Author workflow
Before submission: check the manuscript package and its evidence
A folder can look complete while the submission is still unready. The useful question is whether each requirement for this journal and this stage has a traceable answer. This guide uses an invented observational-study package, SP16, to show how to make that decision. Its files and correspondence are teaching excerpts, not a real study, ethics approval or editorial invitation.
The working sequence
- Record the journal, submission stage and instructions checked on that date.
- List the exact files and supplied evidence before marking any requirement complete.
- Give unresolved rows an owner and a concrete next action.
- Check the assembled submission and retain the platform’s actual receipt separately.
Start with the stage, not a universal checklist
The PLOS Medicine instructions read on 15 September 2026 distinguish initial submission from a subsequent full submission when the journal commits to peer review. For observational research, they request an appropriate reporting checklist, with manuscript locations and supporting excerpts. These are requirements of the named journal; the worksheet below is our own teaching method.
SP16 assumes a fictional stage note saying “Please provide a full submission for peer review.” That sentence establishes the exercise’s stage only. It does not imply acceptance. A real team would retain its actual editorial message and check whether later instructions change any file or reporting requirement.
Reference: PLOS Medicine: submission guidelines, stages and observational studies (read 15 September 2026)
Make a small evidence packet that a colleague can inspect
Give each supplied teaching excerpt an anchor. SP16-A is the stage note above. SP16-B is manuscript version 3: its Methods page 4 says the exercise describes an observational design without assigning an intervention, and page 5 says no prospective analysis plan was written. SP16-C is reporting-checklist version 2: its study-design row points to page 4 and repeats that design statement.
SP16-D is the folder index: manuscript-v3, reporting-checklist-v2 and cover-letter-v1 are present; no ethics documentation or contributor confirmation is supplied. This inventory supports presence claims, not the truth of a study. In real work, inspect the full files and the applicable permissions rather than substituting these short teaching excerpts.
Use states that describe the evidence actually checked
Complete should name the narrow check that passed. Pending means a relevant answer or file is absent. Not applicable needs a reason supported by the supplied design or the journal’s response. Unknown is not the same as not applicable: missing ethics documentation cannot be turned into an exemption by selecting a convenient checkbox.
On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.
| Check and state | File or location; evidence | Owner; next action |
|---|---|---|
| Stage recorded — complete | SP16-A; invitation to full submission | Corresponding author; recheck later instructions |
| Design row located — complete | Checklist-v2 design row → manuscript-v3 p. 4; SP16-B/C | Reporting author; review the remaining checklist rows |
| Ethics information — pending | No ethics material in SP16-D | Responsible author; provide the applicable actual documentation or explanation |
| Prospective plan attachment — N/A in this example | Manuscript-v3 p. 5 says none was written; SP16-B | Analyst; explain when and how analyses were chosen |
| Contributor confirmation — pending | No confirmation supplied in SP16-D | Corresponding author; obtain the required confirmations |
Describe an absent plan without manufacturing a past record
The checklist’s N/A row means there is no existing prospective-plan file to attach. It does not remove the reporting question. The named journal asks authors to distinguish planned and performed analyses and, when there was no prospective plan, explain how and when analyses were determined.
For SP16, the analyst must complete that account before the package is ready. A new explanatory note may document what is known now, with its real preparation date. Calling that note a prospective plan, inventing a historical approval date, or asserting that all decisions preceded access to results would change the record without evidence.
Reference: PLOS Medicine: submission guidelines, stages and observational studies (read 15 September 2026)
Check relationships between files after the final edit
A correct filename can still contain an outdated manuscript. Freeze a candidate inventory, reopen the actual files and follow each checklist location. If version 4 moves the design paragraph to page 6, update the worksheet and checklist together; the earlier page-4 check no longer covers the new package.
Use separate checks for readable figures, complete supplementary files, matching captions and author details. For SP16, these checks are not supplied and must remain unverified. Do not inherit a green status merely because another author once checked a different version. A checksum can identify unchanged bytes, but cannot establish permission, scientific accuracy or journal suitability.
Finish with an honest handoff and a separate receipt
The SP16 handoff is “not ready: ethics information, contributor confirmations and the analysis-decision account remain unresolved.” It is useful precisely because it identifies work to do. The corresponding author receives the worksheet, candidate inventory and outstanding actions; no submission is made by this exercise.
In a real system, selecting files, reaching a preview and pressing a final button are distinct events. After submission, retain the actual identifier, time and platform confirmation, then read back the submitted files if the service permits it. If the result is uncertain, inspect the existing record before trying again. A local checklist or an uploaded file is not a submission receipt.
Questions for a practical final check
- The worksheet names the journal, stage, instruction date and exact candidate versions.
- Every completed check has an evidence anchor and a deliberately limited meaning.
- N/A has a reason; missing approvals and confirmations remain unresolved.
- An absent prospective plan has not been replaced by a fabricated historical document.
- The final package and any later submission receipt have separate records.
Examples illustrate a working method; they do not establish the readiness of a particular journal or manuscript. This is general guidance: check the current policies of the journal concerned. Source links reviewed 15 September 2026.