Every desk rejection costs time. For authors, it means delays. For editors, it means extra work. Pre-submission checks can change that by putting better tools and information in authors’ hands before they hit submit.
In this webinar, perspectives from across the publishing ecosystem explore what that shift means.
You’ll get a clearer view of:
- Where the current submission process breaks down.
- What pre-submission checks can and can’t solve.
- How the balance of responsibility between authors and editors is shifting.
This is the first webinar in our series on pre-submission checks. Upcoming sessions will feature product deep dives and demos from vendors building in this space.
Webinar summary
This webinar tackled where the submission process breaks down, and what better pre-submission tools can do about it. The panel agreed that the first friction point isn’t typically a formatting issue. It’s journal selection, scope mismatch, and missing ethics statements.
Three key ideas stood out:
- Friction isn’t always bad if it shortens the path to publication.
- Common standards across publishers would save authors from reworking the same manuscript for every journal.
- AI works best as a guide, not a gatekeeper, with humans still making the scientific call.
Publishing is shifting fast: more submissions, more AI, and more pressure on every role in the chain. Conversations like this one matter because they put authors and editors in the same room to share what’s working amidst the chaos.
What’s clear is this: when authors get clearer signals earlier, editors get cleaner submissions, and everyone gets to the science faster.
Speakers
Moderator
Share this post
