Last updated: April 2026 · 7 min read · Audience: Authors, students, early-career researchers · Reading level: Introductory
Introduction
Many research papers are rejected for writing rather than substance. The work is sound; the manuscript does not communicate it clearly. Reviewers cannot evaluate what they cannot follow, and editors weight reviewer recommendations heavily.
This page identifies the most common writing patterns that cause reviewer friction and what to do about each.
Five recurring writing mistakes
| Mistake | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Implicit contribution | Reader has to infer what the paper adds | State explicitly in abstract and introduction |
| Weak introduction | Background heavy, gap unclear | Lead with the gap; background follows |
| Descriptive not analytical | What was done, not why | Add justification and interpretation |
| Methodology gaps | Steps unclear, irreproducible | Write as if reader will replicate |
| Overstated discussion | Claims beyond data | Match claims to evidence; flag limitations |
Practical guidance
- Read the manuscript asking 'what does this paper contribute?' Write the answer in one sentence. If it does not appear in the abstract and introduction, revise.
- Write the introduction backwards: start with the contribution, then the gap, then the background.
- For each methodological choice, ask 'why this and not the alternative?' Add the justification.
- Have the manuscript read by a colleague. They will identify gaps the author cannot see.
- Match discussion claims to results. Claims unsupported by results are commonly flagged.
Other recurring issues
Additional patterns: passive voice that obscures who did what, undefined abbreviations, inconsistent terminology (using two terms for the same concept across the manuscript), and weak figure captions that do not stand alone.
Decision guidance
If revision time is limited, prioritise contribution clarity and discussion. These two sections most affect editorial and reviewer decisions. Background and methodology can be revised more easily during the review process; contribution and interpretation should be solid before submission.
Example scenarios
Scenario: a master's student preparing a thesis chapter
Thesis writing emphasises completeness; journal writing emphasises focus. The transition usually requires 30–50% reduction and substantial restructuring. The most common problem is keeping thesis-style background and discussion that do not serve the journal article's contribution.
Scenario: a PhD researcher writing a methods paper
Methods papers are particularly vulnerable to descriptive writing — describing the method without justifying choices. Reviewers want to see that the author considered alternatives and made informed decisions. Adding 1–2 sentences of justification per major choice strengthens the section meaningfully.
Scenario: an early-career author writing in English as an additional language
Non-native English writing often combines technical accuracy with linguistic complexity. Reviewers respond to clarity over polish; short, direct sentences communicate better than complex constructions. A language editor can polish, but cannot substitute for clear thinking.
What to do next
Run through the manuscript looking for each of the five mistake patterns specifically. Address them one at a time. Authors targeting EP Journals Group venues can submit through the central form once revision is complete.
Frequently asked questions
Related topics across the knowledge centre
Comparison
EP Journals vs Predatory Journals: How to Tell the Difference
A practical comparison helping researchers distinguish legitimate structured open-access publishers, such as EP Journals, from predatory journals that lack genuine peer review, transparent fees, or verifiable editorial governance.
Comparison
Indexed vs Non-Indexed Journals: A Practical Comparison
A practical comparison of indexed and non-indexed journals across multiple indexing tiers, helping authors interpret indexing claims accurately and choose venues whose indexing matches their needs.
Publishing
Low-Cost Research Journals
Low-cost journals span subscription venues with no author fee, diamond open-access journals fully subsidised by institutions, and open-access journals with modest APCs. Verifying credibility matters more than the headline number.
Publishing
How to Publish a Research Paper in Law
A practical, field-specific guide to publishing research in law, covering norms, challenges, the step-by-step process, where to publish, and how to choose between journal types.
Resource
Journals for Students: Where to Publish Early Research
Students are typically best served by open-access journals that maintain transparent peer review, modest article processing charges (APCs), and clearly documented timelines.
Resource
Journals for Multidisciplinary Research
Multidisciplinary work fits journals explicitly oriented toward cross-field research, generalist scientific journals, or specialty journals where the work's primary discipline anchors. The choice depends on which audience the work most needs to reach.
Guide
Avoiding Plagiarism in Academic Research
A clear explanation of what counts as plagiarism in academic research, how to avoid it in practice, and how journals detect and respond to it.
Guide
What is Indexing in Academic Journals?
An overview of how academic indexing operates, the principal categories of indexing services, and the implications of indexing status for authors and journals.
Related reading and next steps
- Submission portal — Submit a manuscript through the central form
- Journals list — Six peer-reviewed journals across disciplines
- Writing a research paper step by step
- How to avoid rejection
- Structured vs unstructured
- Publishing in engineering
Editorial enquiries
Questions about this guide or about preparing a manuscript for submission may be directed to the editorial office. Where a query relates to a specific journal in the portfolio, please indicate the journal abbreviation in your message.
Email: editor@ep-journals.org