Scientific publishing is supposed to evaluate ideas, evidence, and discoveries. Yet for millions of researchers worldwide, a surprisingly large amount of time is spent on something else entirely, formatting manuscripts according to journal-specific requirements.
Consider a common scenario. A researcher completes a study after months or years of experiments, data analysis, fieldwork, and writing. The manuscript is submitted to a reputable journal but is rejected, perhaps because of scope, competition, or editorial priorities. The science remains unchanged, yet before the paper can be submitted elsewhere, the author must often reformat references, modify headings, rearrange figures, rewrite the abstract structure, alter table layouts, and comply with an entirely different set of submission instructions. If the manuscript is rejected again, the process repeats.
The question is simple, why are researchers still expected to spend valuable scientific time on repetitive formatting tasks that do not improve the quality of the underlying science?
The burden of manuscript reformatting is often dismissed as a minor inconvenience. However, evidence suggests otherwise.
A study by LeBlanc and colleagues (2019) described formatting requirements as a significant and measurable cost within academic publishing. Their international survey found that researchers devote substantial time to manuscript formatting, often after rejection and resubmission, creating a hidden drain on scientific productivity.
Similarly, an analysis of 96 journals across multiple scientific disciplines found enormous variation in submission requirements. The authors reported that only about 4% of journals offered fully format-free initial submissions, despite widespread frustration among researchers regarding reformatting demands (Morrison et al., 2019). These findings suggest that the problem is not isolated. It is systemic.
The irony is that scientific publishing increasingly emphasizes efficiency, openness, and innovation, yet many journals continue to rely on submission practices that consume researcher time without directly improving scientific rigor.
The primary purpose of peer review is to assess the quality of research. Editors and reviewers are expected to evaluate questions such as, Is the methodology sound? Are the results robust? Are the conclusions supported by evidence? Does the work advance knowledge?
Whether references appear in Vancouver style, Harvard style, Nature style, APA style, or a publisher-specific variation has little bearing on these questions.
Indeed, many leading journals acknowledge this reality. Nature explicitly states that it is flexible regarding the format of initial submissions and that style and length generally do not influence editorial consideration during the first stage of assessment (Nature, 2025). This principle reflects an important truth, scientific merit should be evaluated before stylistic conformity.
As Nobel laureate Randy Schekman argued in his well-known critique of modern publishing culture, excessive focus on prestige and presentation can distract from the core purpose of science itself (Schekman, 2013). Interestingly, the publishing industry has already begun moving toward a solution.
Several major publishers now offer format-free or free-format submission systems. Wiley, for example, explicitly states that authors should spend their time on research rather than retyping reference lists and allows manuscripts to be submitted in the author's preferred format for many journals (Wiley, 2025).
Likewise, Nature's submission guidance notes that initial submissions are handled flexibly and that detailed formatting instructions are often requested only during later stages of the review process (Nature, 2025).
These developments demonstrate that rigorous peer review can occur without requiring authors to comply with dozens of technical formatting requirements before scientific evaluation even begins.
If format-free submission works for hundreds or even thousands of journals, why should it not become the global standard? The scientific community would benefit enormously from a universal manuscript format for initial submissions. Such a framework would not eliminate journal identity. Journals could continue using their preferred layouts, citation styles, and production formats after acceptance. Instead, the universal standard would apply only to the review stage.
A manuscript would simply need, Title and author information. Abstract. Main text. Figures and tables. References in any consistent style. Ethical and disclosure statements. Once accepted, publishers could automatically convert manuscripts into journal-specific formats using existing production systems.
Modern publishing software already performs many of these tasks. Requiring authors to repeatedly perform them manually appears increasingly difficult to justify.
The consequences of formatting requirements are not distributed equally. Researchers in well-funded institutions often have access to editorial support, publication offices, and professional assistance. Researchers in developing countries frequently do not. Consequently, administrative hurdles disproportionately affect scientists working in resource-constrained environments.
UNESCO's Recommendation on Open Science emphasizes reducing barriers to participation in scientific knowledge production and dissemination (UNESCO, 2021). Although discussions about research equity often focus on article processing charges, access barriers, and infrastructure, formatting burdens deserve attention as well.
A universal submission standard would represent a small but meaningful step toward making scientific communication more inclusive. The issue is particularly relevant in countries where researchers already face constraints related to funding, laboratory infrastructure, and access to international publishing networks.
The cumulative cost of reformatting is rarely calculated. Every hour spent changing reference styles is an hour not spent conducting experiments. Every day spent reorganizing figures is a day not spent mentoring students, analyzing data, reviewing manuscripts, or writing grant proposals. At a global scale, these hours add up to a substantial loss of scientific productivity.
The scientific enterprise faces major challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, emerging diseases, food security, and water scarcity. Addressing these problems requires maximizing research efficiency wherever possible.
Reducing unnecessary formatting work would not solve these grand challenges, but it would allow researchers to devote more time to solving them.
Broader trends in scholarly publishing point toward greater flexibility rather than greater rigidity. The rise of preprints, open science practices, and alternative peer-review models reflects a growing emphasis on rapid and accessible dissemination of knowledge (Bourne et al., 2017; Ross-Hellauer, 2017).
Studies examining manuscript development have shown that most references and core scientific content remain largely unchanged between preprint and published versions, suggesting that scientific value is not primarily determined by formatting details (Akbaritabar et al., 2021).
In other words, the future of publishing appears increasingly focused on content, transparency, and accessibility rather than strict adherence to journal-specific presentation rules. A universal submission standard would align naturally with these broader developments.
Conclusion
Scientific publishing exists to communicate discoveries, not to test researchers ability to navigate formatting instructions.
The growing adoption of format-free submission by major publishers demonstrates that change is both possible and practical. Evidence from publishing research shows that reformatting imposes measurable costs on researchers while providing limited benefit during initial manuscript evaluation.
A universal manuscript format for first submissions would save time, reduce frustration, improve equity, and allow scientists to focus on what matters most: producing reliable and impactful research.
Science advances through ideas, evidence, and innovation. It should not be slowed by the repeated rearrangement of margins, headings, and reference lists.
References
Akbaritabar, A., Stephen, D., & Squazzoni, F. (2021). A study of referencing changes in preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields.
Bourne, P. E., Polka, J. K., Vale, R. D., & Kiley, R. (2017). Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLoS Computational Biology, 13(5), e1005473.
LeBlanc, A. G., Barnes, J. D., Saunders, T. J., Tremblay, M. S., & Chaput, J. P. (2019). Scientific sinkhole: The pernicious price of formatting. PLOS ONE, 14(9), e0223116.
Morrison, S. S., McGlacken-Byrne, S. M., Vasilevsky, N. A., et al. (2019). The high resource impact of reformatting requirements for scientific papers.
Nature. (2025). Initial submission guidelines.
Nature. (2025). Formatting guide for authors.
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588.
Schekman, R. (2013). How journals such as Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science.
UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.
Wiley. (2025). Free Format Submission Guidelines.