The publication process should begin with a well-defined preparation phase. Before submission, adequate time must be allocated to finalizing the manuscript, ensuring that the research problem is clearly stated, the methodology is sound, and the results are sufficiently validated. During this stage, similarity should be checked and reduced to acceptable levels, references should be verified, and the manuscript should be aligned strictly with the target journal’s scope and formatting guidelines. Rushing submission at this stage often leads to desk rejection or multiple revision cycles, which ultimately increases total publication time.
Once the manuscript is ready, the next step is careful journal selection. Authors should shortlist two or three suitable journals ranked in order of preference based on scope match, indexing status, average review time, and acceptance rate. Only one journal should be selected for submission at a time, and the others should be kept as backup options in case of rejection. This avoids unethical simultaneous submission while ensuring continuity in the publication plan.
After submission, authors should allow the journal sufficient time for initial editorial screening and reviewer assignment. Typically, a waiting period of two to three months is reasonable for the first decision in SCI and Scopus journals. During this period, authors should avoid unnecessary follow-ups unless the journal’s stated review timeline has been exceeded.
If no update is received beyond the journal’s expected review period, a polite status inquiry may be sent to the editorial office. This communication should be brief and professional, requesting an update without applying pressure. If reviewer reports are received, authors should respond promptly and carefully, addressing each comment clearly and providing a structured response document. Timely and thorough revisions significantly reduce further delays.
In cases where the review process extends beyond six months without meaningful progress, authors may consider formal withdrawal. Withdrawal should be requested politely and must be confirmed by the journal before submitting the manuscript elsewhere. Once withdrawal confirmation is received, the paper can be immediately submitted to the next journal on the shortlist, minimizing idle time while maintaining ethical standards.
If the manuscript is rejected, authors should use reviewer comments constructively to improve the paper before resubmission to another journal. A revised version that addresses earlier criticisms often progresses faster in subsequent reviews. Resubmission should be done without delay once revisions are complete, ideally within two to three weeks.
Throughout the process, authors may optionally upload the manuscript to a preprint server if the target journal permits this. While preprints do not speed up journal decisions, they ensure early visibility of the research and reduce pressure caused by long review timelines.
Special issues can be integrated into the timeline if they align well with the research topic. Submitting to a legitimate special issue with clear deadlines can reduce review time, but authors must verify the credibility of the issue and avoid predatory calls for papers.
In summary, a safe publication timeline strategy relies on thorough preparation, strategic journal selection, patience during review, prompt and careful revisions, ethical withdrawal when necessary, and disciplined resubmission planning. Following this structured approach allows authors to minimize delays while preserving academic integrity and improving the likelihood of acceptance in SCI and Scopus indexed journals.