Summary
Pre-submission inquiries have become increasingly common in academic publishing as a way to save time, reduce uncertainty, and confirm early whether a manuscript is suitable for a particular journal. When used wisely, they can prevent long delays, avoid formatting unnecessary submissions, clarify fit, and help authors decide where to focus their effort. However, many journals give little guidance on how to write an inquiry or when to send one. This article explains the purpose of pre-submission inquiries, when they are advisable, what they should contain, and how to compose them effectively. It also explores common misconceptions, pitfalls to avoid, and how to think strategically about journal fit before submitting.
You will also find a detailed, fully preserved example of a pre-submission inquiry letter—followed by two additional templates in collapsible accordions. These templates provide ready-to-use structures for common scenarios, allowing authors to adapt them for their own research.
📖 Full Length Article (Click to collapse)
Free Sample Letter and Advice for Drafting a Pre-Submission Inquiry
Introduction
Academic and scientific publishing grows more competitive every year. High-impact journals receive thousands of submissions annually, reviewers are overburdened, and editorial decision times can stretch across many months. In this context, pre-submission inquiries have become an increasingly valuable tool for authors hoping to streamline the publication process. These inquiries allow researchers to ask an editor informally whether their manuscript is likely to be a suitable fit for the journal before completing the full submission process.
For authors juggling multiple projects, deadlines and grant requirements, a pre-submission inquiry can prevent wasted effort by avoiding submissions that have little chance of progressing to peer review. At the same time, submitting an inquiry demands careful thought. Not all journals encourage them, and not all manuscripts benefit from this preliminary step. In the sections that follow, this article explains how pre-submission inquiries work, when to send them, what information they should contain and how to make them as effective as possible.
Why Pre-Submission Inquiries Are Becoming More Common
There are several reasons why pre-submission inquiries have gained popularity in recent years. First, the pressure to publish quickly has increased, particularly for early-career researchers facing promotion criteria, grant deadlines or job-market competition. Long delays caused by submitting a manuscript to an unsuitable journal can be damaging. A pre-submission inquiry allows authors to approach several journals simultaneously—something that is prohibited for formal submissions.
Second, inquiries allow authors to avoid prematurely formatting a manuscript according to a journal’s often complex requirements. Many journals have detailed rules about structure, figures, references and supplementary materials. If a manuscript is rejected after months of waiting, the author must repeat the formatting process again for another journal. A pre-submission inquiry, however, requires no formatting at all.
Third, pre-submission inquiries usually receive quick responses. Many editors reply within days, which can save months of waiting for a formal decision. Even a polite decline can be extraordinarily helpful, allowing the author to redirect their efforts immediately. Finally, a pre-submission inquiry forces the author to articulate, early in the writing process, what makes their research significant, original and relevant to the journal. This reflective exercise often strengthens the paper itself.
Understanding What a Pre-Submission Inquiry Is — and Is Not
A pre-submission inquiry is not a shortcut to acceptance. Even when an editor responds positively and invites a full submission, no guarantee exists that the manuscript will be sent for peer review or ultimately published. Editors make their final decisions only after receiving the complete paper, evaluating its quality and obtaining reviewer reports.
Likewise, if an editor advises against submitting a manuscript, this does not mean the paper is unpublishable. Journals vary widely in scope, approach, style and editorial preference. The same manuscript may be rejected by one journal but welcomed by another. A pre-submission inquiry is simply a tool for assessing fit—it should not be seen as a prediction of eventual acceptance or rejection.
Authors should always consult the journal’s website before sending an inquiry. Some journals explicitly prohibit pre-submission inquiries unless requested; others require them for specific article types (such as systematic reviews, special issue proposals or methodological papers). When instructions exist, they must be followed precisely.
When Sending a Pre-Submission Inquiry Makes Sense
In many situations, a formal submission is the more straightforward choice. If you already know that your manuscript aligns strongly with the journal’s scope, reading its recent content confirms this fit and your research is neither urgent nor unusual, a pre-submission inquiry may not be needed.
However, pre-submission inquiries are especially useful in the following scenarios:
- Your research is unusual or interdisciplinary and may not fit neatly into a journal’s stated categories.
- You require rapid publication because your findings are time-sensitive.
- Part of your manuscript has been presented elsewhere or you have overlapping publications that require clarification.
- You have difficulty identifying appropriate journals based on published work.
- The journal publishes limited content in your specific subfield and you wish to confirm interest before submitting.
- The journal explicitly requests pre-submission inquiries for certain article types.
In each case, a pre-submission inquiry helps set realistic expectations and can save considerable time in the long run.
How to Compose an Effective Pre-Submission Inquiry
Pre-submission inquiries vary widely because journal expectations vary. Some journals require detailed information, lengthy abstracts or even full draft manuscripts; others prefer a short email with only essential details. When the journal provides clear instructions, these must be treated as mandatory.
