
• Copyright Transfer : If required by the journal, complete the copyright transfer agreement, granting the publisher the right to publish and distribute your work.
• Publication Date and DOI : Your paper will be assigned a publication date and a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), a unique alphanumeric string that provides a permanent link to your paper, making it easily accessible and citable.

In conclusion, preparing your research paper for publication involves carefully addressing reviewer comments, adhering to journal guidelines, handling permissions and copyright issues, and submitting the final version for production. Thoroughly reviewing and finalising your paper will ensure its readiness for dissemination to the academic community.

Congratulations on successfully publishing your research paper! Now, it’s time to promote your work to reach a broader audience and increase its visibility within the academic and research communities. Effective promotion can lead to more citations, recognition, and potential collaborations. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

• Share on Social Media : Utilise social media platforms to announce the publication of your paper. Share the title, abstract, and a link to the paper on your professional profiles, such as  LinkedIn ,  Twitter , or  ResearchGate . Engage with your followers to generate interest and discussion.
• Collaborate with Colleagues : Collaborate with your co-authors and colleagues to promote the paper collectively. Encourage them to share the publication on their social media and academic networks. A collaborative effort can increase the paper’s visibility and reach.
• Academic Networks and Research Platforms : Upload your paper to academic networks and research platforms like Academia.edu, Mendeley, or Google Scholar. This allows other researchers to discover and cite your work more easily.
• Email and Newsletters : Inform your professional contacts and research network about the publication through email announcements or newsletters. Consider writing a brief summary of your paper’s key findings and significance to entice readers to access the full paper.
• Research Blog or Website : If you have a personal research blog or website, create a dedicated post announcing the publication. Provide a summary of your research and its implications in a reader-friendly format.
• Engage with the Academic Community : Participate in academic conferences, workshops, and seminars to present your research. Networking with other researchers and sharing your findings in person can create buzz around your paper.
• Press Releases : If your research has practical implications or societal relevance, consider working with your institution’s press office to issue a press release about your paper. This can attract media attention and increase public awareness.
• Academic and Research Forums : Engage in online academic and research forums to discuss your findings and share insights. Be active in relevant discussions to establish yourself as an expert in your field.
• Researcher Profiles : Keep your researcher profiles, such as those on Google Scholar, ORCID, and Scopus, updated with your latest publications. This ensures that your paper is indexed and visible to other researchers searching for related work.
• Altmetrics : Monitor the altmetrics of your paper to track its online attention, including mentions, downloads, and social media shares. Altmetrics provide additional metrics beyond traditional citations, giving you insights into your paper’s broader impact.
• Engage with Feedback : Respond to comments and questions from readers who engage with your paper. Engaging in scholarly discussions can further promote your work and demonstrate your expertise in the field.

In conclusion, promoting your published paper is an essential step to increasing its visibility, impact, and potential for further collaboration. Utilise social media, academic networks, collaborations with colleagues, and engagement with the academic community to create interest in your work. Effective promotion can lead to more citations and recognition, enhancing the overall impact of your research.

Read: Here’s a list of 10 best short story books to read in 2023 that you can’t miss.

Publishing a research paper is a rewarding experience that requires dedication, perseverance, and attention to detail. By following this essential guide, you can navigate the publication process successfully and contribute valuable knowledge to your field of study. 

Remember, each publication is a stepping stone in your academic journey, and even rejections provide opportunities for growth. Embrace the process, continue refining your research, and celebrate your contributions to advancing scientific knowledge. Good luck on your journey to academic success!

Publish your book  with  BlueRoseONE  and become a  bestselling author . Don’t let your dream of becoming an author fade away, grab the opportunity now and publish your book – be it fiction, non fiction, poetry or more.

Happy writing and publishing!

• About The Author
• Latest Posts

Manan Sahni

You May Also Like

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

All-in-One Event Management Software

One Platform to Manage All University Events

Event Registration & Ticketing

Sell tickets & Collect registration fees online

• Full-stack Event CRM
• Abstract Submission & Review
• Event Schedule Builder
• Event Networking App
• Bulk Email Broadcast & Segmentation
• Forms & Data Management
• Badge & Certificate Builder
• Reporting & Analytics
• Donations & Fundraising
• Matchmaking

View all features

Submission management & review system.

Full-Service Abstract Management Software: Collect ➩ Assign ➩ Review ➩ Decide ➩ Notify

Customizable forms to collect & review abstracts, symposia, proposals & grants

Self-service Dashboard (for Authors & Reviewers)

Automated & manual assignments, customizable review process with double blind, accept & notify authors, convert submissions into event schedule, abstract book publishing.

• Add-On: Collect Submission Fees

Event Scheduling & Speaker Management System

The Complete Event Schedule Builder to Create Virtual & Hybrid Sessions

Interactive Event Builder

Create Event Schedule with Slides, Group Chats, Survey forms & more

Drag & Drop Event Scheduler

Conflict management system, session check-ins (list & qr scanner), downloadable presentations, feedback & surveys, abstracts to program conversion, sell workshop tickets, dedicated speaker dashboard, virtual events & community platform.

Engagement Tools to Host Virtual Conferences & Online Community Website

Online Community Website

Engage attendees & Produce knowledge with online networking portal

Virtual & Hybrid Meetings

Abstract submission & review software, interactive event schedule, live polling, chat & q&a, meeting scheduler + instant messaging, participation certificates builder, automated notifications.

• Case Studies
• All-in-One Event Platform
• Virtual Event Toolkit
• Abstract Management System
• Event Ticketing Software
• Event Website Builder
• Product Updates
• Integrations
• Coupons & Promos
• Pro Services
• EventBoost 🚀
• Online Community
• Form Builder
• Participation Certificate Builder
• Guest Check-in Tool
• Speaker Management
• Request Demo

The Complete Guide to Publishing Research Papers

If you are a scientist with an idea for a research paper, there’s one thing you need to know – how to publish your research. It’s not a secret that research papers don’t always get the recognition they deserve. That doesn’t mean you should stop publishing them though, because it might just be your ticket to getting published in respected journals in the future.

Getting a paper published is actually easier than you might think. There are many outlets available that accept and publish research papers, from online journals to obscure little magazines. But, if you want to understand the process of publishing research papers in order to get your foot in the door with other publications, here’s a guide to help you understand the process and how to prepare for an impactful research paper.

What is an Academic Research Paper?

Academic research papers are highly structured, formal academic assignments. They usually focus on an academic field or briefly explore a concept. The importance of these assignments is that you need to present your thoughts, findings, and conclusions in the most effective way possible. In other words, the academic research paper is a written document outlining the thesis and methods of study, followed by a discussion of the findings. The purpose of an academic research paper is to share your thoughts with other academics rather than as an introduction for potential readers.

The outline for an academic research paper should be very specific and detailed in order to establish the most relevant points from which you can develop your argument and make your case. The structure of your paper is extremely important because it provides the foundation for everything else that follows in the body of your work. Both the exact structure as well as the general strategy of your paper need to be clearly outlined and understood.

Types of Research Papers

There are many different types of academic research papers. Some common types are literature reviews, journal articles, book reviews, and reports. There are also many variations within these categories, such as qualitative and quantitative research methods and experimental and theoretical approaches. There are many different ways to go about researching a particular topic, so one should consider the method of research that will work best for them as well as their own personal style.

How to Write an Academic Research Paper?

To write an academic research paper is to understand the process. The first step is to pick a topic you are passionate about and provide enough material for a paper.

Next, you need to do your research. This includes talking to people who have expertise on the topic, reading many different materials, conducting interviews with experts, finding relevant literature from the library, and performing in-depth analysis of your findings. Lastly, find an academic journal that is willing to publish your work. Here’s a more detailed guide for writing a research paper

How to Format your Academic Research Paper?

Academic research papers must have an introduction and conclusion. The introduction should state the paper’s purpose and define what the paper is about. It should also include a discussion of how you will use your sources to reach your goal. The conclusion should sum up your thoughts on the topic while offering some advice or reflection on the work done in the paper. Once your reader understands your topic, they can decide if they want to continue reading.

What Defines a Research Paper Publisher?

Academic research paper publishers are companies that help academic researchers publish their work. These companies review, edit, and submit an article to the appropriate journal. These companies charge a fee for their services. Academic research paper publishers have been around for a long time but have recently grown in popularity because of the rising cost of publishing academic articles themselves.

Difference between Scientific Journals and Academic Research Publishers

Journals provide the publishing outlet for academic research papers. Journals are scholarly publications that are made specifically to release information on any subject. It is a periodical that focuses on a specific topic. The journal’s focus may be a particular subject, or it may be geographic. Some journals are monthly, weekly or quarterly, and some are published once only. Check out the Top 10 Scientific Journals

A growing number of publishing companies help academics publish journals and other academic papers. Publishing companies act as a middleman between the researcher and the journal, using their publication expertise to offer high-quality academic research papers for sale. Some companies might also provide editing services to help ensure the paper is in tip-top shape before it gets published.

The number of pages can differentiate publishing companies and journals. Publishing companies publish books, articles, or journal issues, while journals have between 10-20 pages of content and are therefore easier to read.

There are also a number of publishing companies that have journals in which they publish papers. Journals publish papers that are peer reviewed and provide a platform for students, academics, and researchers to share their findings with the world. These journals allow authors to have anonymity if they wish and give them the opportunity to choose when and where their work is published.

What are the Benefits of Publishing your Research Papers in Academic Journals?

Typically, publishing your research papers in academic journals is a great way to get it out into the public. You are also able to see where your article is being read and what kind of feedback you are receiving. Some companies pay for articles to be published and some will only charge a small publishing fee. Regardless, this is a good option for anyone looking to publish their research papers.

These journals have rigorous reviewers who will help you improve your work. They also monitor the number of citations your article receives, which shows how well the scientific community accepts it. In addition to these benefits, there are companies that assist in publishing your research paper. Some of these companies include ScholarOne, Researchgate, and PeerJ.

One benefit of publishing your research in academic journals is that it helps to improve your reputation as an expert. This can help you get better-paying jobs and allow you to gain more credibility with people who might be interested in what you have to offer. The other benefit is that the journals are a great source of information for advancement opportunities. Many universities will use these journals to find the best researchers in their field and help them advance their careers.

