Formatting errors are among the most common reasons for manuscript desk rejections or revisions. Whether you’re a first-time author or an experienced researcher, overlooking journal guidelines can cost valuable time and delay publication. This guide identifies the most frequent formatting mistakes and how to avoid them.
1. Not Following Word Limits
Why Word Limits Matter
Journals enforce word limits to maintain consistency, manage publication costs, and ensure readability. Exceeding the limit signals that you haven’t edited your work carefully.
Common Issues
- Exceeding the stated word count by 10-20%
- Excluding or including methodology in word count inconsistently
- Misunderstanding which sections count toward the limit (abstract, references, appendices often don’t)
Best Practice
Use your word processor’s word count function and check the journal’s specific guidelines. Build in a 50-word buffer during writing, then edit down to meet the requirement exactly.
2. Not Following Prescribed Manuscript Structure
Expected Organization
Most journals require a specific structure to guide readers and reviewers through your research logically.
Standard Components
- Introduction – Problem statement and research questions
- Methods – Replicable procedures
- Results – Findings presented objectively
- Discussion – Interpretation and implications
Separate sections that some journals may ask for
- Literature review
- Limitations
- Implications
- Conclusion
Example
The BMJ asks for a separate summary box divided into 2 sections on what is already known about the topic and what your study adds.
The European Journal of Educational Research requires separate literature review, conclusion, recommendations, and limitations sections.
Impact of Deviations
Failing to follow the prescribed structure may result in desk rejection before peer review. Reviewers expect to find information in predictable locations.
Solution
Have your paper checked by a manuscript formatting service prior to submission. Trained professionals can help you understand journal guidelines and fix these issues, so that you avoid desk rejection.
3. Missing Declarations and Disclosures
Required Disclosures
Most journals now mandate explicit declarations to ensure transparency and ethical standards.
Essential Declarations
- Funding sources and acknowledgment of grant numbers
- Conflicts of interest (financial and non-financial)
- Data availability statements
- Author contributions (who did what)
- Ethical approval confirmations
- Competing interests
Example
PLOS journals require a detailed funding disclosure statement and threaten to retract or reject articles with incorrect funding information.
Template Approach
Read author guidelines carefully, note down what sections and declarations are required, and use your journal’s exact wording. Missing or vague declarations can lead to rejection or retraction after publication.
4. Incomplete Metadata
What Counts as Metadata
Metadata includes all identifying and descriptive information about your article and authors.
| Metadata Element | What to Include | Common Mistakes |
| Author names | Full names exactly | Inconsistent spelling and inconsistent use of middle initial vs full middle name |
| Affiliations | All current institutions | Missing secondary affiliations |
| Keywords | 4-8 relevant terms | · Not verifying that keywords are MeSH if the journal asks for MeSH keywordsot verifying that keywords are MeSH if the journal asks for MeSH keywords
· Repeating keywords from the title when the journal asks for different keywords from the title |
| Running head | Short title (50-60 characters) |
|
| Corresponding author | Complete contact details | Using outdated email or an email ID that the corresponding author has limited access to |
Missing metadata delays indexing and reduces article discoverability. Editage editors are trained, however, to spot incomplete or conflicting metadata, so that you can submit your article smoothly and easily.
5. Missing or Not Citing Tables and Figures
Integration Requirements
Tables and figures must be referenced in text before they appear and should enhance rather than duplicate your narrative.
Critical Errors
- Figures or tables included but never mentioned in text
- Using words like “shown in Table below” instead of “Table 1”
- Poor positioning: figure appears before it’s referenced
- Missing figure legends or table titles
- Figures or tables included in the main manuscript instead of being separate files or vice versa
- Not adhering to journal’s content recommendations for tables/figures.
- Figures or tables cannot be understood without referring to the main paper
Example
The journal Radiology has specific content requirements for Table 1 (participant demographics) and Figure 1 (participant flowchart).
Best Practice
Reference figures and tables by number in order of appearance. Ensure each visual has a descriptive title and caption explaining what readers should observe. Define every abbreviation used in a figure/table in the caption/legend.
6. Not Anonymizing Manuscript Fully
Many journals use double-blind peer review to reduce bias. Your manuscript must not reveal your identity to reviewers.
Anonymity Violations
- Author names in headers or footers
- Self-citations written as “we previously showed” instead of using third person
- Identifying institutional details in methodology
- Traceable funding acknowledgments in the main text
- Acknowledgments section revealing authorship
Example
Oxford University Press provides detailed guidelines about blinding for submissions to all its journals.
7. Submitting Figures in Unsupported Format or Without Meeting Technical Specifications
Journal submission systems are strict about figure formats and quality specifications.
Common Technical Issues
- Resolution – Submitting 72 DPI when 300 DPI required
- Format – PNG accepted but you submitted TIF or BMP
- File size – Exceeding maximum limits (typically 10-20 MB per image)
- Colors – RGB instead of CMYK, or color images for print journals
- Fonts – Embedded fonts not included in the image
- Labels – Text too small or pixelated when enlarged
Example
Cell Press has specific guidelines on the kind of processing that can be done to figures, especially micrographs
Cambridge University Press asks for TIFF, EPS, or PDF files only for figures:
Pre-Submission Checklist for Artwork
Download figure requirements from the journal website. Test each image in the submission system before finalizing. Many rejections occur due to figures failing technical checks.
8. Abstract Not Following Journal Guidelines for Structure and Content
The abstract is often the first element reviewers read. It must follow the journal’s specific structure and word limit precisely.
Common Structural Requirements by Discipline
| Element | Psychology/Social Science | Medical/Clinical | Engineering |
| Background | Problem/question | Patient population | Problem statement |
| Methods | Design and sample | Intervention details | Technical approach |
| Results | Key findings with stats | Outcomes and statistics | Performance metrics |
| Conclusion | Implications | Clinical significance | Applications |
Frequent Abstract Errors
- Missing required sections (e.g., no methodology statement)
- Exceeding abstract word limits (often 150-250 words)
- Including citations or references
- Using undefined abbreviations
- Stating personal opinions instead of objective findings
Write your abstract last, after your paper is complete. Check the journal’s exact abstract template before finalizing.
Example
JAMA Oncology asks for a 300-word, 3-part abstract for narrative review articles.