When no instructions are provided, a balanced inquiry includes several key elements:
1. Formal greeting and clear purpose
Address the editor professionally by name if possible. State directly that you are inquiring about the suitability of your manuscript for the journal.
2. A concise description of your research
This should include your research question, objectives, methodology and key results, expressed in accessible language without excessive jargon.
3. Explanation of novelty and significance
Editors want to know what is new about your study and why it matters. Emphasise innovative methods, rare datasets, conceptual contributions or timely findings.
4. Rationale for journal fit
Make a direct case that your research aligns with the journal’s scope, aims and readership. If helpful, mention similarities with recently published articles.
5. Relevant history or special circumstances
If your manuscript has been submitted elsewhere, briefly explain prior decisions or revisions. If your research is urgent or includes unusual formats or supplementary material, mention this clearly.
6. A professional closing
Thank the editor and offer to provide additional information, the full manuscript or supplementary materials upon request.
7. Abstract and supporting files
Paste the abstract below your email unless the journal requests attachments. Some journals ask for a longer descriptive abstract or specific supporting documents.
What To Include in a Pre-Submission Inquiry
The original text already provides a detailed list of contents. These fundamentals remain essential, so the following section is preserved conceptually but has been rewritten for clarity and expansion:
Essentials for Most Journals:
- Formal greeting and explicit expression of purpose.
- Paper title or working title.
- Brief introduction to the research question and motivation.
- Concise summary of methods, materials or evidence used.
- Clear statement of main findings and contributions.
- Explanation of novelty and relevance to journal scope.
- Disclosures of any previous submissions or related publications.
- Mention of time-sensitive issues or special features (e.g., large datasets, complex images, urgent societal relevance).
- Gracious closing and contact information.
- Detailed abstract pasted below the inquiry.
The goal is to communicate enough detail to allow the editor to evaluate fit without overwhelming them with unnecessary complexity.
Sample Letter for a Pre-Submission Inquiry
Below are three collapsible templates you may use for other common scenarios.
📄 Template 1 – Pre-Submission Inquiry for a Review Article (Click to expand)
[Your Name] [Your Institution] [Email Address] [Date] Dear Dr. [Editor’s Last Name], I am writing to inquire whether my manuscript entitled “[Working Title of Review]” would be suitable for submission to [Journal Name] as a Review Article. The purpose of the review is to synthesise recent developments in [field/subfield], with a particular emphasis on [specific focus]. Over the past decade, the literature in this area has expanded rapidly, yet there is currently no comprehensive review that integrates findings from [types of studies, e.g., clinical trials, computational models, field research]. My manuscript aims to address this gap by offering a structured, critical analysis of approximately [number] key publications from [years covered]. The novelty of this review lies in [brief description of new perspective, classification framework, conceptual synthesis]. I believe this will be of substantial interest to your readers because [reason for journal fit, referencing journal aim/scope]. This manuscript has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere. If you believe it may be a suitable fit, I would be delighted to submit the full draft for your consideration. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your guidance. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Position/Title] [Institution]
📄 Template 2 – Pre-Submission Inquiry for Time-Sensitive Research (Click to expand)
[Your Name] [Your Institution] [Email Address] [Date] Dear Dr. [Editor’s Last Name], I am writing to inquire whether my manuscript, “[Working Title],” might be considered for priority or rapid review at [Journal Name] due to the time-sensitive nature of the findings. The study investigates [brief description of research topic], and our results indicate [concise summary of key findings]. These findings have immediate relevance for [policy, public health, emerging technologies, clinical practice, etc.]. Because of [explain urgency—e.g., public health impact, fast-moving field, real-time data], prompt dissemination is essential. Our methods combine [method A], [method B] and [method C], enabling us to analyse [type of evidence]. The work extends current knowledge by [describe novelty or breakthrough]. We believe this aligns strongly with the journal’s interest in publishing timely research in [mention relevant section or theme]. The manuscript is complete and has not been submitted elsewhere. I would be happy to provide the full paper or any additional information you require. Thank you very much for considering this inquiry. I look forward to your advice. Warm regards, [Your Name] [Position/Title] [Institution]
📄 Template 3 – Pre-Submission Inquiry (Full Historic Manuscript Case Study) (Click to expand)