Academic research paper publishers can grant authors publishing rights. This is a service that academic journals often provide to the authors of their articles, but they don’t have time to do it themselves. Academic research paper publishers also offer a variety of services and tools for the author such as editing, design, layout, submission, and marketing. In general, academic researchers can save more time by using an academic research paper publisher.

Disadvantages of Publishing with Academic Research Paper Publishers

First of all, many publishers don’t have editors or reviewers for the papers that they publish. This could lead to plagiarism, which is when a writer uses another writer’s words without giving credit.

In addition, academic research paper publishers often charge a lot of money for their services, which can be prohibitive for some researchers who need paper copies and/or distribution. Even if a researcher doesn’t have to pay for it themselves, they may still need to pay an editor or publisher. The journal or publisher may also charge extra for the use of any company or product brand.

Another disadvantage is that the author will typically not get paid for their work when published by an academic research paper. Another drawback is that it can take a long time to publish and manage these scholarly works, making the process seem unnecessary and too drawn out.

The most significant disadvantage is the lack of control over the publication process and quality.

What to Look for in an Academic Publisher?

Academic researchers have to answer a lot of questions before they can publish their work in a journal. If the researcher is unsure on how to do this, they should look into academic publishers that will help them out.

The first thing to consider is the type of paper the researcher wants to publish. This can be done by reading the publication policy or contacting the publisher.

Another thing to consider is if the price of publishing with the company is worth it. A company that charges too much may not be worth it because it will take away from funds that could be spent on research equipment or students who are conducting research with the researcher’s expertise.

Top Academic Research Paper Publishers

Online publishing has been an invaluable resource for scholars. By using the internet to publish their research, they can reach a wider audience of non-traditional audiences and build upon their findings and improve their research methods. This article outlines 9 exemplary publishers in the academic world that focus on delivering quality work to their customers.

1. Sage Publications

Sage Publications is a top academic research paper publisher, and it offers a variety of different services for publishing your research. You can find articles from Sage in refereed journals and magazines, such as the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, The International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Advances in Computer Games Research, and the journal Society & Organization Review. All submissions are peer-reviewed, meaning that the company is able to offer rigorous quality control.

2. Taylor & Francis

Taylor produces high-quality academic paper draft services. With a team of experts, they produce customized papers that meet the guidelines of your specific assignment.

3. Elsevier Science

Elsevier Science is a top academic publisher that publishes thousands of scientific research papers. They also have a number of other services such as online databases, journals and books. Elsevier Science has a total of 25,000 publications with an annual revenue of $4.1 billion.

4. Nature Publishing Group

Nature Publishing Group is a company that publishes scientific research in journals, magazines, and books. They have been producing high-quality peer-reviewed academic journals for over 40 years.

5. Springer Nature

Springer Nature is a top academic publishing company with headquarters in London, England. It was founded in 1880 and has been publishing scientific research papers for over 100 years. The company publishes more than 2,000 journals and newsletters. Springer Nature also owns many other companies including Springer Science+Business Media, Springer Consultants, and Springer OpenText.

6. Emerald Publishing Limited

Emerald Publishing Limited is a UK-based company that helps academic researchers with the publishing process. It provides a platform for authors that allows them to publish their work in more than 300 academic journals and access more than 250,000 potential readers/reviewers.

7. American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association

The APA and ASA are two of the most important academic publishers. These two publishers have been around since the early 1900s and serve as a great source for hundreds of academic papers.

How Much does it Cost to Publish an Article with Top Academic Publishers?

There are a number of companies that can help you publish articles with academic publishers. Some companies charge a flat rate to publish your work, while others charge by the article. Some companies advertise their service as “free” because they don’t expect you to pay anything upfront and then take anywhere from 22-75 percent of the profits when your article is sold.

Other companies charge different rates depending on what type of publication you’re looking to get published. For example, if you’re looking to publish in a national magazine or newspaper, the cost will be higher than if you’re looking to publish in a journal that has a smaller circulation.

Many academic research papers are published by top academic publishers, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Nature. These journals require that authors pay a publication fee to submit their article, depending on what format they wish to have it published. For example, a paper published in grey-scale (black & white) will be $1,500 and color (full color) will be $2,000. Additionally, these journals often require authors to pay for editing services and retractions when mistakes occur.

No matter which type of publishing service you’re looking for, get your articles edited by someone who has experience in what you want to do. If the company or editor has no experience with the type of subject you’re writing about, they may not know how to write it properly or format it properly. You will also want to ask if they have an online proofreading tool. Websites such as Readable or Wordcrafter can help you proofread and edit any type of document online.

Don’t just go look up all the writing services in your area and pick the one with the lowest prices. You have to compare prices, but the quality is what you want to find. You can hire anyone’s services for a month, but even if they’re inexpensive, it may not be worth it in the end. It’s better to use a company that will give you more than what you pay for. If they don’t live up to your standards, you can always switch to another company.

Tips for Getting Published in a Research Journal

There are a lot of research journals that can be found on different websites. To get your work published, you will need to find the journal that best suits your needs and submit an application for publication. You can also reach out to individual publishers who specialize in academic publishing or even ask your professor if they have any recommendations.

They make sure that the work is of high quality and will put it into a format that the journal will accept. More importantly, they can give advice on the best way to present the research without compromising scientific integrity.

All in One Event Management Platform for University Events Know more

Related posts:

• [email protected] / [email protected]
• Create Account
• Join to Connect:

How to publish a Research Paper

Getting Your Research Published: Insights on Academic Publishing with Simine Vazire

• APS Journals
• Psychological Science

Under the Cortex typically hosts authors of peer-reviewed articles. But in this week’s episode, we do things a little differently, take a step back, and explore what happens on the editorial side of scientific publishing. 

Simine Vazire, the incoming Editor-in-Chief of APS’s journal Psychological Science , joined Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum to discuss her plans to further advance the practices of inclusivity in APS’s flagship journal, she highlighted the current disadvantages in academic publishing in general and said that APS is a leader in  supporting psychological scientists. The conversation evolved into topics of writing in English as a borrowed language, hidden curriculum in publishing and constructive practices such as pre-registration and reporting conflict of interest. 

Unedited Transcript

[00:00:11.050] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

How does scientific publishing work? What is the process of writing a journal article? What is peer review? This is Under the Cortex. I am Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum with the Association for Psychological Science. Today we are taking you to the kitchen of scientific publishing to tell you more about what happens behind the scenes at APS to publish rigorous scientific content. I’m extremely lucky to have with me Dr. Simine Vazire from University of Melbourne. In addition to a long list of affiliations, Dr. Vazire is the incoming editor in chief of APS’s journal Psychological Science. Simine, thank you for joining me today. Welcome to Under the Cortex. 

[00:00:54.940] – Simine Vazire  

Thanks. I’m happy to be here. 

[00:00:57.410] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

So you are the incoming editor in chief of APS’s academic journal, Psychological Science. It is very exciting for us. Before I ask you more questions about your new role at APS, please tell our audience how you became a psychological researcher. 

[00:01:14.380] – Simine Vazire  

Sure. Well, I think it started quite early for me. I found this note that I had written my best friend in 10th grade. So I was about 14 or so, and in it I wrote to her, no, sorry, she wrote this to me. She said, Miriam’s party. I got the idea that you wanted an honest evaluation from me about you. I think you’re very good at understanding people, but sometimes a little too harsh in your judgment. You are very athletic, a good leader, and you take the initiative to do something, blah, blah, blah. You’re trustworthy and honest. If I had to rate your personality on a one to ten scale, ten being best, you would be a nine. Obviously, she’s very biased, but apparently I was asking people to rate my personality when I was in high school, so I guess it started a long time ago. And then at university, I majored in psychology and minored in women’s studies, now called gender studies. But really, I would say kind of the beginning of my psychology research career was graduate school at University of Texas at Austin, where Sam Gosling was my advisor and kind of my first big, important mentor and really shaped a lot of my values in science. 

[00:02:18.730] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

Yeah, that anecdote is lovely. I know that you have a diverse set of research interests, and one of the things you study is self knowledge, whether people know things about themselves. How did you get interested in this topic? Like, was it this incident that happened when you were 14? And also, how does one study self knowledge? 

[00:02:40.710] – Simine Vazire  

Yeah, I mean, I think that I probably was interested in it before this incident. I’m guessing that I was just an annoying person who was always kind of talking about how people are different and how people see each other and stuff like that, and probably what a lot of teenagers are thinking about. But even as adults, I think that it’s just a fascinating topic independent of academia. But I think that for me, it was both just the inherent interest. We can call it theoretical if we want to be very intellectual about it. I think it is a deep philosophical question about how well people know themselves. But what I liked about it is that it also has clear practical implications and is kind of a methodological question about what’s the best way to measure what someone is like, their personality, or even their mood or other states. So it was always an interest to me. I mean, I started my research in personality and kind of behavioral manifestations of personality. And so one of the decisions we had to make in our research with my advisor Sam Gosling, was how we would define the gold standard, the ground truth about what a person is like. 

[00:03:41.610] – Simine Vazire  

And in my very first paper, for reasons that were not really that deep or theoretical, we ended up using peer reports like our participants friends ratings of them as our kind of ground truth measure of personality, partly because we were using the self reports for something else. But we also felt like that was justifiable that those are just as valid probably as self reports for a number of reasons. But we got a reviewer saying, surely the best measure of a person’s personality is their self report. Otherwise the whole field of personality assessment seriously needs to rethink itself. They were taking issue with us measuring personality with peer reports, and I thought, oh, that’s fascinating. I think it’s interesting how people respond to reviewer reports. For me, it just kind of lit a fire under me. And I thought, well, that’s an empirical question. Do we know that self reports are obviously the best measure for all traits and all kinds of populations, and regardless of who else we could get reports from, that seems implausible to me. So I wanted to start studying when are self reports better and when can we get equally good or maybe even better ratings from other people who know the person? 

[00:04:44.160] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

Well, your friend Miriam, who was giving. 

[00:04:48.090] – Simine Vazire  

My friend Geraldine, who was talking about Miriam’s party. Yeah, it was mean, obviously. I think that actually shows one of the big limitations of friend reports is that they can be extremely overly positive or biased, but actually, some other kinds of informants are worse than friends. So like parents or romantic partners. Parents are almost useless as informants, at least of their college age kids. They’re just way too positive. There’s not much valid information in there. 

