I attended the Elsevier Author Workshop online on 29 September. The presenter spoke from Seoul about preparing and submitting a journal manuscript from a publisher’s perspective. In “Towards a Conference Publication”, I had written about developing my research into a paper. This webinar helped me connect that goal to the structure of a manuscript and the criteria an editor applies.
The presentation covered manuscript preparation, publication and peer review, research integrity, and generative AI. It was followed by questions from attendees. I have selected the parts of the presentation and discussion that connect directly to preparing my own paper. This account does not replace the current instructions of any particular journal.
Start with the contribution
Before writing, I need to be able to say what the work adds and who needs to read it. The workshop emphasised a focused contribution supported by reliable evidence and a journal whose audience fits the work. Choosing a journal first and forcing a study into its scope would reverse that reasoning.
One practical suggestion was to arrange the main findings through figures and tables before refining the prose. A draft can then be revised from the reader’s perspective. I took this as a way to test whether the evidence supports the central claim, rather than a way to make finished results look more attractive. When I prepare a manuscript, I want to write down the research question, main result and contribution before expanding the sections.
Keep the same question in view throughout the paper
The title and abstract are the first parts readers and editors encounter. A useful title identifies the subject and actual finding; the abstract explains what was done and found without requiring the rest of the paper. Vague opening phrases, internal abbreviations and claims that exceed the data obscure that message.
The introduction establishes the problem and research gap. The methods give enough detail to understand and assess the approach. The results show what was observed, while the discussion interprets those observations in context and addresses their limits. Figures and tables should carry necessary evidence without repeating the same information in the text. A conclusion can then state the contribution and remaining questions without replaying the whole paper.
The workshop also stressed short, direct sentences, one idea at a time and consistent tense. For me, clear reasoning needs to come before elaborate English phrasing.
How editors and reviewers read the work
The session described an editor’s first reading as a check of the title and abstract for topic and journal fit, followed by the introduction for the research question and gap. If I cannot explain why the work belongs in a journal and matters to its readers, I should revisit the choice of venue.
A cover letter should do more than repeat the abstract. The advice was to keep it to one page, state the aim, main finding, novelty and journal fit, and include only context the editor needs, such as a special issue or earlier correspondence. At submission, I would still need to follow that journal’s Guide for Authors for declarations and supporting material.
The workshop also showed how to respond to reviewers: address each point separately, identify the change and its location, and explain disagreement with evidence and a professional tone. I want to use that process to examine the argument and its support, rather than treat a revision as a formality.
Authorship and disclosure
The ethics section covered plagiarism, distorted results, duplicate submission and undisclosed interests. Authorship needs to be settled before submission. The slides described an author as someone who makes a substantial contribution to the work, takes part in drafting or important revision, approves the final version and accepts responsibility for it. Language editing alone and honorary authorship were presented as different from that role.
Research support and relevant relationships also need to be disclosed. Because the exact declaration requirements belong to the target journal, it would help to keep a record of contributions, support and possible interests while the research is under way.
Generative AI as assistance, with responsibility retained by the author
The workshop materials described possible uses of generative AI for literature exploration, organising ideas and polishing language. They also placed responsibility for accuracy, originality, data protection and intellectual property with the author, and discussed disclosure of AI use at submission.
The slides were more specific about images. They distinguished limited use for explanatory diagrams and visualisations derived from underlying data from restrictions on creating or altering primary research images, such as microscopy images, and on generating graphical abstracts with AI. Where AI is itself part of the research method, its use needs to be described in the methods. These were the points presented at the September 2026 workshop; I would check the target journal’s latest guidance before submitting.
For reviewers and editors, the presentation emphasised manuscript confidentiality and independent human judgement. As an author, I also need to decide what research material can be entered into an external tool and keep track of what the tool assisted with and what I verified myself.
Questions that clarified the submission boundaries
Earlier public versions and a subsequent submission
Attendees asked whether work from a dissertation could become a journal article and whether a publicly available thesis counted as prior publication. The presenter advised checking with the target journal or editor because the answer can depend on the field and journal. She said that preprints were allowed under Elsevier’s sharing policy at the time, but that authors should disclose a posted preprint at submission. An overlap check may otherwise flag a close match between the manuscript and its public version. I should not assume that a thesis and a preprint are treated identically.
The discussion also distinguished simultaneous submission from trying another journal after rejection. The same manuscript should not be under consideration at several journals at once. Once the first journal has sent an official rejection, it can be submitted elsewhere. The contributors should also agree on authorship and order before submission.
AI-assisted language work and responsibility for the manuscript
A question about translation and English polishing drew a distinction between improving language and generating or distorting the research itself. The presenter accepted language assistance for researchers writing in a second language, while keeping the author responsible for every submitted claim. Any use needs to be disclosed according to the target journal’s requirements. She also cautioned against treating a plagiarism-check percentage as a verdict without looking at where and why text overlaps; repeated wording in a methods section may need different interpretation.
Asked about detecting AI-generated manuscripts, the presenter said the focus was on misconduct and breaches of publication ethics rather than detecting AI use in itself. For my own work, the practical question is whether the evidence and results are real, and whether I can explain what the tool helped with and what I checked myself.
Communicating with editors and reviewers
The cover-letter questions brought out common problems: a long or recycled letter, an impersonal salutation, and a message that hides the paper’s contribution. The letter should explain why this work belongs in that journal instead of copying the abstract. The presenter also identified submissions outside a journal’s scope and poorly prepared manuscripts as common reasons for an early editorial rejection. She said that a rise in submission volume did not mean a corresponding rise in acceptance.
Asked how an anonymous but inadequate review is handled, the presenter said that editors assess review reports and may seek another reviewer, which can lengthen the process. There was no fixed estimate for another round after major revision: timing depends on the field, the available editors and reviewers, and whether further experiments are needed. If a submission appears to have stalled, the author can check its status and send a brief, polite enquiry to the editor.
Open access and acceptance
An attendee asked whether an early-career researcher would have a better chance with an open-access or subscription journal. The presenter said that the access model itself did not determine an editor’s acceptance decision. I should assess the journal’s readership, scope and requirements before treating its business model as a factor in venue choice.
What I will carry into the next manuscript
The webinar gave me a clearer order of work. First, I should state a contribution that the results support and test its logic against the figures, tables and draft. Then I should check the readership and submission requirements of a suitable journal. Finally, I should make authorship, earlier public versions, competing interests and AI use clear in the manuscript and submission material.
My longer-term goal remains to develop the research towards a suitable conference or journal submission. This workshop dealt mainly with journal publication; a conference submission would require its own format and policy checks. I intend to use these questions when preparing a manuscript.