Table of Contents
Your Discussion should interpret findings, not repeat them. These five mistakes are the most common reasons reviewers ask for a major revision of otherwise solid research.
Reviewers judge your study's credibility through your Methods section. These five common mistakes make otherwise rigorous work look poorly designed.
A well-structured introduction builds an argument that makes your study feel necessary. These five mistakes break that argument before reviewers reach your methods.
A desk rejection tells you more than you think. This guide explains how to read rejection letters and avoid the five most common mistakes researchers make before resubmitting to another journal.
Correct grammar is not enough. This guide identifies five categories of commonly misused words in medical and life science writing, with before-and-after examples for each.
Choosing the wrong journal is one of the most common reasons a strong manuscript never reaches peer review. This guide covers five journal selection mistakes common in medical and life science submissions, each with a practical pre-submission check.
A cover letter is often the first text an editor reads. This guide identifies five common mistakes in cover letters for medical and life science submissions, with before-and-after examples.
Journal editors decide whether to send a paper out for review based on the abstract alone. This guide covers the five most common abstract mistakes in medical and life science submissions, with before-and-after examples.
Statistical significance is not the same as a settled conclusion. This guide covers five common result-interpretation mistakes in medical and life science writing, with before-and-after rewrites.
Most papers fail at the Major Revision stage not because the science is weak, but because the Response Letter is written poorly. This guide covers five principles for writing a response that satisfies editors and reviewers, with ready-to-use English templates.
When reviewers flag language problems, grammar is rarely the real issue. This guide breaks down the five most common writing problems in medical and life science manuscripts from non-native English speakers, with before-and-after examples.
Copying a bioRxiv or medRxiv preprint directly into a journal submission is a common trigger for desk rejection. Preprint-style self-references, Twitter-length abstracts, and informal Discussion closings all need to be upgraded before submission. This post identifies the five critical adjustments with before-and-after examples.
The version update process is unique to preprints, and nobody teaches you how to handle it. A version note written as a commit log, inconsistencies between the old and new abstracts, and terminology splits between figure captions and body text can all make readers feel the study is being patched together. This post covers the five most common v2/v3 update mistakes with revision examples.
Most medical and life science authors upload to bioRxiv or medRxiv when submitting to an OA journal, meaning the same abstract faces both journal editors and preprint readers. This post covers the five abstract language problems most likely to cost non-native authors points at desk review, along with before-and-after revision examples.