[00:05:17.670] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

Yeah. And you have been doing this research for a while, I know, but one thing maybe people don’t know about you, in addition to your research, you are a champion of service in the academic community. Can you tell us a little bit about what type of service roles you have engaged with since you started your academic career? 

[00:05:36.980] – Simine Vazire  

Yeah, I mean, I think that probably I just do more visible service than some other people, so I do a lot of service to the field and to the kind of organizations at the field level. Instead, I have colleagues who do lots and lots of service to the university or to the community. Honestly, those are less likely to be visible and recognized, I think, by the field. So I’ve been lucky that the kind of service that I enjoy doing and that I’ve had the opportunity to do are ones that are recognized more, I think, than other kinds. But yeah, so most of my service has been a lot of journal editing, which I’m sure we’ll talk about more. I’ve gotten to sit on boards or committees like the board of APS, boards of other societies or of the publisher. Plus I’ve gotten to help organize conferences in social and personality psychology and now in meta research kind of societies. I got to sit on the social psych panel of the National Science Foundation in the US. For three years. And I was on a National Academy of Sciences study committee on replicability and reproducibility in science. 

[00:06:40.280] – Simine Vazire  

Those were all really fascinating experiences, kind of giving me a different window into the scientific world and ecosystem. And then I co founded with Brian Nosek, the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science and sat on the board for that for a while and helped kind of start it up. 

[00:06:57.270] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

And like you mentioned this a little bit, you were reviewing people’s work. So peer review is a type of service in academia, and you have done this in the past, like many academic researchers. In addition, you have studied it. So could you tell our audience what peer review is and why is it important for the scientific community? 

[00:07:18.110] – Simine Vazire  

Yeah, so peer review mostly refers to peer review at journals. So that’s kind of before an article is published, although that’s changing these days with preprints. But typically or traditionally it would be authors submit a manuscript to a journal. The journal oversees and coordinates the peer review, so sends it to reviewers or sometimes evaluates it without reviewer input and rejects it before external review or yeah, then sends it out to reviewers and then makes a decision or asks for revisions. If you think of kind of the lifecycle of a scientific claim from when it’s born to let’s way oversimplify and say when it becomes an established fact. And so at the beginning, there’s like a huge firehose of scientific claims being made, and we need some way to filter them and to decide which ones are going to keep going on the road to becoming an established fact. So journal based review is kind of that first filter or one of the early filters, but we need more than that. There’s really a lot of role in the scientific community for more scrutiny, more review, more poking and prodding at findings before they would get to something like a textbook claim or a really established fact. 

[00:08:24.100] – Simine Vazire  

But another reason that the journal part is crucial is that in principle at least, it should give everyone an opportunity to get an evaluation of their work. So the journals help to make sure that every submission gets looked at at least by one, usually two editors if it’s going to be disrejected, or by a few reviewers if it goes out for full review. So that helps a little bit to level the playing field. I think that’s one value of journal peer review. But I do think that as we have more preprints, so there’s less of this bright line between pre publication peer review and post publication peer review because a lot of submissions that go to journals are actually already published as preprints and may already even have gotten critiques and comments on the preprint. I think this really raises questions that we probably should have been asking all along about what it means to have the peer reviewed label both because I think preprints could have been vetted quite carefully and because journal articles sometimes haven’t been vetted carefully or they were vetted carefully, but we still missed something. And I think that the existence of preprints and also honestly of journals that don’t have much integrity, like propaganda journals, or sometimes they’re like special issues of journals where there’s a lot of corruption in how things are handled. 

[00:09:36.770] – Simine Vazire  

So that means that getting the badge or the label, the seal of like this has been peer reviewed by a journal doesn’t mean that much if we include all journals, right? So then it starts to become important, well, which journal and is it a legitimate journal and how good is its peer review process? And I think the fact that those questions are coming up is actually a really good thing because it’ll mean that we can get a better handle on how do we know if a journal has a really rigorous peer review process that passing through that process should mean something. Because it’s not the case that we can just treat any journal peer review as like a really strong signal that the work has been vetted carefully. So I think there’s going to be more and more pressure on journals to be more accountable and transparent about what makes them their process. Kind of a valid signal that there’s been at least some quality control, some attention to rigor and so on. 

[00:10:29.290] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

Yeah, I like what you say. It is kind of like a good shortcut, but just like any shortcut, sometimes there is noise, sometimes people use it not for what it means, they sometimes use it for propaganda. So I think yeah, excellent point. That’s why it is important to know what journal we are talking about, what institutions those journals belong to. Excellent summary of this overall discussion we are constantly having in the academia. So you also do research about peer review, right? So what are your main findings? 

[00:11:07.090] – Simine Vazire  

So I’m going to summarize not just my own findings because I’ve only done a tiny bit of the research on peer review, but there’s a whole field now, emerging field of meta research or metascience, that just does kind of the science of scientific practice, including journals and peer review. And I think that there’s some really interesting findings out of this literature. And it’s actually, I would say most active in psychology or psychology is at least one of the top kind of fields where people are doing this kind of research about our published literature, our processes, our research practices, our journal practices. And some of the findings include some really exciting findings and promising findings. Like, for example, some practices are growing really fast, like transparency related practices. You’re seeing more and more authors choose to post their data, their code, their materials, choosing to preregister registered reports are on the rise. A lot of different transparency related practices are going up quite a bit. There’s also some research, including some of my own, showing that sample sizes are going up, which there was some meta research in earlier decades that was quite depressing, showing after all these calls for more statistical power, more precision, that sample sizes were not changing. 

[00:12:12.180] – Simine Vazire  

And then finally, probably because of, in part because of the access to Internet samples, sample sizes are finally going up. So that’s a good sign. Again, if we take it in isolation, it might also have some negative side effects, some trade offs that are not ideal. So meta researchers are also studying that, like, sure, our sample sizes are going up, but does that mean we’re using more convenient samples, but not populations that we should be drawing from, or we’re using methods that are easier to administer online, but not necessarily the methods that are best suited to the research question. So those are the kinds of questions we’re still investigating in our research. But there’s also some findings from meta research that are maybe less rosy, I guess I would say. So. Some of the meta research, for example, on replication rates and reproducibility rates suggest there’s a lot of room for improvement. And I think there’s really good debates to be had about what’s an ideal replication rate maybe it’s okay if there’s stuff that fails to replicate. I think what the lesson for me is in all the research on replications is that it’s fine to publish stuff that may be kind of uncertain at the time of publication and some of that we should expect to not replicate. 

[00:13:17.610] – Simine Vazire  

But I think we have to have better kind of truth in advertising. So when we publish things, it should be pretty clear to readers how confident and certain how definitive this finding is versus was it published more because it’s exciting and groundbreaking but not definitive. And that way we’ll be less surprised or shocked about which things are likely to replicate or not. And I think it would also help with policymakers and other kind of end users to interpret what does an acceptance in a prestigious journal mean? Was it accepted because we’re totally confident in it and ready to start applying it in the real world? Or was it accepted because it’s like the first to use this method or the first to make this discovery? And that really needs to be followed up before we apply it or generalize from it. And I think the replication work, I think, is a little bit more nuanced in terms of what it means for the state of the field, the computational reproducibility work, which is not collecting new data but reanalyzing the author’s own data. And there’s been a couple of groups like Sophia Cruell and her co authors and Tom Hardwick and his co authors, who’ve looked at computational reproducibility rates, specifically in psych science. 

[00:14:21.950] – Simine Vazire  

Actually, there’s been other projects looking at other journals too, and showing that when authors do share their data, it’s not always easy or even possible to reproduce the results in their own papers from their data, which is not surprising because data sharing is a relatively new thing. We haven’t really developed strong norms and standards around what code we should share, how we should comment our code, et cetera. But I think that shows a really great avenue for potential improvement. That’s an area where we could do better, we could develop better resources and training and norms around those things. There’s also other areas, I think, where we could improve. So preregistration is another, I think, practice that people are engaging in, but we’re still kind of in the early stages of learning how to do it best. And so there’s research, for example, by Olmo van Denakar showing that there’s quite often deviations from pre registrations that are not reported as clearly as they could be. So I think that’s something else we could improve. And then, of course, in terms of the diversity of our samples and the representativeness of our samples, or actually, I would say, the appropriateness of the sample for the research question, I think there’s still a lot of room for improvement there. 

[00:15:28.950] – Simine Vazire  

We’re often relying on convenient samples rather than trying to draw from the population that’s most relevant, or trying to draw from multiple different populations if we want to make more broad and generalizable claims. There’s research showing that our measurement practices still have a lot of room for improvement. And then in my own lab, we’ve done some research looking at things like how often do authors report limitations and what kinds of limitations do they report, or how often do they make claims about the real world applicability of their research. We’ve looked at how common are replication articles and other kinds of post publication critiques of published work, finding that those are still quite rare, despite a lot of movement in that direction in terms of journal policies and attitudes towards replication. But it’s still pretty rare for journals to publish those kinds of papers. We’ve looked at how often editors publish in their own journals. We haven’t published that paper yet, but we’ll have it ready soon. 

[00:16:22.700] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

Oh, that’s an interesting one. I haven’t thought about that. 

[00:16:26.510] – Simine Vazire  

Yeah, that’s one that I became interested in actually partly from being an editor and having well, one thing that was shocking to me when I became an editor was that it’s pretty rare for people to declare conflicts of interest in psychology for authors to declare conflicts of interest. And maybe that’s because compared to medicine, we don’t often have the more traditional kind of conflict of interest where we’re partnering with industry or we’re funded by a group that has a direct interest in our research. But we do have other kinds of conflicts of interest that we’re not used to thinking about. And one is when editors publish, submit an article to the journal that they’re an editor of, that’s a clear potential conflict of interest to my mind. And we found that it’s never disclosed. So we’d looked at a handful of journals over a handful of years. So just within our sample, I don’t think we found a single instance of an editor disclosing that as a potential conflict of interest when they published in their own journal. So it’s something I also thought about when I was on the board of APS. I pushed for a change that was implemented at APS journals, where if an editor submits a paper to their own journal, it’s actually handled by an editor outside of that journal, not by one of their co editors on their team. 

[00:17:33.890] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

How does one become an editor of a journal? You are very patient about this, very clearly, and I’m sure the young academics out there would like to know about the steps. 

