Prepare a presubmission enquiry around the journal's actual question
Prepare a permitted presubmission enquiry using checked journal instructions, a precise question and an original fictional category-enquiry example.
About 5 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Check whether the journal invites a presubmission enquiry for your article type before preparing one. If it does, give the editor the requested information and a precise question about fit or category. An enquiry should help resolve a genuine uncertainty; it is not a shortcut to a publication decision.
Use the destination’s current author instructions. This guide concerns preparing an enquiry about your own work. It does not prescribe a universal email format, attachment package, response time or submission route, and no message is sent by following its examples.
Find the instruction before writing the pitch
Read the journal’s scope, article categories and enquiry guidance. Some questions may already be answered there. Record what is still unclear and whether the journal provides an enquiry route for that question.
Nature’s presubmission guidance describes enquiries as a service and explains that editors cannot make an absolute commitment to review an article before seeing the whole paper. Treat that as a boundary on what an enquiry can establish, not a rule that every journal offers the same service or accepts the same materials.
If instructions require an online form, do not substitute an unsolicited email simply because a template elsewhere uses one. If a full submission is the appropriate route, prepare that submission rather than relabelling it as an enquiry.
Identify the decision the editor could help clarify
Write one sentence stating the uncertainty. Is it whether the journal considers your kind of conceptual contribution, whether a particular article category fits, or whether the stated scope includes your subject? Avoid asking for a guarantee of acceptance or priority over other submissions.
Explain the work’s actual purpose, approach and contribution at the level the journal requests. Keep completed work, current analysis and proposed work distinguishable. A concise enquiry should not turn an anticipated result into an established finding or describe ordinary relevance as proof that the article is the first of its kind.
Test a fictional enquiry plan
The article, journal and instructions below are entirely invented teaching material. They do not describe a real editor’s preferences, study or publishing opportunity.
Imagine a fictional conceptual article comparing definitions of repair and reuse in discussions of community workshops. A fictional journal’s guidance covers conceptual discussion but leaves the relevant article category unclear and explicitly invites category enquiries.
| Information in the fictional plan | What it helps the editor understand | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| The article compares two definitions | The subject and kind of contribution | Presenting it as an experiment or evaluated intervention |
| The journal’s stated scope includes conceptual discussion | The reason for considering this destination | Claiming that scope fit guarantees publication |
| The category remains unclear after reading the instructions | The specific question an enquiry could resolve | Asking the editor to make an acceptance decision without the manuscript |
| The author has a completed draft | The actual stage of the work | Implying that work still planned has already been completed |
A short fictional question could be: “Your guidance includes conceptual discussions, but I am unsure which category applies to a completed article comparing these definitions. Is that kind of contribution considered under the category described here?” An actual enquiry would identify the real category, checked guidance and requested account of the work.
The question earns its place because the fictional instructions leave a specific uncertainty. If the actual journal states that the category excludes this kind of contribution, a polished enquiry does not remove that exclusion.
Supply the requested context without expanding the claims
Include the requested summary or materials through the permitted route. Make the connection to the journal’s readership specific, using facts you can check. Avoid a generic statement that the work will interest everyone or solve a problem it has not investigated.
Keep titles, author details and project status consistent with the manuscript and other materials. Do not imply that another person has approved the enquiry or agreed to an authorship role unless that is established. If an attachment is not requested or permitted, do not assume that sending more material improves the enquiry.
Use the journal-scope guide before asking the editor a question the public guidance already resolves. Use the abstract guide when preparing the account of your work, while following the enquiry’s own requested format rather than imposing an abstract template.
Interpret the response at its actual strength
Keep a record of what you asked, the materials provided and the response. An invitation to submit, an indication of possible interest and an acceptance are different states. Follow any conditions and the current submission instructions before taking the next step.
If the response does not resolve the question, distinguish that uncertainty from a refusal or approval. Do not announce editorial interest more broadly than the actual message supports. The useful outcome is a clearer next action based on the journal’s instructions, not a promise the enquiry process cannot supply.
