Guest Article: By Stephen D. Senturia
One of the gates to Harvard Yard reads, “Enter to Grow in Wisdom.” In academic life, a comparable gate might read, “Publish or Perish.” Unless your PhD thesis turns into a popular book, the primary route to scholarly recognition is publishing in peer-reviewed journals. After spending seventeen years as co-editor of two journals, I developed practical guidelines for navigating the review process smoothly. These recommendations reflect common pitfalls and strategies that help both authors and reviewers reach a fair outcome.
1. (Almost) Nothing Is Completely New
Research always builds on prior work. When advising students, I told them to “figure out what you have done, then go to the library and find it.” In practice, that means thoroughly citing and discussing the relevant literature in your introduction and, crucially, returning to that literature in your conclusion to explain how your work extends or differs from what came before. Leaving that loop open is one of the most frequent reasons reviewers reject a manuscript.
If you have closely related work—published or under review—share a copy with the editor when you submit. Omitting relevant related material, especially your own, can lead to a quick rejection if the editor discovers it later.
2. Use a Believability Index
Many inexperienced authors struggle to organize their papers effectively. I recommend scoring each component of the manuscript by its believability: background facts (well established), methods, data processing, experimental results, theoretical models, and your interpretations. Present your paper in order of decreasing believability. Reviewers will accept the high-believability material first; when they reach a point they question, that point will be clear because the stronger points are already established. This ordering makes critiques sharper and the review process less contentious.
3. Avoid Gambling Words
Words like “certainly,” “probably,” or “undoubtedly” suggest you are betting on an interpretation rather than demonstrating it. In scientific writing you should distinguish carefully between what is supported by evidence and what is speculative. Using hedging words to strengthen an argument only undermines it and invites skeptical reviewers.
4. Don’t Be a Storyteller in Place of a Scientist
Good narrative has its place, but mixing stories and results repeatedly—result, story, result, story—breaks the logical flow. That structure often places lower-believability material before stronger evidence, making it harder for reviewers to follow and evaluate your central claims. Keep results and interpretation organized so each follows logically from the previous material.
5. No Rabbits from Hats
Some authors save a surprising result for the end to bolster an interpretation introduced earlier. That theatrical reveal wastes reviewers’ time because they must evaluate the interpretation without having seen all relevant data. Present all essential results before drawing your main conclusions; respect the reviewer’s time and make your case clearly and efficiently.
6. Mine All the Gold
Treat your data like a mine you intend to work thoroughly. Presenting a few striking findings and leaving other information unexplored weakens your paper. While reviewers rarely reject a paper simply because it does not exhaust every possible analysis, demonstrating that you have mined the data thoroughly strengthens your credibility. You may reserve some speculative connections for the end, but be transparent about their tentative nature and support them with the most complete analysis you can provide.
7. Reviewers Are Humans; Authors Are Sometimes Defensive
Reviewers are volunteers with limited time, and their comments are occasionally inarticulate. That said, they are rarely trying to sabotage an author. Most criticisms reflect genuine concerns, even if they arise from misunderstandings. Responding to feedback with ego or hostility is counterproductive. Instead, try to understand why a reviewer might have objected and address that concern directly—by clarifying, reorganizing, or revising your manuscript. If you thoughtfully fix the points you can understand, editors are more likely to be sympathetic when you politely rebut criticisms that you believe are incorrect.
Conclusion
Writing good papers is a learnable skill. Applying the Believability Index to structure your manuscript, avoiding hedging language, presenting results clearly, and mining your data thoroughly will make the review process smoother. I have written a more detailed treatment of these ideas in a paper titled “How to Avoid the Reviewer’s Axe,” available on my website. I welcome stories and questions about peer review; you can contact me through the contact information on my site.
About: Stephen D. Senturia is a former Professor of Electrical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he taught for 36 years and mentored many students and faculty candidates. Learn more about his work and writings on his website.