[00:17:44.320] – Simine Vazire  

Yeah, I think that one step is to accept review requests for journals that you think highly of, that you would like to be more involved with. So when those review requests come in, prioritize those over other review requests, maybe. 

[00:18:01.850] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

I’m sure there is research out there about the accessibility of these communities, et cetera. Would you recommend young researchers to contact the journals to be reviewers themselves? 

[00:18:12.190] – Simine Vazire  

Yeah, I think they could definitely contact editors and just say that they’re interested in reviewing opportunities. They could also ask their kind of mentor, the mentors in their network, their supervisors, or anyone else who might be in a good position, who might get review requests themselves and not always accept them. Those people could recommend them as a reviewer. So that’s a very common way to get into the reviewer pool. But of course, that also requires connections to people who themselves get review requests. One of the things I’m planning to do when we kind of build up the editorial board, the new editorial board. So not the editors, but the people who are on the editorial board, who are frequent reviewers, is to do an open call for nominations and really reach out to different groups that are underrepresented in the kind of journal system currently to try to get nominations of people who would make good reviewers who are interested in doing it. And so looking out, I don’t know how many journals do these kinds of open calls, but looking out for those kinds of calls. But yeah, I think even just a direct email to an editor of a journal that you would like to be involved with, I think that would be welcome. 

[00:19:19.320] – Simine Vazire  

I mean, you may not get a response, but they may actually just still add you into the system because it’s so hard to find reviewers. I think there’s a decent chance that that would work. I would mention some of your maybe link to a few of your relevant papers so that they could check out your work and make sure that the quality of your work matches the quality and nature of your work matches what they’re looking for in reviewers. But yeah, I think that’s one way. 

[00:19:45.290] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

And you could have chosen other journals, obviously. Why is our journal Psychological Science important to you? 

[00:19:54.270] – Simine Vazire  

I think that it’s just one of the most well respected journals in the field and I think that makes it such an important player in communicating psychological science within psychology to other neighboring fields, to the public, to policymakers, all of that. It’s one of the journals that people look to. And so I’m really excited to play a role and work with others to try to do as much as we can to keep improving the kind of quality and importance and trustworthiness. And also because it’s so important within and outside of the field, it means that it plays a big role in people’s careers. Getting an article accepted at Psychological Science can have an impact on people’s chances of getting grants or jobs or awards and things like that. That puts a lot of responsibility on the editor. So it’s not necessarily a reason to want the job. But I guess if you’re going to be spending a lot of your time in this kind of service role anyway, it’s nice for it to be in a position where your changes and your actions have a chance to kind of shape things for the better. Of course, that also means you have the responsibility to really think through those changes and those actions because they will have big impacts on people. 

[00:21:10.250] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

So yeah, it’s an opportunity for impact. And you mentioned some of your goals briefly, but I will ask you what are your goals for the upcoming year for Psychological Science? Like, should we expect any changes? What are you thinking of? 

[00:21:27.040] – Simine Vazire  

Yeah, so I’m going to kind of follow in the footsteps of previous editors on a few things like increasing transparency. So there have been kind of incremental changes over the last ten years on that and I’ll keep going in that direction. So one thing we’ll do that was already signaled by the current editor in chief. Patricia Bauer is moving to the level two of the transparency and Openness promotion guidelines, which means requiring data and code and materials from all. Authors with exceptions in cases of ethical challenges, for example, and also valuing different kinds of research and recognizing that there are many different ways for research to be high quality or important or strong and that almost no research is going to be strong on all the dimensions. And so really appreciating that there can be different strengths, we should value different strengths. We shouldn’t have a one size fits all kind of expectation about what kind of paper we’ll publish. And the important thing is that the research is presented in a calibrated and accurate way. So the strengths are clear, but also the trade offs or any limitations are also clear. So I want to kind of not just focus on transparency and really think about more holistically about the quality and accuracy and calibration of the research, which means not making exaggerated claims, not overselling the research, being really clear about the caveats and the kind of boundary conditions or limitations. 

[00:22:49.910] – Simine Vazire  

And that means that we as editors have to hold up our end of the bargain, which is to not punish authors for being honest and transparent about those limitations or those trade offs and really reward the qualities without. Punishing authors for the kind of trade offs they have to make sometimes to achieve those qualities. Sometimes in order to get something like a sample that’s underrepresented in the literature, that means that you won’t be able to get as large of a sample size. And so taking each paper on its own merits and really seeing the value of what’s strong about it and rewarding authors who are honest and upfront about what’s not strong about it or what they didn’t do, what they couldn’t do with their design or their methods. I also would like to try to think about what Psych science can do to encourage more high quality post publication critiques and corrections and things like that. I know Patricia Bauer did some stuff in that direction too, introducing a new submission type. I want to revisit that, see how well it’s working and what we could do to kind of reward and recognize really good corrective and verification work that people are doing. 

[00:23:59.450] – Simine Vazire  

And then I want to continue doing more to increase the equity of our practices, the fairness of our practices, and also the accessibility of the journal to researchers from many different not just geographical regions, but also different traditions in terms of methods and approaches, different languages, different there’s a lot of different groups. That our system, as it currently is disadvantages. So for example, people for whom English is a borrowed language, publishing in an English language journal is a lot more work than people who either have always worked in English or they’re very comfortable in that language. And so I’m trying to think through what we could do. I mean, the problem is that journals kind of come into the picture pretty late in the research process. So I think journals maybe don’t have as much of a role to play in providing resources in the early stages of the research process. But is there something we could do to help support researchers who maybe are writing in a borrowed language in English and need extra support in the writing stage? Maybe that’s a place where journals do have a role to play. I’m thinking through those things, but also kind of trying to demystify the whole journal and peer review process. 

[00:25:09.830] – Simine Vazire  

And there’s kind of a hidden curriculum of things that happen behind the scenes that aren’t explicitly talked about or aren’t printed in author guidelines. And so I’d like to hold office hours at different time zones and so on to try to make it more accessible for people to drop in and just ask questions not about their specific paper, but about how does this process work? Is it okay to email an editor if you haven’t heard after so many months or other kinds of questions like that, that I get a lot informally at conferences and things like that, but I think there needs to be a more open, equitable, kind of accessible way to share that information. 

[00:25:47.470] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

Well, Simine, thank you very much. This is like a very long list of changes, but every each of them is very important. Thank you very much for thinking about them. And also thank you for joining to our podcast today. 

[00:26:03.520] – Simine Vazire  

Thank you. 

[00:26:04.340] – APS Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum  

I am personally looking forward to the changes in Psychological Science and I’m looking forward to your leadership. This is Özge Gürcanlı Fischer Baum with APS and I have been speaking to Dr. Simine Vazire from University of Melbourne. If you want to know more about this research, visit psychologicalscience.org. 

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Silver Linings in the Demographic Revolution 

Podcast: In her final column as APS President, Alison Gopnik makes the case for more effectively and creatively caring for vulnerable humans at either end of life.

Exploration vs. Exploitation: Adults Are Learning (Once Again) From Children

Podcast: Why should kids have all the fun? Alison Gopnik on how science and business, too, can resolve the tension between the lure of the crazy new thing and the safe haven of the tried and true.

A Very Human Answer to One of AI’s Deepest Dilemmas

Imagine that we designed a fully intelligent, autonomous robot that acted on the world to accomplish its goals. How could we make sure that it would want the same things we do? Alison Gopnik explores. Read or listen!

Privacy Overview

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
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 29 November 2023

An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials

• Nathan J. Szymanski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2255-9676 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Bernardus Rendy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8309-6279 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Yuxing Fei 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Rishi E. Kumar 3   na1 ,
• Tanjin He   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8834-8703 1 , 2 ,
• David Milsted   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0415-910X 2 ,
• Matthew J. McDermott 1 , 2 ,
• Max Gallant 1 , 2 ,
• Ekin Dogus Cubuk   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0524-2837 4 ,
• Amil Merchant   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5262-6599 4 ,
• Haegyeom Kim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5962-8244 2 ,
• Anubhav Jain   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5893-9967 3 ,
• Christopher J. Bartel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5198-5036 2 ,
• Kristin Persson 1 , 2 ,
• Yan Zeng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5831-1210 2 &
• Gerbrand Ceder   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9275-3605 1 , 2  

Nature ( 2023 ) Cite this article

26k Accesses

923 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Characterization and analytical techniques
• Computational methods
• Design, synthesis and processing

To close the gap between the rates of computational screening and experimental realization of novel materials 1 , 2 , we introduce the A-Lab, an autonomous laboratory for the solid-state synthesis of inorganic powders. This platform uses computations, historical data from the literature, machine learning (ML) and active learning to plan and interpret the outcomes of experiments performed using robotics. Over 17 days of continuous operation, the A-Lab realized 41 novel compounds from a set of 58 targets including a variety of oxides and phosphates that were identified using large-scale ab initio phase-stability data from the Materials Project and Google DeepMind. Synthesis recipes were proposed by natural-language models trained on the literature and optimized using an active-learning approach grounded in thermodynamics. Analysis of the failed syntheses provides direct and actionable suggestions to improve current techniques for materials screening and synthesis design. The high success rate demonstrates the effectiveness of artificial-intelligence-driven platforms for autonomous materials discovery and motivates further integration of computations, historical knowledge and robotics.

Although promising new materials can be identified at scale using high-throughput computations, their experimental realization is often challenging and time-consuming. Accelerating the experimental segment of materials discovery requires not only automation but autonomy—the ability of an experimental agent to interpret data and make decisions based on it. Pioneering efforts have demonstrated autonomy in several aspects of materials research, including robotic and Bayesian-driven optimization of carbon nanotube yield 3 , 4 , photovoltaic performance 5 and photocatalysis activity 6 . In contrast to conventional ML algorithms used for optimization, human researchers benefit from a wealth of background knowledge that informs their decision-making, and it is increasingly recognized 7 , 8 , 9 that autonomy will require a fusion of encoded domain knowledge, access to diverse data sources and active learning.

Here we present the A-Lab, an autonomous laboratory that integrates robotics with the use of ab initio databases, ML-driven data interpretation, synthesis heuristics learned from text-mined literature data and active learning to optimize the synthesis of novel inorganic materials in powder form. Although autonomous workflows based on liquid handling have been demonstrated in organic chemistry 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , the A-Lab addresses the unique challenges of handling and characterizing solid inorganic powders. These often require milling to ensure good reactivity between precursors, which can have a wide range of physical properties related to differences in their density, flow behaviour, particle size, hardness and compressibility. The use of solid powders is well suited for manufacturing and technological scaleup, and the approach of the A-Lab to synthesis produces multigram sample quantities that facilitate device-level testing.

