Outlier Science
Manuscript-Readiness Checklist
Use this checklist before submitting a manuscript or commissioning a focused review. It helps an author team separate unresolved scientific issues from reporting, presentation and submission tasks. The full resource is available below without an email requirement, with an editable Word version for recording decisions.
This is an original working checklist, not a substitute for a journal's instructions, a discipline-specific reporting guideline or expert review of the research. Completing it cannot establish acceptance readiness in the editorial sense. It can show which parts have been checked, what evidence supports them and what still needs attention.
Take this resource into your work
Use the complete checklist below, or download the editable Word template for your team. No email required.
On this page 9 sections
Identify the manuscript and review basis
Field | Entry |
|---|---|
Working title | Enter the current title |
Manuscript version and date | Identify the exact file being reviewed |
Study and article type | State the design and intended publication format |
Intended journal | Record the current candidate or “not yet selected” |
Journal instructions checked | Record the official URL and check date |
Applicable reporting guidance | Identify the guideline or explain the selection question |
Review coordinator | Name the person maintaining the checklist |
Author decisions still pending | Record matters requiring team agreement |
Use Checked, Action needed, Unclear or Not applicable for every item. “Checked” means the relevant person examined the evidence, not merely that the section exists. Record the reviewer, date and file or location where practical. Explain “Not applicable” when its relevance could reasonably be questioned. All initial statuses below are deliberately “Not assessed”.
A. Question, contribution and claims
ID | Check | Evidence or location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
A1 | The research question and objective are clear and consistent. | Title, abstract and introduction | Not assessed |
A2 | The contribution is explained in relation to the relevant literature. | Introduction and discussion | Not assessed |
A3 | Claims match the design, data and analysis actually used. | Main conclusions and supporting results | Not assessed |
A4 | The manuscript distinguishes findings from speculation. | Discussion and conclusion | Not assessed |
A5 | Important limitations are specific and affect the interpretation appropriately. | Limitations and related wording | Not assessed |
B. Design and methods
ID | Check | Evidence or location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
B1 | The study design, setting and timing are described accurately. | Protocol and Methods | Not assessed |
B2 | Selection, recruitment or sampling procedures are traceable. | Collection records and Methods | Not assessed |
B3 | Measures, instruments or source materials are identified and justified. | Instruments, manuals or source records | Not assessed |
B4 | Planned and later-added methods are distinguishable where relevant. | Protocol, analysis plan and change log | Not assessed |
B5 | Another qualified reader has enough detail to understand the work performed. | Methods and appropriate supplementary material | Not assessed |
C. Data, analysis and results
ID | Check | Evidence or location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
C1 | Results can be linked to an identified data and analysis version. | Dataset identifiers, code and outputs | Not assessed |
C2 | Exclusions, missingness and transformations are explained. | Preparation log and Methods | Not assessed |
C3 | Analytical methods and assumptions suit the question and design. | Analysis plan and specialist review | Not assessed |
C4 | Effect estimates, uncertainty and interpretation are appropriate to the method. | Results and analysis outputs | Not assessed |
C5 | Qualitative or mixed-methods claims are supported by the stated analytical process. | Coding, interpretation and integration records | Not assessed |
C6 | Numbers, denominators, units and labels agree across the manuscript. | Abstract, text, tables and figures | Not assessed |
D. Reporting and supporting material
ID | Check | Evidence or location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
D1 | Applicable reporting guidance has been selected deliberately. | Guideline and rationale | Not assessed |
D2 | Required reporting items are addressed or explained. | Completed checklist and manuscript locations | Not assessed |
D3 | Tables and figures are readable, accurate and cited in the text. | Final embedded and separate files | Not assessed |
D4 | Supplementary material is necessary, labelled and consistent with the main paper. | Supplementary file manifest | Not assessed |
D5 | References exist, support the associated statements and are bibliographically accurate. | Source check and reference list | Not assessed |
For health research, EQUATOR's reporting-guideline library helps identify relevant guidance. PRISMA addresses systematic-review reporting. A reporting checklist helps readers see what was done; it does not certify that the design or conduct was sound. Other disciplines and article types require their own appropriate guidance.
E. Integrity, permissions and responsibility
ID | Check | Evidence or location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
E1 | Authorship and contribution descriptions reflect the actual work and applicable rules. | Author agreement and contribution statement | Not assessed |
E2 | All necessary authors have approved the substantive submission version. | Dated author confirmations | Not assessed |
E3 | Ethics, consent and registration statements accurately describe applicable records. | Approvals, permissions or justified applicability record | Not assessed |
E4 | Funding and conflicts are disclosed according to the journal's requirements. | Author declarations and funding records | Not assessed |
E5 | Third-party text, images, instruments and data are used with the necessary rights. | Licences, permissions and attribution | Not assessed |
E6 | AI use and external assistance are disclosed or acknowledged where required. | Actual use record and current policy | Not assessed |
ICMJE's authorship guidance provides a biomedical framework for contribution and accountability. Check the actual journal and disciplinary requirements. Do not fill missing approvals, permissions or contributions with generic wording. If a record is absent or unclear, resolve the underlying issue with the appropriate responsible person.
F. Journal fit and publication conditions
ID | Check | Evidence or location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
F1 | The journal's audience and scope fit the manuscript. | Recent relevant content and official scope | Not assessed |
F2 | The journal accepts the intended article type. | Current instructions | Not assessed |
F3 | Any required indexing or institutional eligibility has been checked precisely. | Dated official verification and policy | Not assessed |
F4 | Charges, access terms and relevant funding conditions are understood. | Current journal terms and budget approval | Not assessed |
F5 | Related manuscripts, preprints or prior versions are disclosed as required. | Submission history and overlap explanation | Not assessed |
Use the journal-selection guide for the verification process. An indexing label or journal metric does not establish that an individual manuscript is scientifically sound or suitable for that journal.
G. Final submission package
ID | Check | Evidence or location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
G1 | Title, abstract, headings and word limits follow the relevant instructions. | Final manuscript | Not assessed |
G2 | Anonymisation and identifying information follow the journal's actual review model. | Manuscript, files and metadata | Not assessed |
G3 | The cover letter is accurate and makes no unsupported claims. | Final cover letter | Not assessed |
G4 | Required forms, checklists and declarations are complete. | Submission manifest | Not assessed |
G5 | The final files open correctly and contain the intended tables and figures. | File check | Not assessed |
G6 | The submitted package and confirmation will be retained as an identified version. | Record location and responsible author | Not assessed |
Record and resolve outstanding issues
Field for each unresolved item | Entry to complete |
|---|---|
Checklist ID | Identify the item |
Issue and consequence | Describe what is uncertain and why it matters |
Evidence or decision needed | State what will resolve it |
Responsible person | Assign the relevant author or specialist |
Action and review date | Record the task and realistic review point |
Completion evidence | Link the revised file, source or decision |
Final check | Record who verified the resolution |
Treat issues according to their consequences. A missing figure label may be a straightforward correction. An unsupported causal claim, unresolved analysis problem or absent required permission can change whether the manuscript should proceed. Do not use the number of checked boxes to overrule a consequential unresolved item.
Illustrative use: C6 reveals that a table and the abstract use different sample sizes. The author team traces both to their analysis versions, establishes which denominator is appropriate, corrects all affected locations and records the explanation. This is a teaching example, not a reported research result. If the discrepancy changes the interpretation, the action must include that wider revision.
For academic editing, identify whether the need concerns language, structure or substantive feedback. For unresolved methods or results, consider statistical consulting or the relevant specialist service. An initial inquiry can describe the main issues and study type without requiring the complete manuscript or data to be uploaded immediately.