Editors like a scientifically well framed study with justifications for the work presented in the study. Other than this, the presentation aspect is very much important. You should follow the author instruction till the end. The referencing pattern shows how much you have stuck to the author instructions. Then a well formatted paper makes the editor happy as he need not to do anything further from his side as far as presentation is concerned. This is because many journals have a editorial review before the actual peer review and it takes sometimes a month time to clear this phase. If there are lot of shortcomings, either the editor can reject it or can send it back to you for modifications. So the bottomline is "stick to the author instructions and present your scientific work in the best possible way". After all "First Impresssion is the Best Impression"

A primary approach is to do tasks on academic writings. They are available in many books under this topic. Writing improves by writing, only. The second solution is to follow cohesion and coherence in writing. The third is to make the methodology as clear as possible. Fourth, results and conclusion should not be forgotten.

Last but not least, giving correct references and avoiding plagiarism, in addition following APA or MLA style are compulsory.

Dr. Hajar, yes, I agree to follow the structure of paper and to follow the instructions to the author for eah journal is so important but still, for example, how to choose the journal and the scope of the journal. Writing a scientific article and published smoothly is not that easy for many researchers but back to our question, what editors like and not like?

Editors like a scientifically well framed study with justifications for the work presented in the study. Other than this, the presentation aspect is very much important. You should follow the author instruction till the end. The referencing pattern shows how much you have stuck to the author instructions. Then a well formatted paper makes the editor happy as he need not to do anything further from his side as far as presentation is concerned. This is because many journals have a editorial review before the actual peer review and it takes sometimes a month time to clear this phase. If there are lot of shortcomings, either the editor can reject it or can send it back to you for modifications. So the bottomline is "stick to the author instructions and present your scientific work in the best possible way". After all "First Impresssion is the Best Impression"

Make sure your grammar, your syntax, and your research style go hand in hand with the style used by other researchers and editors of the journal you are submitting your paper to. I would like to add that there is a secret ingredient.

Yes - style, syntax, grammar etc. Also read the journal, look at the editors and what the journal is about. You can also email the editors with your idea and see what they think. Sometimes it's worth doing as they might help you throughout the publishing process.

@Alan, I am interested in the way to approach an editor before actually submitting the paper. Do you send an outline of your paper or the whole first draft (complete text)? Or just the tentative title plus abstract?

What will she answer?

Well I would:

A. look at the what the journal publishes

B. does your work match that, fill a gap that they are trying to fill, or is it a special issue

C. email an abstract and outline to the editor - then ask if there are any editors that might work with you; 'shepard' you in order to get something that matches the journals aims. If you have a full paper you can email that as the outline and ask what might they change.

I suspect that they are more open than you might think

In many respects that's why journals are different (well in Computer Science) you can have a dialogue with the editors. If your paper doesn't fit ask about the possibility of doing a special issue, edit it yourself and say what you think in the introduction. I think that lots of these things are about having a dialogue about what you want to accomplish, then sitting down and planning it out.

Yes, they are only going to say "Yes" or "No", and you'll get varying degrees of response. Some people will skim through and say, "yes we are interested", some will say "you need to alter XYZ". I'm not saying that you won't get peer reviewed, you will - unless you pay to publish. I'm saying that you can start a discussion and start to get your paper shaped up prior to peer, or get a quick response without the peer review. It's not going to work all the time, but you are basically asking for a quick review at a high level. They might say this doesn't fit, but try and pull a special issue together we are interested in expanding the remit if the journal etc. That's the beauty of journals, there's often space to discuss what you are trying to do.

Asking the editor before submitting the paper is an interesting option. However, it will only work if you actually have the paper "almost ready" and just cannot decide between the two journals, probably one fitting better and another better recognized. (And even in this case, you will either get 'out of scope' or 'ok, submit, we will work on it' reply - nothing different from the ordianry submission)

If you only have the "idea" or "outline" and ask the editor for his/her opinion, while the paper itself will appear in several weeks - this will not work, I am afraid. Even in a relatively small and not very popular journal, our editor normally handles AT LEAST several papers a week, probably tens. He will just forget of your discussion, unfortunately. 99% for this.