Given a set of air-stable target materials (that is, desired synthesis products whose yield we aim to maximize) screened using the Materials Project 14 , the A-Lab generates synthesis recipes using ML models trained on historical data from the literature and then performs these recipes with robotics. The synthesis products are characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), with two ML models working together to analyse their patterns. When synthesis recipes fail to produce a high target yield, active learning closes the loop by proposing improved follow-up recipes. Over 17 days of operation, the A-Lab successfully synthesized 41 of 58 target materials that span 33 elements and 41 structural prototypes (Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1 ). Inspection of the 17 unobtained targets revealed synthetic as well as computational failure modes, several of which could be overcome through minor adjustments to the lab’s decision-making. With its high success rate in validating predicted materials, the A-Lab showcases the collective power of ab initio computations, ML algorithms, accumulated historical knowledge and automation in experimental research.

Autonomous materials-discovery platform

The materials-discovery pipeline followed by the A-Lab is schematically shown in Fig. 1 . All target materials considered in this work are new to the lab, that is, not present in the training data for the algorithms it uses to propose synthesis recipes, and 52 of the 58 targets have no previous synthesis reports, to the best of our knowledge ( Methods ). The experiments reported in this study represent the first attempts by the A-Lab to synthesize any of these targets. Each target is predicted to be on or very near (<10 meV per atom) the convex hull formed by stable phases taken from the Materials Project 14 and cross-referenced with an analogous database from Google DeepMind. Because the A-Lab handles samples in open air, we only considered targets that are predicted not to react with O 2 , CO 2 and H 2 O ( Methods ).

Air-stable unreported targets are identified using DFT-calculated convex hulls consisting of ground states from the Materials Project and Google DeepMind. Synthesis recipes for each target are proposed using ML models trained on synthesis data from the literature. These recipes are tested using a robotic laboratory that automates (1) powder dosing, (2) sample heating and (3) product characterization with XRD. All sample transfer between these stations is performed using robotic arms, forming a fully automated sequence from chemical input to characterization. Phase purity is assessed from XRD, which is analysed by ML models trained on structures from the Materials Project and the ICSD, and confirmed with automated Rietveld refinement. In cases in which high (>50%) target yield is not obtained, new synthesis recipes are proposed by an active-learning algorithm that identifies reaction pathways with maximal driving force to form the target.

For each compound proposed to the A-Lab, up to five initial synthesis recipes are generated by a ML model that has learned to assess target ‘similarity’ through natural-language processing of a large database of syntheses extracted from the literature 15 , mimicking the approach of a human to base an initial synthesis attempt on analogy to known related materials. A synthesis temperature is then proposed by a second ML model trained on heating data from the literature 16 ( Methods ). If these literature-inspired recipes fail to produce >50% yield for their desired targets, the A-Lab continues to experiment using Autonomous Reaction Route Optimization with Solid-State Synthesis (ARROWS 3 ), an active-learning algorithm that integrates ab initio computed reaction energies with observed synthesis outcomes to predict solid-state reaction pathways 17 . Experiments are performed under the guidance of this algorithm until the target is obtained as the majority phase or all synthesis recipes available to the A-Lab are exhausted.

The A-Lab carries out experiments using three integrated stations for sample preparation, heating and characterization, with robotic arms transferring samples and labware between them (Fig. 1 and Extended Data Figs. 1 and 2 ). The first station dispenses and mixes precursor powders before transferring them into alumina crucibles. A robotic arm from the second station loads these crucibles into one of four available box furnaces to be heated ( Methods ). After allowing the samples to cool, another robotic arm transfers them to the third station, where they are ground into a fine powder and measured by XRD. The operations of the lab are controlled through an application programming interface, which enables on-the-fly job submission from human researchers or decision-making agents (Extended Data Fig. 3 ).

The phase and weight fractions of the synthesis products are extracted from their XRD patterns by probabilistic ML models trained on experimental structures from the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD) following the methodology outlined in previous work 18 , 19 . Because the target materials considered in this work have no experimental reports, their diffraction patterns are simulated from computed structures available in the Materials Project and corrected to reduce density functional theory (DFT) errors (Supplementary Note  1 ). For each sample, the phases identified by ML are confirmed with automated Rietveld refinement ( Methods and Supplementary Note  2 ) and the resulting weight fractions are reported to the management server of the A-Lab to inform subsequent experimental iterations, if necessary, in search of an optimal recipe with high target yield.

Experimental synthesis outcomes

Using the described workflow, the A-Lab synthesized 41 of the 58 target compounds over 17 days of continuous experimentation, representing a 71% success rate. We show in the next section that this success rate could be improved to 74% with only minor modifications to the lab’s decision-making algorithm, and further to 78% if the computational techniques were also improved. The high success rate demonstrates that comprehensive ab initio calculations can be used to effectively identify new, stable and synthesizable materials. The outcome for all 58 compounds is plotted in Fig. 2 against their decomposition energies (on a log scale), a common thermodynamic metric that describes the driving force to form a compound from its neighbours on the phase diagram 20 (Supplementary Fig. 2 ). A negative (positive) decomposition energy indicates that a material is stable (metastable) at 0 K. Of the targets considered in this work, 50 are predicted to be stable, whereas the remaining eight are metastable but lie near the convex hull. Over the range of decomposition energies considered, we do not observe a clear correlation between decomposition energy and whether a material was successfully synthesized.

Results summary from the synthesis efforts targeting 58 new compounds, plotted against their decomposition energies (log scale). Arrows indicate values near zero. A total of 41 targets were successfully synthesized (blue bars), whereas the remaining 17 could not be obtained by the A-Lab (red bars). Targets optimized in the active-learning stage of the A-Lab are marked by diagonal lines; all other targets were only attempted using recipes proposed by ML algorithms trained on literature data. The scatter points above each bar represent the outcomes of attempted recipes for each target, ordered from top to bottom in the sequence in which they were performed. The inset pie charts show the fraction of successful targets (left) and recipes (right). Analyses performed after the fact suggest that the calculated decomposition energies for three targets, marked with stars, may be suspect owing to computational errors (see text).

In total, 35 of the 41 materials synthesized by the A-Lab were obtained using recipes proposed by ML models trained on synthesis data from the literature (Supplementary Note  3 ). These literature-inspired recipes were more likely to succeed when the reference materials are highly similar to our targets (Supplementary Fig. 3 ), confirming that target ‘similarity’ is a useful metric to select effective precursors 21 . At the same time, precursor selection remains a highly nontrivial task, even for thermodynamically stable materials. Despite 71% of targets eventually being obtained, only 37% of the 355 synthesis recipes tested by the A-Lab produced their targets. This finding echoes previous work that has established the strong influence of precursor selection on the synthesis path, ultimately deciding whether it forms the target or becomes trapped in a metastable state 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 .

The active-learning cycle of the A-Lab 17 identified synthesis routes with improved yield for nine targets, of which six had zero yield from the initial literature-inspired recipes. Targets optimized with active learning are indicated by the bars containing diagonal lines in Fig. 2 . In this framework, improved synthesis routes are designed using two hypotheses: (1) solid-state reactions tend to occur between two phases at a time (that is, pairwise) 26 , 27 , 28 and (2) intermediate phases that leave only a small driving force to form the target material should be avoided, as they often require long reaction time and high temperature 22 , 23 , 29 .

The A-Lab continuously builds a database of pairwise reactions observed in its experiments—88 unique pairwise reactions (Supplementary Table 2 ) were identified from the synthesis experiments performed in this work. This database allows the products of some recipes to be inferred, precluding their testing; a recipe that yields an observed set of intermediates (already present in the lab’s database) need not be pursued at higher temperatures, as the remaining reaction pathway is already known (Fig. 3a,b ). This can reduce the search space of possible synthesis recipes by up to 80% when many precursor sets react to form the same intermediates (Fig. 3e and Supplementary Notes  4 and 5 ). Furthermore, knowledge of reaction pathways can be used to give priority to intermediates with a large driving force to form the target, computed using formation energies available in the Materials Project (Fig. 3c,d ). For example, the synthesis of CaFe 2 P 2 O 9 was optimized by avoiding the formation of FePO 4 and Ca 3 (PO 4 ) 2 , which have a small driving force (8 meV per atom) to form the target. This led to the identification of an alternative synthesis route that forms CaFe 3 P 3 O 13 as an intermediate, from which there remains a much larger driving force (77 meV per atom) to react with CaO and form CaFe 2 P 2 O 9 , causing an approximately 70% increase in the yield of the target (Supplementary Note  6 ).

a , From a failed synthesis attempt, the A-Lab determines which pairwise reactions occurred. b , New precursors are recommended by substituting at least one precursor involved in the unfavourable pairwise reaction. In cases in which the new precursor set leads to identical intermediates as a previously tested set, it is not explored at any higher temperatures. c , The successful precursor set avoids all the unfavourable pairwise reactions. d , The free energy at each step in the reaction pathway, calculated using data from the Materials Project, which shows that the successful pathway maintains a large driving force at the target-forming step. e , Following this approach, the scatter plot shows the number of experiments required to exhaust all unique reaction paths for each target (red) or to identify an optimal path with high yield (blue), plotted with respect to the total size of each experimental search space.

Barriers to synthesis

Seventeen of the 58 targets evaluated by the A-Lab were not obtained even after its active-learning cycle. We identify slow reaction kinetics, precursor volatility, amorphization and computational inaccuracy as four broad categories of ‘failure modes’ that prevented the synthesis of these targets. The prevalence of each failure mode is shown in Fig. 4 , accompanied by their affected targets.

The 17 target materials that could not be synthesized by the A-Lab, for which each is categorized by the feature that complicates its synthesis. One target (Ta 4 PbO 11 ) is excluded from this list, as it is metastable and therefore was predictably unobtained in favour of its stable competitors. The challenges in synthesizing the remaining 16 stable targets fall under two categories: experimental barriers (blue, 13 targets) and computational barriers (green, three targets). We distinguish these barriers as four distinct failure modes: slow reaction kinetics, precursor volatility, product amorphization and limitations associated with DFT calculations performed at 0 K. A schematic explanation for each failure mode is provided.

