Episode 5: Choosing a Journal and Navigating Peer Review

Rehan, Muhammad

By the end of the next ten minutes, you will know exactly which three journals fit your paper.

At this point, you should have a clear topic, a defined research question, some data or evidence, and at least a draft of your work. A 'draft' should be a coherent representation of your research's main points, typically ranging from an outline with major sections to a nearly complete version, depending on how much you have developed your ideas so far. This clarification can help you gauge your readiness to proceed to the next stage.

Now, instead of asking “What am I writing?” you need to consider “Where does this work belong, and how can I get it accepted?”

At HSE, many first-time authors think that finishing the thesis or term paper means the hard part is done. However, publishing is a separate project, and it comes with its own challenges. In fact, about 60% of strong papers can face rejection at the desk review stage if they are sent to an inappropriate journal. This highlights the importance of choosing the right publication venue. On the other hand, even a decent paper sent to the proper journal, with thoughtful responses to reviewers, often succeeds.

This episode is about two things:

Choosing a journal that actually fits your work
Understanding and navigating the peer review process

Publication Is Part of the Research Design

Publication is not just an afterthought. It is part of your research design.

Before choosing a journal, ask yourself:

What is the main contribution of my paper? (theoretical, methodological, empirical, practical)
Who is the primary audience? (specialists, interdisciplinary scholars, regional researchers, practitioners)
What methods and data am I using? (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, experimental, case study, survey, etc.)

For example, a student at HSE might write about "The impact of social media use on first-year students’ academic performance." This topic could fit in an education journal, a psychology journal, or a digital media journal, depending on the author's main focus and audience. Consider a student named Alex who concentrated on learning outcomes. Alex submitted the paper to an education journal, emphasizing educational strategies. Conversely, choosing a psychology journal to highlight the cognitive effects explored the social media use among young adults.

Your answers to these questions immediately filter out many journals. A journal that does not match your field, method, or audience is not “ambitious”; it is simply the wrong fit.

Step 1: Build a Shortlist of Possible Journals

Where do you start?

Instead of chasing one “dream journal, create a shortlist of 3–5 realistic options.

You can start by looking at:

Recent papers you cited in your literature review
Journals where your adviser or lab members publish
Journals mentioned in your programme syllabi or at Academic Curator / CSAD events

For each journal, quickly check:

Scope and discipline

Does the journal clearly publish work in your subfield (e.g., labour economics, political behaviour, marketing analytics, data science for business)?

Article types

Does it accept the kind of text you have: empirical article, theoretical paper, review paper, short note, etc.?

Methods and data culture

Does the journal regularly publish papers using methods similar to yours (econometrics, experiments, interviews, surveys, text-as-data, etc.)?

If the answer to any of these is “no,” take that journal off your list. Even a “maybe” is usually a warning sign.

Journal Fit Checklist (Quick Self-Test)

Before you fall in love with a journal, ask:

Have they published at least 3–5 papers in the last two years that look like “siblings” of my work?
Would my paper feel visually and thematically at home in their latest issue?
Does my method match what they usually publish?
Can I clearly explain in one sentence why this journal’s audience needs my paper?
Am I comfortable putting this journal on my CV?

If you cannot answer “yes” to most of these questions, keep looking for a better fit.

Step 2: Check Quality, Legitimacy, and Practicalities

Once you have a small list, look deeper:

Reputation and indexing

Is the journal recognized in your field? Is it indexed in places like Scopus or Web of Science? For student publications, you do not always need a top-tier journal, but it should be a reputable one.

Avoid predatory journals

When in doubt, ask your adviser or Academic Curator. If you would be embarrassed to list it on your CV, do not submit.

Open access and fees

Is there an article processing charge (APC)?

Does your lab / supervisor / grant cover it?

Is there a free route, such as green open access?

Look at practical constraints such as word limits, reference styles, language requirements (e.g., English only or bilingual), and data or code policies.

Sometimes a journal matches your topic well but is not practical for you because of high fees, strict word limits, or a slow review process.

Step 3: Approach the 'Aims and Scope' as if You're Matching a DNA Sequence

Many students only skim the 'Aims and Scope' section, but you should read it with the same attention to detail as a scientist matching DNA strands. Just as each nucleotide must align perfectly for a successful pairing, ensure your paper's focus aligns seamlessly with the journal's ambitions. This careful alignment can mean the difference between a manuscript that fits snugly within the journal's thematic puzzle or one that feels like an awkward match.

