Journal Paper Writing Guide | SCI/EI Paper Format, Submission, and Reviewer Response Tips

What this page helps you do first

• IMRAD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) standard writing and proportions
• SCI/Core journal selection strategy and submission process details
• Reviewer response framework and common problem coping strategies

Core differences between journal papers and theses

Journal papers and theses differ fundamentally in writing purpose, audience, and structure. Theses demonstrate students' complete research capability with comprehensive structure; journal papers need to present a complete research contribution within limited space (typically 5,000-8,000 words), requiring "small but deep" rather than "large and comprehensive."

Journal paper readers are professional scholars in the field who expect to quickly judge the paper's relevance and innovation. Therefore, journal papers emphasize research innovation and conclusion reliability rather than complete description of the research process.

IMRAD: Standard structure for journal papers

• Introduction: research background, problem statement (usually starting from research gaps), research purpose. Introduction is not an expanded literature review but a focused problem-oriented discussion, typically 15-20% of the paper
• Methods: complete description of research design including sample/data, measurement tools, analysis methods. Methods should be detailed enough for replication but not as exhaustive as theses
• Results: structured presentation of core findings with tables and figures for support. Results state findings without explaining reasons (that is Discussion's job)
• Discussion: interpretation of results, comparison with existing research, theoretical contribution, managerial implications, limitations and future directions. Discussion is key to demonstrating research depth and academic value

How to extract journal paper innovation points

• Theoretical innovation: what new concepts, frameworks, or extensions/modifications to existing theory are proposed
• Methodological innovation: what new methods, tools, or improvements to existing methods are applied
• Empirical innovation: what new data, samples, or scenarios are covered
• Practical innovation: what new implications for management practice or policy formulation exist
• Innovation quality over quantity: one clear innovation point is more persuasive than three vague ones

SCI/EI journal selection strategies

• Match first: research topic, methodology, and writing style must align with target journal scope; judge by recent published articles
• Impact factor reference: impact factor represents journal academic influence, but high-IF journals have intense competition and longer review cycles
• Review cycle consideration: core journals typically take 3-6 months; SCI journals may take longer—plan according to graduation or promotion timelines
• Avoid predatory journals: CAS periodically publishes international warning journal lists; check latest list before submitting
• Open access vs subscription: open access journals charge APC; subscription journals usually do not charge but have longer publication cycles

Submission Process and Key Notes

• Pre-submission preparation: Cover letter, Highlights (3-5 points), Graphical Abstract (required by some journals)
• Format check: strictly follow target journal Author Guidelines including word limits, reference format, image resolution requirements
• Reviewer recommendations: most journals require recommending 3-5 peer reviewers; choose scholars in relevant research areas without conflict of interest
• Submission systems: commonly used systems include ScholarOne, Editorial Manager, Elsevier EVISE, etc.
• Status tracking: meanings of Submitted, Under Review, Revision Required, Decision in Progress

Reviewer response framework and techniques

• Response principles: respond point-by-point, sincere attitude, humble wording. Even when disagreeing, thank first then explain
• Response framework: thank reviewer for time and suggestions → list revisions point-by-point → explain changes (highlight or color-code) → if maintaining objection, provide sufficient academic justification
• Common problem responses: experimental supplement requests, data reanalysis, literature citation additions
• Response letter format: "Point-by-point response" format recommended, with one response paragraph after each reviewer comment
• Mistakes to avoid: adversarial tone, missing reviewer comments, vague responses like "has been revised" without explaining what was changed

Frequently asked questions

How many words does a typical SCI paper need?

Requirements vary by journal; research papers typically fall between 5,000-8,000 words, while review papers can exceed 10,000. Check target journal's Author Guidelines for specific requirements; exceeding word limits may result in immediate rejection.

Can I resubmit to the same journal after rejection?

After rejection, substantial revisions based on reviewer comments are usually needed before resubmission. If the paper has been significantly revised, consider submitting to a better-matched journal; some journals have "revised version may be resubmitted" rules, but explain in the cover letter.

Reviewers ask for additional experiments but they will take too long. What should I do?

Honestly explain in your response that experiments are underway with expected completion time, and provide preliminary data or pilot study results as support. Meanwhile, adjust conclusion wording in the Discussion to acknowledge limitations and suggest future research directions.

How to improve submission acceptance rate?

First ensure solid research quality and clear innovation points; second, invest in language polishing before submission (most SCI journals have high language requirements); third, select well-matched journals; fourth, take reviewer comments seriously with substantive responses.

How are co-first author and corresponding author recognized?

Co-first authors have equal contributions and must be clearly indicated in the paper (e.g., "X and Y contributed equally"). Corresponding authors are typically project leaders or primary supervisors responsible for journal communication and reviewer responses. Recognition of co-first authors varies by discipline; some institutions only credit the first-ranked author in promotion assessments.