Summary
Four places where strong papers stumble: references; tables/figures/lists; headings & structure; and author/personal details. Before you submit, run an extra, methodical pass on each. Match references to house style and originals; verify that every citation is in the list (and vice-versa) and that DOIs/PMIDs resolve. For visuals, check numbers, labels, units, captions, cross-refs, and consistency—plus accessibility (alt text, colour contrast). For headings, enforce a single hierarchy (levels, fonts, spacing, numbering) and ensure cross-references, TOC entries, and figure/table numbering all align. Finally, confirm author information, affiliations, funders, ethics statements, ORCIDs, data/code DOIs, and—where required—remove-identifying content for blind review.
Work smart: use a one-page style sheet; a recon table that maps in-text citations to list entries; a visual QA checklist; and a “submission metadata” audit. Tiny fixes here prevent desk rejections, copy-edit delays, and post-publication corrections.
📖 Full Length (Click to collapse)
Four Aspects of Scholarly Texts That Require an Extra Check
After hundreds of manuscripts from every corner of the research world, four weak spots appear again and again at proof stage: (1) references; (2) tables, figures, and lists; (3) headings and document structure; and (4) author/personal information. This practical guide shows you how to run one last targeted pass over each area—quickly, thoroughly, and in alignment with publisher requirements—so good research is never delayed by fixable glitches.
1) References: Accuracy, Consistency, and Retrievability
References are infrastructure: they acknowledge prior work and let readers (and indexers) find your sources. They’re also a common reason for desk rejections and slow copy-edits. Avoid pain with a three-way reconciliation: guidelines → in-text → list → original sources.
1.1 Quick workflow
- Freeze the spec. Paste the journal’s sample references into a one-page style sheet (system, punctuation, “et al.” rules, title case/sentence case, page-range en-dashes, journal abbreviations).
- Map citations. Export a citations report from your reference manager; ensure every in-text citation appears in the list and that there are no orphans. Alphabetise (author-date) or renumber (Vancouver) as required.
- Verify metadata. For key sources (all direct quotes; anything central to your argument), open the original and confirm authors, year, title, journal/book, volume(issue), pages/eLocator, DOI/PMID/ISBN. Spot-check the rest.
1.2 What to check (and fix) fast
| Item | What to look for | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Author names | Order, initials, diacritics; corporate authors | Restore accents; enter corporate authors in the author field, not the title |
| Year / letters | 2019a/2019b alignment in text and list | Synchronise labels; refresh citations in your editor |
| Titles | Correct case per style; chemical symbols/formulae preserved | Batch convert case in your manager; hand-fix proper nouns |
| DOIs/URLs | Resolve and canonical form | Use https://doi.org/…; add access dates if required |
| Page ranges | Hyphen vs en-dash; article IDs | Replace - with –; include eLocator where used |
| Special types | Datasets, software, preprints, standards | Follow journal’s templates (version, repository, DOI) |
Before: Lee, S. & Patel, R. (2022). EFFECTS OF SLEEP. J Sleep Sci 12(3) 233-240. doi:10.123/abc
After: Lee, S., & Patel, R. (2022). Effects of sleep. Journal of Sleep Science, 12(3), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.123/abc
2) Tables, Figures, and Lists: Dense Information, Zero Tolerance for Slips
Visuals compress pages of prose into a square of pixels. Readers trust them—and so do reviewers. That’s why tiny misalignments or mislabeled axes can undo confidence. Run a focused “visual QA” pass.
2.1 Visual QA checklist
- Numbering/order: Figures and tables appear in the order cited; list numbering (if any) is correct.
- Captions: Self-contained (sample, measure, model, key takeaway). Define abbreviations; state units; cite data sources.
- Labels/units: Axis titles, legends, decimal places, significant figures; consistent units across visuals.
- Values: Totals sum; percentages to 100% (if intended); no transposed digits; confidence intervals match text.
- Design consistency: Same fonts, sizes, line weights, and colour palette; grayscale-friendly and colour-blind-safe.
- Cross-references: “See Fig. 2” actually points to Fig. 2; list items referenced correctly.
- Accessibility: Provide alt text (if the venue supports it); avoid colour-only encoding (use patterns/markers); ensure sufficient contrast.
- File quality: Resolution per guide (e.g., 300 dpi TIFF for images; vector PDF/SVG for line art); margins and aspect ratios correct.
Before: “Figure 3. Results.”
After: “Figure 3. ROC curves for four classifiers (n=4,560 images). The CNN achieved AUROC 0.91 (95% CI 0.89–0.93), outperforming baselines (p<.001). Shaded bands indicate 95% CIs.”
2.2 Lists (bulleted/numbered)
- Use a single list style across the manuscript; avoid nesting beyond two levels.
- For procedural steps, prefer numbered lists and parallel grammar (“Install…”, “Load…”, “Run…”).
- Ensure list items that are referenced in text retain stable numbering after edits.
3) Headings and Structure: Hierarchy, Numbering, and Spacing
Headings make structure visible. Copy-editors expect a coherent hierarchy and consistent formatting; automated tools (TOC, cross-refs) depend on it. The fastest way to get there is to lean on styles rather than ad-hoc formatting.
