Most papers are not delayed by bad luck; they lose months to journal choice, authorship, screening, reviewer suggestions and weak revision discipline.
1. Submitting to the wrong journal (or a predatory one)
Why it costs months: Desk rejection after 4–8 weeks, then another full submission cycle. A predatory outlet can cost you money and force you to start over with little usable review.
Fix before you submit:
- Match scope, article type, and audience — not only “impact” talk
- Check peer-review description, editorial board, fees, DOIs, and ethics policies
- Never treat “guaranteed acceptance” as a feature
Use this checklist before you click Submit: How to Identify a Predatory Journal.
Browse open-access journals and author resources at Directive Publications and the Directive Academy.
2. Leaving authorship undecided until acceptance
Why it costs months: Journals pause manuscripts when co-authors disagree. Institutions must often resolve the dispute. The science can be fine; the byline still blocks publication.
Fix early:
- Agree on criteria, order, and corresponding author before writing ends
- Record contributions (for example with CRediT)
- Do not add or remove names after submission without everyone’s written agreement
Read: Who Counts as an Author? and Authorship Disputes: How to Prevent and Resolve Them.
3. Ignoring similarity screening until the editor emails you
Why it costs months: Overlap concerns trigger queries, revisions, or ethics review. Authors then scramble to rewrite under deadline pressure.
Fix:
- Screen your draft yourself before submission
- Focus on long unmatched passages, not only the overall %
- Attribute properly; do not “synonym-spin” copied text
Editors read the report, not the number. See: How Similarity Screening Works.
4. Suggesting the wrong reviewers
Why it costs months: Conflicted or unverifiable suggestions are discarded. In worst cases, fake-review patterns trigger investigation and long delays — or worse.
Fix:
- Suggest independent experts with institutional emails
- Avoid recent co-authors, same-institution colleagues, supervisors/students, and close collaborators
- Never supply an email address you control
Practical rules: Suggesting Reviewers.
Why this matters: Fake Peer Review and Reviewer Fraud.
5. Treating peer review as a debate to “win”
Why it costs months: Defensive rebuttals lead to second and third rounds. A calm, point-by-point revision usually shortens the path.
Fix:
- Answer every comment, even when you disagree
- Separate “we changed the manuscript” from “we explain why we did not”
- Keep tone professional; reviewers and editors remember clarity, not volume
For how rigorous review is structured at Directive Publications: Peer Review Process.
6. Submitting a manuscript that is “almost ready”
Why it costs months: Incomplete ethics statements, missing figures, unclear methods, or formatting mismatches cause technical checks and bounce-backs before review even starts.
Fix:
- Run a pre-submission checklist: figures, tables, references, data availability, conflicts, funding, ethics approvals
- Align article type and word limits with the journal’s guidelines
- Have one co-author proofread for clarity after you are tired of the draft
Author standards and submission routes: For Authors · Submit Manuscript.
7. Confusing preprint, accepted manuscript, and version of record
Why it costs months (or creates later headaches): Wrong version shared, wrong citation used, or rights misunderstood — especially when institutions, funders, or media pick up early drafts.
Fix: Know which version you may post, cite, and correct. Start with Academy guidance on article versions via the Directive Academy (see Preprint, Accepted Manuscript, Version of Record).
Quick recovery plan if you are already delayed
- Identify the real blocker (scope, authorship, ethics, revision quality).
- Fix that one issue completely — do not “patch and hope.”
- Resubmit with a clear cover note listing what changed.
- If integrity is involved, disclose early and follow journal/institution process; delay is better than a later retraction.
For ethics context many journals follow: COPE Core Practices Explained.
Bottom line
Months are usually lost at the edges of publishing — journal choice, authorship, screening, reviewer suggestions, and revision discipline — not in the middle of the experiment.
If you are preparing a submission, use the Directive Academy guides, then check journal fit and submit only when the manuscript and the author team are truly ready.
Frequently asked questions
What is a predatory journal and how do I spot one?
A predatory journal is an outlet that charges authors while providing little or no genuine peer review. Check the peer review description, editorial board, fees, DOIs and ethics policies before you submit. Treat a promise of guaranteed acceptance as a warning sign rather than a feature. A predatory outlet can cost you money and still force you to start over with almost no usable review.
Why does submitting to the wrong journal delay publication by months?
Desk rejection often arrives after four to eight weeks, and then you begin another full submission cycle from the start. Match scope, article type and audience rather than impact talk alone. Checking fit before you click submit is far cheaper than a second round of waiting.
How do I prevent authorship disputes before submitting a paper?
Agree on authorship criteria, author order and the corresponding author before the writing ends. Record contributions, for example with CRediT, so the reasoning is documented. Do not add or remove names after submission without everyone's written agreement. Journals pause manuscripts when co-authors disagree, and institutions often have to resolve the dispute first.
Which reviewers should I avoid suggesting for my manuscript?
Avoid recent co-authors, colleagues at your own institution, supervisors, students and close collaborators, because conflicted suggestions are simply discarded. Suggest independent experts with institutional email addresses instead. Never supply an email address you control, since fake review patterns trigger investigation and very long delays.
What should I do next if my paper is already delayed?
Identify the real blocker first, whether that is scope, authorship, ethics or revision quality. Fix that single issue completely instead of patching and hoping, then resubmit with a clear cover note listing what changed. If integrity is involved, disclose early and follow the journal and institution process, because a delay is better than a later retraction.