Read it carefully and ask:

Does my paper clearly fit the themes the journal says it cares about?
Could my article be cited by the authors who already publish there?
Do recent articles look like cousins of my paper or like work from another field entirely?

If your study on student academic performance appears alongside papers on macroeconomic modeling or animal cognition, the journal is probably not the right fit, even if its title seems broad.

Step 4: Prepare Your Manuscript for Submission

Before submission, align your paper with the chosen journal's author guidelines: Format It according to the author guidelines (section structure, headings, reference style, tables/figures). Respect word limits and tighten sections where needed. Remove self-identifying details if the journal uses double-blind review. Prepare required supplementary materials (appendices, data/code repository links, ethics/funding statements). Reflect on potential challenges by asking yourself: 'Which guideline will be hardest for you to follow and why?' This self-assessment can prompt proactive revisions and foster ownership, reducing the need for downstream edits.

Format according to the author guidelines (section structure, headings, reference style, tables/figures).
Respect word limits and tighten sections where needed.
Remove self-identifying details if the journal uses double-blind review.
Prepare required supplementary materials (appendices, data/code repository links, ethics/funding statements).

You are not submitting your thesis to a journal. You are submitting a journal article that follows the journal’s guidelines.

Step 5: Submitting the Paper

Most journals use an online submission system.

You will usually need to upload:

Manuscript (sometimes anonymised)
Title page (author names, affiliations, contact details)
Abstract and keywords
Cover letter

A short, effective cover letter:

States the title and article type.
Summarises in 3–4 sentences what the paper does and why it fits this journal.
Confirms that the work is original, not submitted elsewhere, and follows ethical standards.

Keep your cover letter simple and professional. While it cannot make up for a weak paper, it helps editors quickly understand the value and fit of your work.

What Actually Happens in Peer Review?

After you submit your paper, the process may seem unclear, but it usually follows a standard set of steps. Initial editorial check (desk review)

The editor checks basic fit and quality. Many papers are rejected here without external review. This usually means: the wrong journal, a topic too far from the scope, or a manuscript not ready.

Assignment to reviewers

If the editor sees potential, they invite a few experts to evaluate your paper.

Review process

originality and significance

quality of methods and analysis

clarity and organisation

engagement with literature

ethical and technical standards

Editorial decision

Common outcomes:

Desk reject – stopped at the editor level.

Reject after review – reviewers see major problems.

Major revision – promising but needs substantial work.

Minor revision – mostly solid; some polishing required.

Accept – rare in the first round.

Peer Review Email Decoder

Very roughly, you can read decisions like this:

“Desk reject”

= “Not for this journal.” Consider reframing or trying another outlet.

“Reject with detailed reviews”

= “This version will not be published here, but the comments can help you improve the paper for elsewhere.”

“Major revision”

= “We see potential, but you need to work hard and respond carefully.” This is actually good news.

“Minor revision”

= “You are close. Fix these specific issues, and you’re likely in.”

“Accept”

= “Celebrate, then get ready for proofs and minor technical edits.”

How to Respond to Reviewers

When you receive the reviews:

Pause before reacting.

If the comments seem harsh, read them once, then take a break and look at them again the next day.

Extract the signal.

Even if the tone is imperfect, look for patterns: unclear research question, missing literature, weak method explanation, limited robustness checks, etc.

Create a response document.

Many authors use a table with three columns:

Reviewer comment

Your response

Where the change appears in the revised manuscript

Your tone should be confident but not defensive, and open but not overly submissive.

Make the editor’s work easy.

Clear, well-structured responses make it simpler for the editor to say: “Yes, the authors have addressed the concerns.”

Dealing with Rejection

Rejection happens to everyone.

The key is what you do afterwards:

Use the feedback.

Even with a rejection, the reviews often show you where the paper is weak or unclear.

Fix what can be fixed.

Clarify your contribution, strengthen the research design section, improve the discussion, and clean up tables and figures.

Choose the next journal strategically.

Do not immediately submit to another journal with the same scope or even higher standards. Instead, look for a journal that is a realistic match for your work.

Two Things to Try This Week

To turn this episode into action:

Build a 3–5 journal shortlist for your current or future project.
For each journal, write:

Why your paper fits the scope

What article type you would submit

Any practical constraints (word limit, fees, language, etc.)

Draft a mini “revise and resubmit” response.

Invent 3–4 typical reviewer comments (e.g., “The research question is not clearly formulated, “The methodology is not sufficiently detailed”) and practice writing polite, precise responses.

If you are at HSE and unsure where to send your paper, bring your journal shortlist or draft to the Academic Curator consultations. You do not have to navigate the publication maze alone.