The phrase "article submitted" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you are indicating that an article has been sent or presented for consideration, such as in academic or publishing settings.
Example: "The article submitted for review will be evaluated by our editorial team next week."
Alternatives: "manuscript submitted" or "paper submitted".
This scenario is described in an article submitted for publication.
Any article submitted will be subject to peer review.
The Lancet requires that a declaration of all conflicts of interest, past and present, must accompany each article submitted.
Kabir and Norman Uphoff have summarized the thesis findings in an article submitted to an agricultural science journal.
"Getting In and Getting Through: Navigating Higher Education in Jordan-" Article submitted to Comparative Education Review, currently under review.
Any article submitted after that date that is subsequently published must be deposited in either the final version or the final post-review version.
To read the paper now gives you the same tingle as a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls might or Einstein's equally short article submitted to Annalen Der Physik in 1905, describing the special theory of relativity.
Brasier said the article submitted to Nature Geoscience had made such a claim, but the reviewers questioned the advisability of doing so, and the senior author, Dr. Wacey, "decided to acquiesce on this particular point".
The scientific community operates according to the system of peer review, in which an article submitted to a journal will be sent out by the editor to several anonymous referees who are expert in the field and will give a considered view on whether the paper is worthy of publication, or will be worthy if revised.
Biggs, who has submitted evidence to the House of Lords select committee which is examining Lord Joffe's private member's bill on Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill, makes the claim in an article submitted to the European Journal for Health Law.
In an article submitted to the op-ed pages of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal after the July 9 meeting and supplied to a reporter by the A.C.L.U., Mr. Romero criticized the certification requirement as "an insidious chill on speech" though he did not note that he had signed the certification.
