15h • Publishing
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.
If you want your paper reviewed next: Reply in this thread with:
- Your paper title/topic
- Target journal (if known)
- Stage (outline / full draft / near-submission)
- The #1 thing you want feedback on (novelty, structure, results/discussion, etc.)
And if you’re not ready to share a full draft, post your abstract + last paragraph of the introduction—those two pieces usually reveal 80% of the “desk rejection risks.”
7
8 comments
A quick debrief from our first live peer‑review session.
powered by
skool.com/research-career-club-8446
Become 'go-to' research expert by delivering novel research; engaging outside academia; and building profile to amplify impact | Created by Prof Hanak
Suggested communities
Powered by