Journals for Beginners

Last updated: April 2026 · 9 min read · Audience: Authors, students, early-career researchers · Reading level: Introductory

Who this page is for

This reference is for authors preparing their first peer-reviewed submission and unfamiliar with the publishing process. The discussion assumes no prior submission experience and treats each step as something to be learned, not assumed.

Readers who have submitted before may find the framing too elementary; the related guides linked at the bottom of this page contain more advanced material on response letters, formatting, and indexing.

Overview of publishing options

Three categories of venue tend to appear when beginners search for places to publish. Understanding the differences early reduces wasted submissions later.

The third category should be avoided regardless of how attractive the speed or acceptance rate appears. Verifying that a journal is real, peer-reviewed, and indexed is the single most important habit a beginner can develop.

Considerations particular to beginners

First submissions tend to be rejected or returned with substantive comments. This is normal. Editorial feedback at this stage is more useful than a quick acceptance because it identifies gaps in argumentation, methodology, and presentation that future submissions will be evaluated against.

A second consideration is fit. Manuscripts are commonly desk-rejected because the topic falls outside the journal's stated scope. Reading two or three recently published articles in the target journal before submission will reveal whether the fit is plausible.

Best option based on situation

If budget is the primary constraint

Look for journals that either charge no APC or apply waivers automatically for authors from lower-income regions. Several reputable open-access journals operate on institutional or grant subsidies and do not pass costs to authors. Avoid trading low cost for opaque editorial standards.

If speed is the primary constraint

Choose journals that publish their median time-to-decision and time-to-publication. A journal disclosing a 4–8 week peer review window is more useful than one promising '24-hour acceptance', which usually indicates the absence of meaningful review.

If credibility is the primary constraint

Prioritise journals indexed in widely recognised databases (Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ, PubMed where applicable), with ISSNs registered and DOIs assigned through Crossref. Editorial board members should be identifiable and reachable through their institutional pages.

A recommended approach

A practical sequence for a first submission is: identify three plausible journals based on scope, read their author guidelines in full, compare APCs and timelines side by side, prepare the manuscript according to the most demanding of the three sets of requirements, then submit to the strongest fit first.

If the first journal returns a rejection with reviewer comments, revise the manuscript thoroughly before submitting elsewhere. Reusing reviewer feedback across submissions is one of the few low-cost ways to improve acceptance odds.

What improves the chances of acceptance

• Match the manuscript to the journal's stated scope, not the other way around.
• Follow author guidelines literally, including word counts, reference style, and figure formats.
• Write a focused abstract that states the contribution in plain language.
• Engage with prior work in the field rather than ignoring it.
• Have the manuscript read by someone outside the immediate research team for clarity.
• Address ethical declarations (conflicts of interest, data availability) upfront.

Decision guidance: how to choose between options

If two journals appear comparable in scope and standing, the deciding factors should be: timeline transparency, accessibility of editorial contact, and whether the submission system itself is functional. A journal whose website is broken or whose editorial office does not respond to enquiries is unlikely to handle the manuscript well after submission.

Example scenarios

Scenario: a master's student with a final-year project

A student adapting a master's project for publication should treat it as a substantial rewrite rather than a copy. The thesis introduction is typically too long, the methodology section needs to be condensed, and the discussion must contextualise the result against published literature. A reputable open-access journal with a moderate APC and clear peer review process is generally suitable.

Scenario: a PhD researcher submitting a chapter

PhD candidates can convert a thesis chapter into a journal article, but the framing differs: the article must stand independently, with its own introduction, methodology summary, and conclusion. Targeting a journal in the same disciplinary area as the thesis improves the likelihood that reviewers will recognise the contribution.

Scenario: a low-budget independent researcher

Researchers without institutional funding should look for journals that either waive APCs or publish under fully subsidised models. Submitting to a journal that turns out to charge a substantial fee at acceptance, with no prior disclosure, is a common cause of frustration; reviewing the fee policy before submission avoids this.

What to do next

If a target journal has been identified and the manuscript is broadly ready, the next step is to verify the submission requirements one final time and prepare the cover letter. Authors planning to submit to a journal in the EP Journals Group portfolio can use the central submission form, which routes the manuscript to the relevant editorial office.