Sluggish reaction kinetics hindered 11 of the 17 failed targets, each containing reaction steps with low driving forces (<50 meV per atom; Supplementary Fig. 4 ). In principle, these targets can be made accessible by using a higher synthesis temperature, longer heating time, improved precursor mixing or intermittent regrinding—standard procedures that are at present outside the domain of the A-Lab’s active-learning algorithm. As such, we manually reground the original synthesis products generated by the A-Lab and heated them to higher temperatures, which led to the successful formation of two further targets, Y 3 Ga 3 In 2 O 12 and Mg 3 NiO 4 , bringing our total success rate to 74% (Supplementary Note  7 ). One could also use more reactive precursors to provide a greater driving force to form the target, although our experiments were constrained to air-stable binary precursors that sometimes restricted the A-Lab’s choice of synthesis routes to those forming highly stable intermediates. System modifications to enable multistep heating, intermediate regrinding and expanded precursor selection should improve the ability of the lab to adapt and overcome failed synthesis attempts.

Precursor volatility disrupted all synthesis experiments targeting CaCr 2 P 2 O 9 , causing a change in the net stoichiometry of its samples (Supplementary Note  8 ). This can be attributed to the use of ammonium phosphate precursors, NH 4 H 2 PO 4 and (NH 4 ) 2 HPO 4 , which proceed through a series of decomposition reactions and ultimately evaporate above 450 °C (ref.  30 ). Still, recipes based on these precursors can succeed if the ammonium phosphate reacts with another precursor before its evaporation temperature, effectively locking the phosphate ions in the solid state. For example, volatility does not seem to be an issue for the Mn-containing phosphates targeted in this work, as each Mn oxides precursor reacts with the ammonium phosphates at low temperature (<500 °C) to form Mn 2 (PO 4 ) 3 as an intermediate. This precursor behaviour can, in principle, be learned when sufficient pairwise reaction data have been collected, after which the A-Lab may favour the selection of precursors that trap in phosphate ions at low temperature and therefore preclude unwanted volatility.

Melting of samples at high temperature inhibited the crystallization of one target, Mo(PO 3 ) 5 , whose synthesis attempts produced amorphous samples (Supplementary Fig. 5 ). Although the use of a molten flux can sometimes improve reaction kinetics 31 , the formation of an amorphous state that is low in energy may reduce the driving force for crystallization. Indeed, using the workflow outlined in ref.  32 , we identified amorphous configurations of Mo(PO 3 ) 5 with energies as low as 61 meV per atom above the crystalline ground state, a finding that is consistent with the widely reported glass-forming ability of phosphate-rich compounds 33 , 34 .

Some failure modes result from inaccuracies in the computed stability of the target and therefore cannot be addressed by modifications to the experimental procedures. Fundamental-electronic-structure challenges are probably affecting La 5 Mn 5 O 16 , as all the attempts to synthesize this phase instead yielded LaMnO 3 , which DFT unexpectedly predicts to be highly unstable (120 meV per atom above the hull), even though it is widely reported in the literature to be experimentally accessible 35 . If the energy of LaMnO 3 were lowered, consistent with its experimental stability, La 5 Mn 5 O 16 would be destabilized (above the hull). Errors in the computed energy of LaMnO 3 may arise from its strong Jahn–Teller activity 36 , compositional off-stoichiometry 37 or the presence of f-states in La—all of which present challenges to conventional DFT. Problems with YbMoO 4 were found to be because of a poor pseudopotential choice in the Materials Project that destabilizes the well-known oxide, Yb 2 O 3 , and it is likely that, in more accurate calculations, YbMoO 4 is not stable. A similar lanthanide-related electronic-structure problem may also be responsible for the failure to synthesize BaGdCrFeO 6 . These examples demonstrate the ability of the A-Lab to provide important feedback to high-throughput computed datasets. With improved calculations that exclude the computationally problematic compounds in this work, our total success rate would increase to 78% (43/55 targets).

In 17 days of closed-loop operation, the A-Lab performed 355 experiments and successfully realized 41 of 58 novel inorganic crystalline solids with diverse structures and chemistries. This unexpectedly high success rate (71%) for the synthesis of computationally predicted compounds was achieved by integrating robotics with: (1) DFT-computed data to survey the energetic landscape of precursors, reaction intermediates and final products; (2) heuristic suggestions for synthesis procedures obtained from ML models trained on text-mined synthesis data; (3) ML interpretation of experimental data; and (4) an active-learning algorithm that improves on failed synthesis procedures. The study also revealed several opportunities to enhance the lab’s active-learning algorithm by addressing failures caused by slow reaction kinetics, which would enable an improved success rate of 74% with in-line solutions.

Our paper demonstrates that autonomous research agents can markedly accelerate the pace of materials research. Researchers initialized the A-Lab by proposing 58 target materials, which were successfully realized at a rate of >2 new materials per day with minimal human intervention. Such rapid discovery points to a vast landscape of opportunities in materials synthesis and development. Although this work focused on a limited subset of all possible synthesis targets, many new candidates await evaluation. As the breadth of ab initio computations continues to grow, so will this list of novel materials.

Advances in simulations, ML and robotics have intersected to enable ‘expert systems’ that show autonomy as an emergent quality by the sum of its automated components. The A-Lab demonstrates this by combining modern theory-driven and data-driven ML techniques with a modular workflow that can discover novel materials with minimal human input. Lessons learned from continuing experiments can inform both the system itself and the greater community through systematic data generation and collection. The systematic nature of the A-Lab provides a unique opportunity to answer fundamental questions about the factors that govern the synthesizability of novel materials, serving as an experimental oracle to validate predictions made on the basis of data-rich resources such as the Materials Project. In future iterations of the platform, such an oracle may be expanded to investigate factors beyond synthesizability, including microstructure and device performance. Although our current success rate for the synthesis of novel compounds is high, the remaining discrepancies between current predictions and their experimental outcomes is a crucial signal required to improve our understanding of materials synthesis.

Materials screening

The 58 targets evaluated by the A-Lab were identified from the Materials Project database (version 2022.10.28). We first obtained all entries from the Materials Project that were marked as ‘theoretical’ (that is, not represented in the ICSD) and predicted to be thermodynamically stable (at 0 K) or very close to the convex hull (<10 meV per atom). We did not consider materials with ≤2 elements nor those containing elements that are radioactive (Ac, Th, Pa, U, Np, Pu, Tc), exceedingly rare (Pd, Pt, Rh, Ir, Au, Ru, Os, Re, Tl, Sc, Tm, Pm, Rb, Cs) or toxic (Hg, As). Owing to concerns with the experimental handling of certain materials systems (for example, sulfides), we constrained our selection to only include the following types of material: oxides, carbonates, bicarbonates, hydroxides, sulfates, sulfites, bisulfates, silicates, fluorides, chlorides, bromides, orthoborates, metaborates, tetraborates, phosphates, phosphites, chlorates, chlorites and hypochlorites. Finally, we removed all compounds predicted to have uncommon and potentially challenging oxidation states (for example, Co 4+ ), as determined by pymatgen 38 .

The novelty of each candidate material was verified by cross-checking with several experimental sources. We first removed all compositions that appeared in SynTERRA, a text-mined set of experimental synthesis data extracted from more than 24,000 publications 39 . Furthermore, we removed any materials with compositions appearing in the ‘Handbook of Inorganic Substances’ 40 . Although these methods are not exhaustive, they provide an automated and high-throughput approach to screen for materials novelty. For the remaining 432 candidates that were labelled as previously unsynthesized using this workflow, we filtered by thermodynamic stability in air. This was done by calculating the formation energy of each compound in a grand potential with respect to oxygen, assuming standard atmospheric conditions ( p O2  = 21,200 Pa) and temperatures ranging from 600 to 1,100 °C. We further checked for reactivity with CO 2 and H 2 O under those same conditions by using the Interface Reactions module in pymatgen 38 , 41 . From the resulting list of 146 new compounds that were stable in air, we selected 58 targets for which precursors were readily available. Later in the process, we found literature evidence for a small number of these compounds, but most (52/58 compounds) are believed to have no previous reports (Supplementary Note  9 ).

The algorithm we used for identifying potential synthesis targets is available on GitHub ( https://github.com/mattmcdermott/novel-materials-screening ). It operates autonomously once given the following information: which elements to consider in the target materials, how large an upper limit to impose on each material’s energy above the convex hull, the atmospheric conditions under which the materials will be synthesized and a threshold on the reaction energies that exist between each material and the gaseous species present in the specified atmosphere. The algorithm then scrapes the Materials Project and produces a list of candidate materials that satisfy these criteria. Further filtering may be considered on the basis of the availability and cost of precursors for each target. Although this is done manually in the current version of the algorithm, potential improvements could automate the process by using online data from chemical inventory lists and vendor websites.

Synthesis recipes from text-mined knowledge

We have established a pipeline for recommending synthesis recipes by using a knowledge base of 33,343 solid-state synthesis procedures extracted from 24,304 publications 16 . For a given target, the initial recipe is selected on the basis of the most common precursors in the knowledge base. We then transition to a similarity-based strategy for recipe selection. Each target is transformed into a numerical vector by using a synthesis-context-based encoding model 12 . The similarity between a given (new) target and each known material in the knowledge base is evaluated using the cosine similarity between their encoded vectors. After identifying the reference material that is most similar to the target, its precursors are included in the new recommendation. When these precursors do not cover all the elements in the target, we use a masked precursor completion model 12 to account for such missing precursors. Subsequent recommendations are implemented by moving down the list of known materials ranked to be most similar to the target.

For each set of recommended precursors, the most effective synthesis temperature is predicted using an XGBoost regressor trained in previous work 11 . The target and its associated precursors are transformed into three sets of features: (1) precursor properties including melting points, standard enthalpies of formation and standard Gibbs free energies of formation; (2) target compositional features indicating which elements are present; and (3) the calculated thermodynamic driving force associated with pairwise reaction paths from precursors to target. Although the proposed synthesis temperature is dependent on the precursors, not just the target, it may vary for each recipe. However, to maximize the efficiency with which the A-Lab operates, we chose to use one fixed temperature for each target. This temperature was calculated by averaging the proposed synthesis temperatures for the top five precursor sets recommended for a given target. This allowed all such precursor sets to be batched in a single furnace.