Dr I. C. Script Centre for Medieval Studies University of the Northeast 188 Research Road York, North Yorkshire, UK, YO10 2SS 01904 664422 icscript1@northeast.ac.uk Dr I. M. Interested Managing Editor Medieval Manuscripts and Their Owners 169A West Central Avenue London, UK, EC9M 6BC managingeditor@MMTHjournal.co.uk 14 May 2018 Dear Dr Interested, I am writing to inquire whether my paper entitled ‘Annotating Ownership: Marginalia in the London Manuscript of Abelard’s Love Letters’ is suitable for Medieval Manuscripts and Their Owners. I believe that the discoveries I have made through examining the fourteenth-century marginal annotations of the London Manuscript (Imaginary MS 667788) will interest your readers and I hope that you will think so too. I have included a detailed abstract of the contents of my paper after my message here, and beneath it you will find a transcription and translation of one of the longer annotations. I have also attached a photograph of this annotation as it appears on folio 8r in the manuscript, but let me explain why. Although the London Manuscript of Abelard’s Love Letters has been largely neglected due to its late and imperfect text, it is the most fascinating of the extant medieval copies for the richness of its Latin marginalia. These annotations have not been studied, however, until now. My recent research has revealed that they are the work of an engaged reader who owned (or at the very least repeatedly read) and commented on the manuscript in the years between 1349, the earliest date cited in the manuscript, and 1362, when the annotator implies that the book will be passing to a new reader. The content of the annotations is fascinating for its emotional responses to the Love Letters, its mention of current events and its use of the personal names of people associated with the annotator. In the image I have sent, for instance, the annotator discusses his ‘beloved wife Kit’ and their ‘toft’ on the ‘high street.’ Annotations of this kind are unparalleled in the surviving manuscripts of Abelard’s Love Letters, and this is precisely the kind of original research material that Medieval Manuscripts and Their Owners aims to publish, but there is a hitch. Unfortunately, no last names or specific locations are ever given by the annotator, the events mentioned in the marginalia took place in a number of different places throughout England and the provenance of the manuscript remains a mystery. There are hints that certain areas are more important to the annotator than others, and I discuss these in my paper, but I have not yet been able to identify exactly who the annotator was. I recognise that Medieval Manuscripts and Their Owners prefers to publish papers that identify and name particular manuscript owners, but this situation is rather complicated. You see, I have been able to determine with certainty that the annotator was not just a reader, but the manuscript’s owner; however, I could only do this via the annotations in the London Miscellany (Imaginary MS 223344) that is discussed at length in ‘Some Fourteenth-Century Miscellanies and Their Owners’ published by Professor U. Tooquick in the October 2016 issue of Medieval Manuscripts and Their Owners. The Latin poems in this London Miscellany were also heavily annotated in the fourteenth century, and I have now determined that the annotator of that manuscript is also the annotator of Abelard’s Love Letters in the London Manuscript. I examine the palaeographical evidence for this in my paper, but a quick look at the annotation in the attached photo alongside the Miscellany annotation in Figure 3 (folio 78v) on p.244 of Professor Tooquick’s article will highlight the similarities. The content of both annotations supports this conclusion as well. In each the annotator refers to his ‘beloved wife Kit,’ and the ‘toft’ on folio 8r of the Love Letters reappears on folio 83r of the Miscellany. Furthermore, a list of five books that the annotator claims to have had made for himself and his family is tucked into a corner of the last folio of the Miscellany, and the ‘old love letters’ appear there along with the Miscellany itself, a Psalter, a Book of Hours and what the annotator calls ‘a little book of English romances.’ It might seem, then, that the question of who owned the London Manuscript of the Love Letters is solved given that Professor Tooquick argued persuasively for Earl William of Highcastle Heights as the owner and annotator of the Miscellany. However, Professor Tooquick and I have now had several discussions and, with the new evidence in hand, we are in agreement that Earl William could not have been the annotator and owner of these manuscripts. The Latin proficiency of the annotator and the number of books he claims to have owned convinced Professor Tooquick that Earl William, who had a house in London as well as his family estate, a wife named Catherine and a reputation for reading romances, was the likely owner. The argument against this conclusion, along with suggestions and conjectures about who might have been the owner/annotator of both manuscripts, is also presented in my paper, which Professor Tooquick has read. He it was, in fact, who suggested I contact you to inquire about your journal’s possible interest in my research. Professor Tooquick and I have now decided to collaborate on this problem, so we will be examining both manuscripts in more depth and working to identify their place of production via script, illustration (what little there is of it) and binding. Ideally, we would also be able to discover the other three manuscripts mentioned by the annotator, especially that ‘little book of English romances,’ in the hope that their contents will provide further evidence of this fascinating fourteenth-century book owner and his annotating activities. Although more specific information on his identity may therefore be forthcoming over the next couple of years, exactly who owned the London Manuscript of Abelard’s Love Letters remains uncertain at present, but I do hope the uncertainty will not prevent you from considering my paper for publication in Medieval Manuscripts and Their Owners. Many thanks for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and would be happy to send along the paper itself or any other information that might be helpful. Best regards, Ian Script Ian Script Associate Professor Centre for Medieval Studies University of the Northeast
