Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
What is this?
Less
More

Owned by Dawid

Research Career Club

584 members • Free

Become 'go-to' research expert by delivering novel research; engaging outside academia; and building profile to amplify impact | Created by Prof Hanak

Memberships

UK Skoolers

280 members • Free

Men Forge Forward

84 members • Free

AI Automation Society

258.8k members • Free

Low-Carbon Hydrogen

728 members • Free

133 contributions to Research Career Club
A quick debrief from our first live peer‑review session.
Last week we reviewed two papers in real time, and the same “hidden blockers” showed up that often lead to slow reviews, major revisions, or desk rejection. If you’re preparing a manuscript, use this as a checklist before you submit. 1) Abstracts: stop starting with “what we did” A strong abstract reads like a story, not a methods note. Use this sequence: - Big-picture context (why the topic matters). - Specific research gap (what’s missing in the literature). - What you did (1–2 sentences). - Key results (headline numbers only). - Why it matters (one clear implication). Also: avoid abbreviations in the abstract unless truly unavoidable—clarity wins. 2) Literature review ≠ research gap A table summarising prior studies is useful, but it doesn’t automatically create novelty. You still need 2–3 explicit sentences that say: - What others have done. - Where the limitations are. - How your work addresses those limitations. If your novelty requires “reading between the lines,” it’s not clear enough. 3) Results: description is not discussion Many drafts report trends (increase/decrease) but don’t interpret them. What strengthens a paper immediately: - Benchmark your findings against prior studies (agree? contradict? extend?). - Quantify differences (relative errors, percentage differences), not just “higher/lower.” - Make the insight explicit: “This suggests…”, “This implies…” 4) Structure signals quality Common fixes that make papers feel more “journal-ready”: - Avoid lots of one-paragraph subsections—group results by themes (e.g., “design parameters,” “operating parameters”). - Keep figure labels consistent (Fig. 4a/4b rather than “left/right”). - Use equation formatting consistently, and consider a nomenclature/abbreviations table. - Add limitations + future work (show you understand what your study did not cover). What’s next I’ll run these peer-review sessions weekly or bi-weekly, depending on demand, so the whole community benefits from repeated patterns and practical fixes.
0 likes • 5h
@Gijs Van den Dool thanks!
Happy weekend!
We’re all here to learn and develop our skills. But remember it’s equally important to rest. What are you up to this weekend? P.S. we have taken our crazy cocker spaniel for training today - she loved it!
Happy weekend!
0 likes • 22h
@Branden Friend oh so cute!
What’s your core research area?
Many of you are here to network but we don’t often know who is doing what - let’s change this: In a few words, please explain what is your core research area. Enjoy!
0 likes • 4d
@Allan Mayaba Mwiinde yes just responded
0 likes • 3d
@Marta Mirolo sounds cool!
Prof-review #1
Thank you all for joining today's review session. I'll let you know soon when the next session will be!
Prof-review #1
1 like • 3d
@Basma Mansor I’ll be asking members to share drafts and will select 2-3 to review live during the session. Will then send commented documents back. ;)
1 like • 3d
@Basma Mansor yes, I won’t be able to comment on content, but can provide technical writing comments
Peer-review session starting in 40 mins!
I'm going live soon and will review a few papers today - if I don't select yours, don't worry, we'll make it a regular thing in the community! Here's the link to the session https://www.skool.com/live/l63ZPK3vPMp
1-10 of 133
Dawid Hanak
6
1,025points to level up
@dawid-hanak-5899
Professor in Decarbonisation of Industrial Clusters

Active 4m ago
Joined Aug 18, 2025
Middlesbrough, UK