It is 11 pm and the special issue deadline is midnight. The manuscript is ready, but the submission system stops at step seven: “Highlights (required)”, “Graphical abstract (required)”. The author pastes five sentences cut from the abstract, each over 150 characters, and uses a screenshot of Figure 3 as the graphical abstract. Two days later the paper is returned at the technical check with a request to redo both. Nobody has read the science.
These extras are often treated as paperwork for the last ten minutes. Yet they are what editors and readers see first: on the contents page, in new-issue alerts and in search results. Doing them properly takes about one working session, and it belongs before submission night, not during it.
The extras and what each is for
| Item | Reader | Purpose | Typical specification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Highlights | People scanning contents, editors | State the main new points as bullets | 3–5 bullets, each with a character limit (often around 85 including spaces) |
| Graphical abstract | People browsing the journal site and social media | One image that tells the paper’s main story | Size, aspect ratio and file format set by the author guidelines |
| Video abstract (optional) | Visitors to the article page, online events | The author briefly presents the question and findings | A few minutes; format and file size per the guidelines |
| Supplementary materials | Reviewers, anyone checking or replicating | Hold detail that does not fit the main paper | Separate files numbered S1, S2…, cited in the text |
Exact limits vary between journals. Always open the author guidelines for your specific journal and copy the specifications into a note before you start.
Highlights: five lines, one finding each
Highlights are not a chopped-up abstract. They are the new things, one per line, each readable on its own. Guidelines:
- Start each bullet with an informative verb or noun, not “This study…”.
- Favour findings over methods; at most one bullet on design or data.
- Include a number or a direction where possible.
- No unexplained abbreviations, no citations.
- Count characters with a tool, spaces included; systems often enforce the limit strictly.
A rewrite: “This study investigates the effect of handwritten feedback on motivation to learn English” (no finding) becomes “Handwritten feedback increased first-year students’ intrinsic motivation” and “The effect was stronger among students with lower entry grades”.
Graphical abstract: one image, one story
A graphical abstract is not your prettiest figure, and certainly not a screenshot of a results table. It is a diagram readable in seconds that answers three questions: what was the problem, what did you do, what did you find?
- Choose a reading direction: left to right or top to bottom, never making the eye loop around.
- Three blocks: context or input, intervention or method, main result, joined by arrows.
- Minimal text: short labels only, legible when the image shrinks to thumbnail size on a phone.
- Purposeful colour: two or three colours, one accent for the key finding; avoid red–green pairs that colour-blind readers cannot separate.
- Nothing that is not in the paper, and no exaggeration of results.
Tools: vector software (Inkscape, Illustrator), presentation software (PowerPoint, Keynote) exported at sufficient resolution, or scientific icon libraries with reuse licences. Check the licence of every icon; images of unknown origin taken from the web are a copyright risk once the paper is published.
Video abstracts: if allowed, keep them tight
Some journals accept a video abstract alongside the article. It is optional; only make one if you can keep it short and clear. A few rules:
- A few minutes is plenty; cover three points: the problem, the approach, the main finding.
- Sound matters more than picture: a cheap clip-on microphone beats a laptop microphone in an echoing room.
- Add subtitles, since many people watch with the sound off.
- Show nothing that is not in the paper, and use no music or images without a clear licence.
- Check file size, format and anonymity requirements if the paper is under blind review.
Supplementary materials are not the manuscript’s bin
Reviewers read supplementary files more closely than you might think, especially when a result looks doubtful. Good candidates include:
- The full questionnaire or interview guide.
- Search strings and data extraction tables for reviews.
- Sensitivity analyses, secondary analyses and full result tables summarised in the main text.
- Completed reporting checklists (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA…) with page numbers.
- Additional figures, such as model assumption checks.
- Data and analysis code, where the journal asks for them at submission so reviewers can check; include a README stating which file runs first and which software and versions are needed.
Common mistakes: supplementary files never cited in the main text; numbering that does not match (the paper mentions Table S4 but the file stops at S3); numbers that differ from the main paper because they were not updated after revision; and burying analyses that the conclusions depend on. If a result is needed to understand the conclusion, it belongs in the main paper.
Note that supplementary files are usually published exactly as submitted, without copyediting. Check spelling and formatting, and remove anything that could identify participants.
Mistakes that trigger a technical return
- Highlights over the character limit or the wrong number of bullets.
- A graphical abstract with the wrong dimensions, format or a low resolution.
- Author names or affiliations appearing in supplementary files for an anonymised review.
- Supplementary files in a format the system rejects, or several files where one combined file was requested.
- A missing data availability statement where the journal requires one.
In practice: all the extras in one session
- Open the author guidelines and copy the specifications for all four items into one note.
- Write the highlights: list everything new, keep the three to five strongest, count characters.
- Sketch the graphical abstract on paper in three blocks before opening any software; preview it at thumbnail size.
- Build a formatting checklist: word count, reference style, figure formats, data statement, conflict of interest statement; tick each item.
- Assemble the supplementary files, number them, check every citation in the main text, remove identifying information.
- Save everything in the submission folder with the manuscript so a resubmission only needs adjustments.
Next step: for the next paper you plan to submit, write the five highlights today, before the manuscript is finished. If you cannot yet write five lines stating what is new, your discussion probably has not pinned down the contribution either.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
What are highlights in a journal article?
They are three to five short bullet points stating the paper’s main new findings, each within a character limit set by the journal. They appear on the article page and help readers grasp the contribution quickly.
How should I design a graphical abstract?
Use one image with a clear reading direction, three blocks for context, method and result, minimal text and legibility at thumbnail size. Follow the size and format in the author guidelines.
Do I have to make a video abstract?
Usually it is optional. Make one only if you can present clearly in a few minutes with good sound and subtitles, following the journal’s file requirements.
What should go in supplementary materials?
Full questionnaires, search strings, sensitivity and secondary analyses, complete result tables and reporting checklists. Results needed to understand the conclusions belong in the main paper.
Are supplementary files copyedited?
Usually not; they are published largely as submitted. Check them yourself for errors, formatting, consistency with the main paper and identifying information.