Robotic synthesis and characterization

The A-Lab performs fully automated solid-state synthesis and characterization. It is a bespoke robotic platform that consists of a precursor preparation station with a central robot arm (Mitsubishi) for powder dispensing and mixing (custom-made with Labman Automation Ltd.), a high-temperature heating station with four box furnaces (based on F48055-60, Thermo Scientific, with custom actuators to control its door), a product-handling station developed in-house for powder retrieval and sample loading, a characterization station with a powder X-ray diffractometer (Aeris Minerals, Malvern Panalytical) and two collaborative robot arms (UR5e, Universal Robots) that transfer samples and labware between stations. Further details on the robotic platform are provided in Supplementary Note  10 .

The synthesis process starts from the precursor preparation station, where the necessary consumables (plastic vials, ZrO 2 balls and crucibles) and precursor dosing bottles containing between 50 and 100 g of powders are manually loaded before starting a new experimental campaign. Prescribed amounts of the precursor powders are dispensed into a plastic vial by an automatic dispenser balance (Quantos, Mettler Toledo). The precursor powders are then mixed thoroughly with ethanol and ten 5-mm ZrO 2 balls in a dual asymmetric centrifuge (Smart DAC250, Hauschild) for 9 min. To ensure proper slurry viscosity, the ethanol amount is automatically calculated on the basis of the amount and density of each powder comprising the mixture. The resulting slurry is transferred with an automated pipettor (rLine LH-710969, Sartorius) into an alumina crucible, which is then dried at 80 °C in a closed evaporation system. A UR5e robot arm on a linear rail (Olympus Controls) removes the dried samples from the precursor preparation station and loads them into one of four box furnaces. Heating is performed in batches, with each furnace containing up to eight samples on an alumina tray. Each batch is heated to 300 °C with a slow ramping rate of 2 °C min −1 to raise the likelihood that any phosphate precursor has time to react before it becomes volatile at higher temperature. The samples are then heated to the specified synthesis temperature with a nominal ramp rate of 15 °C min −1 , followed by a 4-h dwell. After the dwell is complete, the samples are naturally cooled to 100 °C, at which point a UR5e arm removes the samples from the furnace and waits another 10 min to allow the samples to cool to room temperature.

A separate UR5e arm transfers the cooled samples to the next station for powder retrieval and characterization. There, a 10-mm alumina ball is placed in each crucible by an automatic ball dispenser developed in-house and then sent to a vertical shaker that grinds the samples into fine powders. The resulting powders are then poured by the UR5e arm from the crucibles into a clean plastic vial covered using a steel mesh. By inverting the container, the powder is dispensed through the mesh onto an XRD sample holder and subsequently flattened with an acrylic disc. The UR5e arm transfers each flattened sample into the diffractometer for X-ray measurements, which are performed using 8-min scans that range from 2 θ  = 10° to 100°. The XRD sample holders must be cleaned manually when the lab has depleted its stock. Precursor powders should also be refilled or replaced, when necessary, although this can be performed without stopping the workflow of the lab.

Phase analysis

Given an XRD pattern obtained from an unknown sample, we apply XRD-AutoAnalyzer to identify the constituent phases and estimate their weight fractions 18 . This algorithm relies on a convolutional neural network (CNN) consisting of six convolutional layers, with max pooling applied between each, followed by three fully connected layers with ReLU activation. Batch normalization and a dropout rate of 50% is applied between the fully connected layers for regularization. At inference, we apply Monte Carlo dropout to create an ensemble of 100 networks with 50% of their connections randomly excluded. The final prediction is taken as the phase that seems most frequently in the ensemble and its associated confidence is defined as the fraction of models that predict it.

A unique model instance is trained on the chemical space defined by each target. Experimental-structure entries with elements shared by the given target are extracted from the ICSD, also including carbonates and hydroxides. For the DFT-calculated target, we apply a machine-learned volume correction to its lattice parameters (Supplementary Note  1 ) before including it in the training set. From each reference phase, 200 diffraction patterns are simulated with stochastic variations derived from experimental artefacts including lattice strain, crystallographic texture, impurity peaks and poor crystallinity. These augmented patterns are used to train the CNN for 50 epochs, after which they are ready for the analysis of novel patterns.

To confirm the predictions of the CNN, we use an automated approach to multiphase Rietveld refinement. An agent with two deep neural networks (actor/critic) were trained using reinforcement learning based on a proximal policy optimization algorithm 42 implemented in a custom gym environment 43 that interacts with the GSAS-II software package 44 through a scripting interface 45 (Supplementary Note  2 ). The environment is initialized by refining the background, followed by the scale factor and sample displacement. After initialization is performed on the basis of these parameters, the algorithm freely refines the lattice parameters, phase fractions, isotropic microstrains and particle sizes. For each step in the refinement, our algorithm decides which parameters to refine and/or reset to the initial values, with the objective of minimizing the difference between the calculated and the experimentally observed patterns.

When the automated refinement gives a poor fit, manual analysis is performed. For targets for which we suspect the poor fit resulted from configurational disorder, we refined the XRD patterns using cation-disordered versions of the target’s structure taken from the Materials Project. The cations allowed to be exchanged (disordered) with one another were selected on the basis of the Hume-Rothery rules, as detailed in previous work 18 . Such cases were still considered successful as long as the disordered version of the target retained the same crystal structure and overall composition as the ordered version.

Active-learning algorithm

Active learning is performed using ARROWS 3 , our recently developed algorithm that learns from previous experimental outcomes to identify improved reaction pathways. Given the products obtained from a set of precursors proposed by our natural-language models at temperature T NLP , ARROWS 3 first suggests that a lower temperature ( T NLP  − 300 °C) be tested for the same precursor set. The intent of this approach is to reveal which intermediate phases lead to the formation of each impurity observed at higher temperature. From the low-temperature-synthesis outcome, information is extracted about the pairwise reactions that occurred, including those between the precursors (to form the observed intermediates), as well as those between the intermediates (to form the high-temperature impurities). New synthesis experiments are then proposed on the basis of sets of precursors expected to avoid such reactions, giving priority to those with a maximal thermodynamic driving force to form the target. The driving force is calculated as the free-energy difference between a target and its associated precursors, in which all solid energies (at 0 K) are extracted from the Materials Project and corrected using a machine-learned descriptor that accounts for vibrational-entropy contributions at the specified temperature 46 .

After testing a precursor set at low temperature ( T NLP  − 300 °C), iteratively higher temperatures (Δ T  = 100 °C) are examined until the target is obtained with a yield exceeding 50% or until the temperature reaches T NLP . At each step, the algorithm determines which pairwise reactions occurred and records them in a database that is referred to throughout all other experiments performed by the A-Lab. In subsequent iterations, ARROWS 3 gives priority to sets of precursors containing pairs of phases that are expected to form the desired target, while avoiding pairs that form unwanted impurities. Moreover, to avoid testing redundant synthesis routes for which different precursors form identical products, the algorithm checks whether the low-temperature ( T NLP  − 300 °C) intermediates obtained from a given precursor set differ from those obtained with previous (unsuccessful) recipes. If not, then no further experiments are proposed for that set of precursors. This process is repeated until the target is successfully obtained or until all the available precursor sets have been exhausted. Further details on the active-learning process are provided in Supplementary Notes  4 – 6 and  11 .

Data availability

All data generated during this study are included in the  Supplementary Information . This includes the refined XRD patterns for each successful synthesis outcome, as well as their associated structure files.

Code availability

The screening algorithm we used for identifying potential synthesis targets is available at https://github.com/mattmcdermott/novel-materials-screening . The Python scripts and machine-learning models used to propose literature-inspired synthesis recipes can be found online at https://github.com/CederGroupHub/SynthesisSimilarity and https://github.com/CederGroupHub/s4 for precursor and temperature selection, respectively. The methods for XRD analysis are available at https://github.com/njszym/XRD-AutoAnalyzer . Active learning was performed using a package found at https://github.com/njszym/ARROWS .

Jain, A., Shin, Y. & Persson, K. A. Computational predictions of energy materials using density functional theory. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1 , 15004 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Sun, J. et al. Accurate first-principles structures and energies of diversely bonded systems from an efficient density functional. Nat. Chem. 8 , 831–836 (2016).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Nikolaev, P. et al. Autonomy in materials research: a case study in carbon nanotube growth. NPJ Comput. Mater. 2 , 16031 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Chang, J. et al. Efficient closed-loop maximization of carbon nanotube growth rate using Bayesian optimization. Sci. Rep. 10 , 9040 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

MacLeod, B. P. et al. Self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin-film materials. Sci. Adv. 6 , eaaz8867 (2020).

Burger, B. et al. A mobile robotic chemist. Nature 583 , 237–241 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ludwig, A. Discovery of new materials using combinatorial synthesis and high-throughput characterization of thin-film materials libraries combined with computational methods. NPJ Comput. Mater. 5 , 70 (2019).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Ren, Z. et al. Embedding physics domain knowledge into a Bayesian network enables layer-by-layer process innovation for photovoltaics. NPJ Comput. Mater. 6 , 9 (2020).

Sun, S. et al. A data fusion approach to optimize compositional stability of halide perovskites. Matter 4 , 1305–1322 (2021).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Li, J. et al. Synthesis of many different types of organic small molecules using one automated process. Science 347 , 1221–1226 (2015).

Kitson, P. J. et al. Digitization of multistep organic synthesis in reactionware for on-demand pharmaceuticals. Science 359 , 314–319 (2018).

Coley, C. W. et al. A robotic platform for flow synthesis of organic compounds informed by AI planning. Science 365 , eaax1566 (2019).

Manzano, J. S. et al. An autonomous portable platform for universal chemical synthesis. Nat. Chem. 14 , 1311–1318 (2022).

Jain, A. et al. Commentary: The Materials Project: a materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. APL Mater. 1 , 011002 (2013).

He, T. et al. Inorganic synthesis recommendation by machine learning materials similarity from scientific literature. Sci. Adv. 9 , eadg8180 (2023).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Huo, H. et al. Machine-learning rationalization and prediction of solid-state synthesis conditions. Chem. Mater. 34 , 7323–7336 (2022).

Szymanski, N. J., Nevatia, P., Bartel, C. J., Zeng, Y. & Ceder, G. Autonomous and dynamic precursor selection for solid-state materials synthesis. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42329-9 (2023).

