Submission Pre-Check (Before It Reaches Your Editor)

Overview

“Half of what lands in my queue is missing an ethics statement, ignores our formatting, or is not even in scope — and I am the one who has to write to the author about it.” Technical screening is essential and tedious, and when editors do it themselves it delays every other decision.

NeucitePress screens each new submission against the journal’s own requirements before it reaches the editor: files and metadata complete, scope stated in the aims, formatting and reference style followed, ethics approval, consent, funding and conflict statements present, similarity report reviewed, and the journal’s reporting checklists attached. Submissions that pass are marked editor-ready; those that do not are returned to the author with a specific, courteous letter listing what to fix.

Who this is for: editors-in-chief and managing editors of journals receiving roughly 10–50 submissions a month who need a reliable first filter without hiring a full-time managing editor.

What’s Included

• Completeness check — manuscript files, figures, tables, supplementary material, author metadata and ORCID iDs
• Scope and article-type check against the journal’s stated aims
• Formatting and reference-style check against the author guidelines
• Ethics and declarations check — ethics approval, informed consent, funding, conflicts of interest, data availability and authorship statements
• Similarity check using the journal’s similarity tool, with the report summarized for the editor
• Checklist verification — CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, ARRIVE or the journal’s own checklists where applicable
• Return-to-author letters that list exactly what is missing and how to resubmit
• Screening record in OJS for every submission
• Language quality assessment and COPE-aligned ethics screen (Standard and Premium tiers)
• Dedicated editorial contact, monthly quality report for the editor-in-chief and 48-hour rush turnaround (Premium tier)

How It Works

1. Setup — we build the screening checklist from your author guidelines, policies and article types, and confirm onboarding within 2 business days.
2. Screening — each new submission is checked against the checklist inside OJS.
3. Outcome — editor-ready submissions are flagged for the editor; incomplete ones go back to the author with the return letter.
4. Reporting — the screening record is kept in OJS; Premium clients receive a monthly quality report.

What Stays With Your Editors

The journal’s editors keep final authority over reviewer selection, editorial assessment and acceptance. Screening confirms that a submission is complete and within the journal’s stated requirements; it does not judge scientific merit or make desk-rejection decisions, which remain with the editor. NeucitePress runs the screening process and the OJS records.

Important Limitations

• Technical screening is not peer review and not an assessment of scientific quality.
• Similarity checking requires the journal’s own subscription to a similarity tool (for example iThenticate or Crossref Similarity Check); NeucitePress runs and interprets the reports.
• Tiers are defined by submissions screened per month (up to 10, 25 or 50); overage is charged at the per-submission rate in your proposal.
• Compatible with OJS 3.x; other platforms quoted individually.

Common Questions

Will authors know a third party screened their paper?
Return letters are sent in the journal’s name from the journal’s OJS account, following the wording you approve at setup.

Can you desk-reject out-of-scope papers for us?
We flag them with the reason; the desk-rejection decision and letter are the editor’s. Many journals authorize a standard return letter for clearly out-of-scope submissions, which we then send on the editor’s behalf.

What happens with a resubmission?
It is re-screened against the same checklist at no extra charge within the same month.

Every engagement can begin with the Journal Health Check.