Dont know if this should be posted here.. I'm in the process of trying to get a neuroscience paper published, it would be my first, and sent a copy round about 35 journals editors asking if they could look at the paper and give me a rough estimate of suitability for publication as well as some feedback. about 10 said not suitable, with no feedback another 12 said interesting to very good work but not suitable. 8 were wrong email adresses or did not reply About five said submit in a kind of standard tone, so it was hard to tell, if they had any enthusiasm for my paper. It was kind of difficult to get them to commit to a comment on the paper. Four editors who said submit did not make any comments on the paper. One of those journals is cerebral cortex which is quite high profile. It appeared like he had looked at the paper as the suitability criteria he gave me was similiar to what is in my paper, but it is hard to tell. One of the five publications who said submit is edited by an eminent systems biologist he used far less business like language. such as "we need to do this" , and specifically discussed things to do, like find referees etc. When i looked at his track record, it appeared like my paper is the kind of thing he has been into in his career. Well maybe somebody could tell me if this is standard. When an editor looks at a papers and says submit, do they tend to refrain from giving feedback, and are pretty businesslike ? Also has anybody here been published, could maybe answer a few questions on procedure, rather than me hassle the editors ?