And now, returning to the situation when the text is "almost prepared" - why not finalize it and send officially? Anyway, the Editor will be the first person to evaluate your paper, only then it goes to peers (or is rejected at once), and then to the Editor again. So nothing you will get, I think, if you first email the same Editor "inofficially".

I can see the only situation when such pre-submitting discussion has some benefit - if you cannot decide between two journals, and their manuals of style are COMPLETELY different, so that if the paper is rejected from one of them, being fully prepared, it will take days/weeks to reshape it for the other journal format.

Thanks, I suggest that to finalize your manuscript and send officially will be more correct and the editor will be the first one to evaluate the article and to answer (reject or procees for further evaluation), so pre-submitting has not much to add. On the other hand, to have known reviewer in your area of work will add such benefit.

@Evgeny, you are certainly right - ALL editors will forget you after several weeks.

The best way to get published is (1) - give credible results, (2) - present them correctly, (3) - follow guidelines of the journal, (4) - and do not forget, editors are humans, like you.

I fully agree with the answers of Fati M Sherif and l Laima Balciauskinné .

I think all dépends the discipllne. In Médicine and Medical sciences, except when you are asked to write an Editorial or a General review, when you want to publish in a high impact, peer-reviewed journal, you need: 1) to have a good message, with new results (statistically significant); 2) then to select carefully the best journal, i.e., the journal which publishes similar papers and the impact factor of which is the highest (the name of Editors and reviewers in your specific topic may also be useful); 3) present concisely your results in the classical way, stricly following the guidelines; 4) to write your paper in the journal style.

Reading a few papers on the same topic published in different journals will help to choose the best on . If you are not a native English speaker, you need to use one.

If the paper is rejected, use the criticisms of rewiers to improve the paper before submission to another journal.

No Plagiarism, good English, relevance to the main focus of the journal, novel ideas rather than an incremental improvement over a prior paper, crisp figures and tables.

Here is a small additional tip: Make the paper look like other papers in your target journal, so that the Editor can visualise it in the journal.

Perhaps it's obvious, but if there is a member of editorial board who is familiar with your earlier work on the subject (or at least your subject area), it is often a good idea to submit your work directly to her/him unless the journal rules this out. Some further tips and links on paper writing are available at http://aclinks.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/how-to-write-a-really-good-research-paper/ . If you are interested in the editor's take on paper writing, see the book Robert A. Day, How to write and publish a scientific paper.

Best possible ways are:

1. Find the journal which publishes similar works.

2. Manuscript with a clear abstract and conclusion (better use journal template). Point out the importance of the work by comparing with the existing literature.

3. Great importance for images/graphics.

4. If possible, choose the editor who is also working in the same area.

5. A short covering letter describing the novelty of the work.

6. Suggest reviewers names.

In my short experience, editors responds constructively, sometimes they suggested other journals. My latest article was submitted to a Wiley journal, and the chief editor contacted the editor of their sister journal who publishes similar results, and suggested us to transfer the manuscript to that journal. We were happy to do that, and the manuscript is under final revision now. Hope it will be published soon.

Many of the things wrote in the discussion are to the point. Remember though that editors are humans only, too. So in addition to have good story, excellent results, no spelling mistakes, ... You also need to take care to include papers from THE journal in the reference/literature list. From the last two years becouse this will build up journal impact factor. That will contribute to the good first impression.

All other things being equal, certainly include equivalent references from the target journal. However, only include references if they are relevant to supporting your work. (Quotes/paraphrases) Never include gratuitous refs.

Yes, i agree, one more thing that if you follow the imstruction to author of the journal from choosing short and informative title to the good reference list. This, of course, editors will like too much as will as with good science work.

@Ian. Absolutely. References need to be relevant. But that should not be too difficoult

Sure, I agree with you but they should be primary references and not secondary one.

