Frequently Asked QuestionsPublication guidance

Avoiding research article from rejection at first stage itself

Your manuscript’s aims, key data, and conclusions should be clear. The abstract should begin by summarizing the research question addressed and be explicit about the work’s contribution. You should be more concern about the following things in your article:

  • What is the research’s key point of focus? Is it exciting and relevant? How original is the topic?
  • In comparison to other published content, what does it bring to the subject area?
  • Is this a well-written paper? Is the content easy to read and understand?
  • Do the conclusions make sense in light of the facts and arguments presented? Do they respond to the key question?
  • Do you disagree with the existing scholarly consensus in a major way, and do you have a compelling argument?
  • What significance do tables and figures bring to the document if they are included?
  • Do they help understanding or are they unnecessary?

Spotting Potential Major Flaws

The major problems commonly made in the research which would be first observed are as follows:

  • Using statistical or qualitative information to support a conclusion that isn’t supported by your own data
  • Using an out-of-date technique
  • Ignoring a framework that is proven to have a significant impact on the research field.
  • If the paper emphasizes experimental design, make sure the technique is sound; if it isn’t, this is probably the most critical flaw.

Avoid Major Flaws in Information

If methodology isn’t a major concern, it’s best to focus on the data tables, figures, or images first. It’s all about the data gathered, particularly in science research. If there are significant gaps in this, the manuscript would almost certainly be rejected. These are some of the issues:

  • Inadequate data
  • Tables of data that are unclear
  • Conflicting evidence that is either incompatible with the findings or contradicts them.
  • Confirmatory information that adds nothing, if anything, to existing knowledge unless there are compelling reasons for doing so.

Source: https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *