Researcher's Pre-Submission Checklist
✅ Researcher's Pre-Submission Checklist
I. 📚 Content and Academic Integrity Checks
| Status | Check Item | Details/Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| ☐ | Completeness of Draft | All sections outlined in the initial plan (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion) are present and fully written. |
| ☐ | Alignment with Scope | The work directly addresses the research question(s) or hypotheses initially agreed upon. |
| ☐ | Data Integrity & Verification | All reported data and statistics have been double-checked against the raw files. No transcription errors. |
| ☐ | Figure/Table Accuracy | All figures and tables are correctly labeled, captioned, and accurately reflect the reported results. |
| ☐ | Logical Flow & Argument | The argument builds logically from the Introduction to the Conclusion. Each paragraph contains a clear topic sentence. |
| ☐ | Conclusion Clarity | The conclusion summarizes the main findings and clearly states the novel contribution or implication of the work. |
| ☐ | Plagiarism Check | The draft has been run through a plagiarism/similarity checker (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate). All matching text has been either properly quoted or sufficiently paraphrased and cited. |
| ☐ | Self-Plagiarism Check | Any reuse of your own previously published text or figures is minimal, necessary, and properly cited as self-citation. |
II. 📑 Formatting and Style Checks
| ☐ | Target Format Adherence | The document strictly follows the formatting guidelines of the target journal or the required institutional template (e.g., margins, font, line spacing). |
| ☐ | Citation Style Consistency | All in-text citations and the full reference list adhere to one consistent style (e.g., APA, IEEE, Vancouver). |
| ☐ | Reference List Accuracy | Every in-text citation has a corresponding entry in the reference list, and vice versa. |
| ☐ | Figures/Tables Placement | Figures and tables are placed appropriately and referenced clearly in the text. |
| ☐ | Page Numbers | All pages are numbered correctly. |
| ☐ | File Naming Convention | The file is named clearly and professionally (e.g., AuthorName_Chapter3_v2.0.docx). |
III. 🧐 Language and Polish Checks
| ☐ | Spell Check & Grammar | The document has been run through a robust spell checker and grammar tool (e.g., MS Word, Grammarly). |
| ☐ | Proofread for Typos | The document has been proofread manually (ideally after printing or reading aloud) to catch common typos, repeated words, and missing words that software often misses. |
| ☐ | Clarity and Conciseness | Eliminate excessive jargon, passive voice, and overly long or convoluted sentences. Focus on clarity. |
| ☐ | Terminology Consistency | Key technical terms, abbreviations, and variables are used consistently throughout the document. |
IV. 📧 Submission and Contextual Checks
| ☐ | Supervisor's Instructions | You have confirmed you addressed all specific feedback from the supervisor on the previous draft or outline. |
| ☐ | Specific Questions Provided | Prepare a brief email or separate document highlighting specific questions you want your supervisor to focus on (e.g., "I am concerned about the interpretation of the statistical interaction term—see page 15."). |
| ☐ | Required Attachments | Include any necessary supplementary materials, like raw data files or complex code snippets, if they are essential for the supervisor's review. |