Please, do not forget, that there is such thing, called "self-citation". It works not rising IF, but decreasing it, when ot comes to evaluation. So, including

@Damijan, "papers from THE journal in the reference/literature list. From the last two years becouse this will build up journal impact factor. That will contribute to the good first impression"

is of no good, or not always good.

Dear @Fathi, dear friends, behind what editors like or do not like, it is also important what authors do not like. Nice article follows. An Elsevier Editor asked his Twitter followers to reveal the pain points they encounter when submitting papers - here is what they had to say...

Elsevier is combating some of these pain points...

https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/publishing-tips/10-things-i-hate-about-submitting-manuscripts

http://neurochambers.blogspot.rs/2016/04/the-things-you-hate-most-about.html

Journals with high profile may reject your paper even if it's very well written and researched, because they are looking for significance: is your paper likely to shape/change the field? does it challenge a fundamental premise of your field? does it provide a new conceptual tool, theoretical framework, or methodological innovation? 

In other words, the editors of the highest impact journals tend to look for "major original contributions", whereas most research is, by definition, run-of-the-mill/"normal science". 

See also this paper on the epistemic logic of the peer-review process: 

Article Error, quality, and applied geography: An editorial on process

Dear Fathi M Sherif,

Here are the views of Peter Thrower, PhD, Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the international journal of the American Carbon , An elsevier journal.

The summary follows, see the link for more details.

Eight reasons I rejected your article, Peter Thrower, PhD, Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the international journal of the American Carbon 

When a manuscript is submitted to a high-quality scholarly journal, it goes through intense scrutiny — even before it's seen by the editor-in-chief and selected for peer review. At Elsevier, between 30 percent to 50 percent of articles don't even make it to the peer review process.

1. It fails the technical screening.

2. It does not fall within the Aims and Scope.

3. It's incomplete.

4. The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective.

5. The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper.

6. It's is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.

7. It's incomprehensible.

8. It's boring.

http://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article

An editor discusses perks and pitfalls...

What are the most rewarding aspects of being an editor?

 The two things I find most rewarding are receiving high-quality submissions and helping to make them even better, and steering the research field in a certain direction by the decisions I make. 

 I think in the first few years you learn a lot, you experience the most common pitfalls and you become more efficient in managing the journal. It’s likely not something I would do for 20 years, but I feel I have definitely hit my stride and have several more productive years ahead of me as a journal editor...

https://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/do-you-want-be-lis-journal-editor-editor-discusses-perks-and-pitfalls?utm_campaign=Library%20Connect%20Newsletter&utm_campaignPK=321385884&utm_term=OP32148&utm_content=336727007&utm_source=32&BID=992726086&utm_medium=email&SIS_ID=0&dgcid=Newsletters%20%26%20Alerts_email_Library%20Connect%20Newsletter

Editors like papers that contribute to current debates and are well written. Papers that contribute to current debate are likely to attract citations, and this is very important to editors, especially in this era of diverse metrics (impact factor). Editors like papers that are within the remit of their journals and will not accept those that are outside what their journals publish. They like papers that are written and formatted according to the journal's specification. This means that the author(s) read the ''author guideline''.

Develop your skills by reading

Have something to say

Understand the structure of a scientific article

Understand the simple rules of writing

How to decide where to send your paper

The instructions to authors and the need to worry about detail

Understanding the steps after manuscript submission

Understand what editors like

Be aware of what editors do not like

Do not give up and understand the peer review process

The 10 lessons in this short course will, I hope, guide authors (and especially tyros) through some of the key steps in scientific writing. But some further words might be useful. It is crucial that you read, and know, the literature that relates to your area. What you try and publish should be influenced by what others have published: be guided by that. As indicated by Lesson 1 it is important to read and read: by reading you will see good practice and hopefully develop your skills: and as with any skill practice leads to improvement, even if perfection is rarely achieved!

Dear @Saeed, you are continuing to practice plagiarism! Too bad! Here is the link to your resource.

Getting Your Paper Published: An Editor’s Perspective!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101729/

See this reference 1

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/7-steps-to-publishing-in-a-scientific-journal