Thank you all for joining today's review session. I'll let you know soon when the next session will be!

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.

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

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.

I am happy to share that we've agreed on our next guest webinar! This time, we're partnering with AnswerThis.io, who will explain in detail how you can use their AI tool to support your literature reviews and research. Event details: Date: 13th March 2026 Time: 4pm UK time (tbc closer to the date) Add this to your calendar here: https://www.skool.com/research-career-club-8446/calendar?calDate=1772713170&eid=5463c6008bcd416fac735998821a4cbe