Szymanski, N. J., Bartel, C. J., Zeng, Y., Tu, Q. & Ceder, G. Probabilistic deep learning approach to automate the interpretation of multi-phase diffraction spectra. Chem. Mater. 33 , 4204–4215 (2021).

Szymanski, N. J. et al. Adaptively driven X-ray diffraction guided by machine learning for autonomous phase identification. NPJ Comput. Mater. 9 , 31 (2023).

Bartel, C. J. Review of computational approaches to predict the thermodynamic stability of inorganic solids. J. Mater. Sci. 57 , 10475–10498 (2022).

He, T. et al. Similarity of precursors in solid-state synthesis as text-mined from scientific literature. Chem. Mater. 32 , 7861–7873 (2020).

Miura, A. et al. Selective metathesis synthesis of MgCr 2 S 4 by control of thermodynamic driving forces. Mater. Horiz. 7 , 1310–1316 (2020).

Bianchini, M. et al. The interplay between thermodynamics and kinetics in the solid-state synthesis of layered oxides. Nat. Mater. 19 , 1088–1095 (2020).

Aykol, M., Montoya, J. H. & Hummelshøj, J. Rational solid-state synthesis routes for inorganic materials. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143 , 9244–9259 (2021).

Martinolich, A. J. & Neilson, J. R. Toward reaction-by-design: achieving kinetic control of solid state chemistry with metathesis. Chem. Mater. 29 , 479–489 (2017).

Miura, A. et al. Observing and modeling the sequential pairwise reactions that drive solid-state ceramic synthesis. Adv. Mater. 33 , 2100312 (2021).

Cordova, D. L. M. & Johnson, D. C. Synthesis of metastable inorganic solids with extended structures. ChemPhysChem 21 , 1345–1368 (2020).

Malkowski, T. F. et al. Role of pairwise reactions on the synthesis of Li 0.3 La 0.57 TiO 3 and the resulting structure–property correlations. Inorg. Chem. 60 , 14831–14843 (2021).

Todd, P. K. et al. Selectivity in yttrium manganese oxide synthesis via local chemical potentials in hyperdimensional phase space. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143 , 15185–15194 (2021).

Pardo, A., Romero, J. & Ortiz, E. High-temperature behaviour of ammonium dihydrogen phosphate. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 935 , 012050 (2017).

Gupta, S. K. & Mao, Y. Recent developments on molten salt synthesis of inorganic nanomaterials: a review. J. Phys. Chem. C 125 , 6508–6533 (2021).

Aykol, M., Dwaraknath, S. S., Sun, W. & Persson, K. A. Thermodynamic limit for synthesis of metastable inorganic materials. Sci. Adv. 4 , eaaq014 (2018).

Bridge, B. & Patel, N. D. The elastic constants and structure of the vitreous system Mo-P-O. J. Mater. Sci. 21 , 1186–1205 (1986).

Muñoz, F. & Sánchez-Muñoz, L. The glass-forming ability explained from local structural differences by NMR between glasses and crystals in alkali metaphosphates. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 503–504 , 94–97 (2019).

Norby, P., Krogh Andersen, I. G., Andersen, E. K. & Andersen, N. H. The crystal structure of lanthanum manganate(iii), LaMnO 3 , at room temperature and at 1273 K under N 2 . J. Solid State Chem. 119 , 191–196 (1995).

Kim, Y.-J., Park, H.-S. & Yang, C.-H. Raman imaging of ferroelastically configurable Jahn–Teller domains in LaMnO 3 . NPJ Quantum Mater. 6 , 62 (2021).

Alonso, J. A. et al. Non-stoichiometry, structural defects and properties of LaMnO 3+ δ with high δ values (0.11≤ δ ≤0.29). J. Mater. Chem. 7 , 2139–2144 (1997).

Ong, S. P. et al. Python Materials Genomics (pymatgen): a robust, open-source python library for materials analysis. Comput. Mater. Sci. 68 , 314–319 (2013).

Kononova, O. et al. Text-mined dataset of inorganic materials synthesis recipes. Sci. Data 6 , 203 (2019).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Villars, P., Cenzual, K. & Gladyshevskii, R. Handbook of Inorganic Substances (De Gruyter, 2017).

Richards, W. D., Miara, L. J., Wang, Y., Kim, J. C. & Ceder, G. Interface stability in solid-state batteries. Chem. Mater. 28 , 266–273 (2016).

Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A. & Klimov, O. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347 (2017).

Brockman, G. et al. OpenAI Gym. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01540 (2016).

Toby, B. H. & Von Dreele, R. B. GSAS-II: the genesis of a modern open-source all purpose crystallography software package. J. Appl. Cryst. 46 , 544–549 (2013).

O’Donnell, J. H., Von Dreele, R. B., Chan, M. K. Y. & Toby, B. H. A scripting interface for GSAS-II. J. Appl. Cryst. 51 , 1244–1250 (2018).

Bartel, C. J. et al. Physical descriptor for the Gibbs energy of inorganic crystalline solids and temperature-dependent materials chemistry. Nat. Commun. 9 , 4168 (2018).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was primarily financed by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division under contract no. DE-AC02-05-CH11231 (D2S2 programme, KCD2S2) and the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Development of the active-learning algorithms, compound-discovery methods and equipment acquisition were supported by the Materials Project programme (KC23MP). Machine-learning techniques for the interpretation of XRD patterns were developed by the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research programme JCESR 2.0 under contract no. DE-AC02-05-CH11231. Computations were performed using the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility supported by the Office of Science and the U.S. Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Work done at UC Berkeley was supported by Umicore Specialty Oxides and Chemicals. N.J.S. was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under grant no. 1752814. We thank Labman Automation for their role in the design and construction of hardware for precursor preparation. We also thank M. Sargent at Berkeley Lab for capturing photos of the A-Lab.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Nathan J. Szymanski, Bernardus Rendy, Yuxing Fei, Rishi E. Kumar

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Nathan J. Szymanski, Bernardus Rendy, Yuxing Fei, Tanjin He, Matthew J. McDermott, Max Gallant, Kristin Persson & Gerbrand Ceder

Materials Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA

Nathan J. Szymanski, Bernardus Rendy, Yuxing Fei, Tanjin He, David Milsted, Matthew J. McDermott, Max Gallant, Haegyeom Kim, Christopher J. Bartel, Kristin Persson, Yan Zeng & Gerbrand Ceder

Energy Technologies Area, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA

Rishi E. Kumar & Anubhav Jain

Google DeepMind, London, UK

Ekin Dogus Cubuk & Amil Merchant

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

N.J.S. developed the algorithms for data analysis and decision-making. N.J.S. and B.R. developed the methods used to correct DFT-calculated lattice parameters. B.R. and Y.F. built the lab’s hardware and developed the refinement algorithm. R.E.K. and Y.F. designed the control software and its integration with the hardware. T.H. created the algorithms for literature-inspired synthesis recipe recommendation. D.M. assisted in hardware development. M.J.D. and M.G. built the filtering pipeline for novel-materials identification. E.D.C. and A.M. applied the filtering from Google DeepMind. C.J.B. assisted in planning the A-Lab’s setup, developing the algorithms for analysis and decision-making, and modelling the lab’s throughput. H.K. and A.J. supervised hardware and software development, respectively. K.P. supervised the contributions from the Materials Project. Y.Z. and G.C. conceived and supervised all of the main aspects of the project.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yan Zeng or Gerbrand Ceder .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

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

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 a-lab hardware setup..

Detailed overview of all physical components in the A-Lab, including the stations for precursor preparation, heating and product handling for XRD characterization.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Robotic installations for sample transfer in the A-Lab.

Grippers on the UR5e robotic arms that are used for sample preparation ( a ), loading/unloading of crucible racks to/from the box furnaces ( b ) and sample retrieval and characterization ( c ). d , Linear rail used to increase the working envelope of the robotic arm that loads/unloads crucible racks to/from the furnaces. e , Carousel used to organize and move samples in the sample preparation station.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Communication protocols connecting each module in the A-Lab.

A local area network (LAN) is built to connect all the pieces of the A-Lab with a control computer using an RS-485 interface (or DB25 for the box furnaces). Each module on the RS-485 interface has an Internet Protocol (IP) assigned to enable communication with the computer. For enhanced cybersecurity, only the control computer has access to the internet, whereas the LAN is isolated from it.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

This file contains the Supplementary Notes and Figures, which provide a more detailed overview of the hardware specifications for the A-Lab, its decision-making process, the pairwise reactions learned from this process and the synthesis modifications needed to obtain targets that could not be made by the A-Lab. The file also contains a description of the targets evaluated by the A-Lab.

Peer Review File

Supplementary data.

This file contains the refined X-ray diffraction data from the successful syntheses performed by the A-Lab. The corresponding crystal structures used during refinement are also included in CIF format.

Supplementary Video 1

Robot arm R1 (Mitsubishi) handling powders and slurries in the sample preparation station used to dispense and mix precursors before heating. The video is played at 20× speed.

Supplementary Video 2

Robot arm R2 (UR5e) moving crucibles from the sample preparation station to the box furnaces. The video is played at 20× speed.

Supplementary Video 3

Robot arm R3 (UR5e) retrieving powder samples (post-annealing) and cooperating with an Aeris X-ray diffractometer for their characterization. The video is played at 12× speed.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Szymanski, N.J., Rendy, B., Fei, Y. et al. An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials. Nature (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06734-w

Download citation

Received : 16 May 2023

Accepted : 10 October 2023

Published : 29 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06734-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

This article is cited by

Google ai and robots join forces to build new materials.

• Mark Peplow

Nature (2023)

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.

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Machine Learning

Title: scalable extraction of training data from (production) language models.

Abstract: This paper studies extractable memorization: training data that an adversary can efficiently extract by querying a machine learning model without prior knowledge of the training dataset. We show an adversary can extract gigabytes of training data from open-source language models like Pythia or GPT-Neo, semi-open models like LLaMA or Falcon, and closed models like ChatGPT. Existing techniques from the literature suffice to attack unaligned models; in order to attack the aligned ChatGPT, we develop a new divergence attack that causes the model to diverge from its chatbot-style generations and emit training data at a rate 150x higher than when behaving properly. Our methods show practical attacks can recover far more data than previously thought, and reveal that current alignment techniques do not eliminate memorization.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Download PDF
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .