Inside The Submission — exactly what you get for €200

Abstract extract — tracked changes (illustrative, reconstructed from a real case)

We assessed whether We present and validate a Spanish-language, clinician-generated corpus improves the detection of the target construct in routine careas a reusable resource for research on the target construct. Because the contribution is methodological, we report annotation reliability and external validation rather than clinical outcomes. […] These findings support the clinical use of the tool. The corpus is openly available for reuse.

The comment attached to this change: ‘The opening sentence promised a clinical result that this design does not measure — it is the exact objection that produced the previous rejections. Reframed as a methodological contribution, it stops being a claim the reviewer can disprove, and the Spanish-language corpus goes from weakness to niche gap.’

The inter-rater reliability figure is the one you already reported: only its place in the argument changes. The changes are made at word level and are reversible — rejecting them all returns your document exactly as it was, and we verify this by accepting and rejecting everything before handing it over.

Cover letter — illustrative extract

Dear Dr [surname of the editor-in-chief],

We are submitting “[title]” for consideration as an Original Research article. The contribution of this manuscript is a validated, openly reusable resource — a clinician-generated corpus in Spanish — rather than a clinical outcome, which places it within the methodological scope of the journal.

We anticipate three questions. (i) No clinical endpoint: by design; the study validates a resource and reports reliability and external validation. (ii) Language: non-English clinical resources are scarce, and this is precisely the gap the corpus fills. (iii) Exploratory nature: stated explicitly in the Limitations, as expected for a resource paper.

• The editor's name comes from the journal's editorial board, consulted on the date of submission. Never ‘Dear Editor’, never an editor who has already left the post.
• Your bibliography, put in conversation with the discussion that journal already has open: we find the work published there that genuinely supports your argument and integrate it where it belongs. Never tacked on at the end, never as a courtesy, never to hit a number. Every proposed reference reaches you with a one-line reason; you decide, one by one.
• Each one checked against the official record: authorship, year, volume, pages and DOI. Zero fabricated citations: this is a rule of the system, not a good intention.

Portal checklist — illustrative extract

• Article type: the one the journal requires for this work, not the one the title makes it look like.
• Body word count — counted from the final document and according to that journal's literal definition (what counts and what does not). In the real case, the figure the author had noted down had gone out of date three versions earlier.
• Abstract, figures, tables, references and keywords: every count made on the document being uploaded, not on an old note.
• Upload order, box by box, with which file goes in each one and under which label.
• Authors: the title and contribution role of each of them, settled before opening the portal. In a manuscript with around thirty authors there were only a handful of distinct institutions: a handful of searches in the portal's finder, not thirty.
• The document the portal asks for and the guide does not (a statement of significance set out in a table, with its own word limit): already drafted and consistent with what the manuscript says.
• The declaration of AI use, in the exact format the journal requires.
• What is NOT uploaded: the tracked-changes file. That one is for you and your co-authors.

Figures are illustrative, rounded from the real case. The script is built on your document and your journal.