Dr. Karmella Haynes

When it comes to “formatting guidelines,” many authors assume it’s just about font size or reference style. But for handling editors like myself, manuscript formatting is often the first quality filter, and a surprisingly common reason to reject or delay a submission before it ever reaches peer reviewers.

Here’s what I’ve seen firsthand as an editor, and how small formatting oversights can send a paper straight to the “no-go” pile.

Common Composition Pitfalls That Turn Editors Off

1. Two-Column Layout – Please Don’t

Sometimes authors submit manuscripts in a two-column layout that mimics the final journal format. It may look polished—but it’s terrible for peer review. Reviewers often need to annotate, highlight, and quote line numbers. Two-column PDFs disrupt that process and make reviewing harder, not easier.

Tip: Stick with a single-column layout unless the journal explicitly requests otherwise.

2. Figures Embedded in Wrap-Around Text (with Legends Trapped Inside)

A journal submission is not a grant proposal. Figures should not be jammed into the main text with embedded legends. If the legends are hard to read or the layout is cluttered, your data won’t get the attention and evaluation they deserve.

Tip: When embedding figures and legends in the manuscript, do not use the “wrap text” option. The figure should be on its own line, followed by the figure legend underneath as text (not as an image). Or submit figures as separate files, unless the journal says otherwise.

3. Low-Quality and Incomplete Figures

Tiny, blurry figure labels, dim microscopy images, or incomplete panels (e.g., a “figure” with only one simple chart) all signal sloppiness, even if your science is strong. In terms of figure content, editors look for clarity and completeness. Showing a lot of single or two-panel figures to increase the figure count comes across as deliberate “inflation.” A figure should tell a story, not leave reviewers guessing what’s missing.

Tip: Before submitting, zoom out to 100%. If you have to lean into the screen and squint to read labels, so will the editors and reviewers. If a data figure seems too simplified, consider this very effective trifecta: (A) Cartoon illustration of the experimental set-up or diagram of the system (and how it works); (B) Subjective data, such as representative microscope images, culture plates, flow cytometry histogram, colorimetric 96-well plate, etc. (C) Quantitative chart of the data for all relevant conditions and replicates.

4. A Generic, Obviously Recycled Cover Letter

A cover letter that says nothing more than “We are happy to submit our manuscript for your consideration” isn’t helping your case. Editors want to know: Why this journal? Why now? Why is it a good fit? If you don’t make the case clearly, your paper may be desk-rejected or passed off to a broader-scope, lower-impact journal. Also, when suggesting reviewers, be thoughtful. If the list seems randomly picked, or reads like a collection of famous scientists that are not close to the research in your submission, the Editor will ignore your suggestions and may even be less inclined to consider it for review.

Tip: Use the cover letter to connect your work to the journal’s mission or recent themes. One or two strong sentences can make all the difference. When suggesting reviewers, ask yourself hypothetically “who could be a co-author or collaborator on this research?”

The Impact: Delays, Frustrated Reviewers, and Lost Momentum

Formatting and composition issues slow everything down. Editors hesitate to assign underprepared manuscripts to busy reviewers, especially when the layout itself might irritate them. That means delays, resubmissions, and in some cases, straight-up rejection without review.

Take-aways: How to Stay Ahead

• Read the “Instructions for Authors” carefully. Every journal is different.
• Double-check figure clarity. View at 100% zoom.
• Respect the reviewer experience. Make your submission easy to navigate.
• Write a cover letter with purpose. Show that your submission is intentional, not transactional.

Want Feedback Before You Submit?

I work with researchers to make critical decisions in refining their manuscripts for submission: effective formatting, data analysis decisions for figures, narrative structure, deciding what goes into main versus supplemental, and more. Don’t let small missteps keep your work from making a big impact. Click here to book a session.