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.

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!

Let's try something different this week - rather than doing peer review for the journals, I feel like my time is better spent helping out members of this community. At this week's community session (Friday!), I'll review 2-3 paper drafts and offer feedback from an editor/reviewer perspective. Share your draft in the comments below or simply send it to me via direct message.

Wishing you all the best for the 2026! Hope your goals and aspirations will come true. I am truly grateful for your contributions to this community. Learning together and sharing expertise is the best way to grow as a person. Thank you - I’ve already learnt a lot from you. Looking forward to 2026 - let’s make it great!

Season’s greetings, community. I’m offline for a few days with family, but I’ll be back soon - thank you for all your support this year.