3.1 Enforce a single hierarchy
- Levels: Decide whether you have 2, 3, or 4 levels (e.g., H1: section; H2: subsection; H3: sub-subsection). Do not invent mid-way.
-
Styles: Apply Heading 1/2/3 styles (Word) or sectioning commands (LaTeX:
\section,\subsection). Avoid manual bolding/size changes. - Numbering: If required, use automatic multi-level numbering linked to styles; verify 1, 1.1, 1.1.1 sequences after moves.
- Spacing: Set consistent space before/after headings; avoid manual blank lines; ensure heading keeps with next paragraph where appropriate.
- TOC: Regenerate table of contents; confirm page numbers and heading text match.
3.2 Cross-references that don’t break
- Use automatic cross-refs (Word fields/LaTeX
\label/\ref) rather than hard-typed “see Section 3.2”. - After big edits, update fields/compile to refresh all refs to sections, figures, and tables.
Before: “METHODS” (manual caps, 18pt, bold + extra blank lines); subheads bold italic varying sizes.
After: Style-driven hierarchy (H1 16pt; H2 14pt; H3 12pt), consistent sentence case, automatic spacing, auto-TOC updated.
4) Personal and Submission Information: Tiny Fields with Big Consequences
After the heavy lifting, authors often rush the “front matter” and submission metadata. That is where mismatched affiliations, missing ORCIDs, or blind-review leaks happen. Run a final “metadata audit.”
4.1 Metadata audit checklist
- Authorship: Correct order; names spelled as authors prefer (diacritics); contributor roles (CRediT) if required.
- Affiliations: Institution names and departments in the journal’s style; city, state/region, country included; present affiliation vs “work conducted at” notes where needed.
- Contact details: Corresponding author email matches submission portal; phone (if required) is correct.
- Identifiers: ORCID iDs linked for all authors; funder IDs (e.g., Crossref Funder Registry) included; grant numbers verified.
- Compliance statements: Ethics/IRB/REC, consent, animal care, clinical trial registration, data/code availability, competing interests, and acknowledgements align with journal policy.
- Permissions: Third-party materials licensed; figure/table permissions secured; citation of reused images per publisher rules.
- Blind review: Strip self-identifiers from manuscript (author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, file properties, running headers); anonymise self-citations (“[Author], 2023” → “Blinded, 2023”), per policy.
Before: “We collected data at the University of X (our lab) … As we argued in Smith & Chen (2022) …” + PDF metadata “Author: Chen Lab”.
After: “Data were collected at a large research university … As previously reported (Blinded, 2022) …” + cleared file metadata; acknowledgements moved to a separate document.
Putting It Together: A 60-Minute Pre-Submission Sprint
- References (20 min): Apply your style sheet to 5 sample entries; batch-fix punctuation/case; verify DOIs on top 10 citations; sync in-text/list order.
- Visuals (15 min): Run the visual QA checklist; open source files; fix labels/units; refresh cross-refs; regenerate figure/table lists.
- Headings (15 min): Reapply styles to any manual headings; update TOC; check numbering and spacing.
- Metadata (10 min): Confirm authors/affiliations/ORCIDs; paste standardised funding and ethics statements; anonymise files if double-blind.
Common Problems—Fast Repairs
| Problem | Symptom | Repair |
|---|---|---|
| Citation/list mismatch | “(Brown, 2019)” but no Brown in list | Run “orphan citations” report in your manager; add/match; renumber or re-alphabetise |
| Mislabelled figure | Text says Fig. 4 shows ROC; Fig. 4 is a flowchart | Use field-based cross-refs; relink after reordering; regenerate list of figures |
| Heading chaos | TOC shows missing subheadings | Apply heading styles consistently; update TOC; fix level assignments |
| Blind-review breach | Author names in PDF metadata | Clear document properties; export anew; check page headers/footers |
Before → After Mini Gallery
Before: “Impact Of Diet On Sleep” → After: “Impact of diet on sleep” (sentence case per APA).
Before: “Weight 65 (kg)” in header, “65 kg” in body.
After: Header “Weight (kg)”; body “65”. Consistent units.
Before: random blank lines around H2s; widow headings at page bottom.
After: uniform “space before/after”; “keep with next” applied to headings.
Before: “Univ. of XY; Dept. Eng.”; grant “12345”.
After: “University of XY, Department of Engineering, City, Country”; grant “NIH R01-HL12345”.
Downloadable Micro-Templates (copy/paste)
Conclusion: Tiny Checks, Outsized Payoffs
Your manuscript’s argument lives in its sentences—but its publishability often lives in its scaffolding. One more targeted pass over references, visuals, headings, and submission metadata prevents delays and protects credibility. Build a one-page style sheet, a visual QA checklist, and a submission metadata audit into your finishing routine. Those small habits will save days at copy-edit, avoid embarrassing corrections, and help readers trust—and cite—your work.
Need a last pass before submission? Our editors can run a 4-point audit (references, visuals, structure, metadata), fix style drift, and deliver a clean, journal-compliant file with tracked changes and a brief QA report.
