Preparing for Peer Review Submissions

✍️ Submitting to a top CS conference or journal? I just released an open-source, concrete, and opinionated checklist for CS paper writing — designed to prevent desk rejects, improve clarity, and save co-authors and reviewers a lot of pain. I have asked all my lab papers to go through this checklist before submission. 🧠 Inspired by real (painful) examples: 1. Forgot to include a co-author before submission (happened much more frequently than you can imagine) 😬 2. Revealed author identity via GitHub repo metadata 🔍 3. "Novel framework..." + no baselines + one giant equation = 🚫 4. Copy-pasted LLM citation hallucinations that don’t exist 🧨 ✅ The checklist covers many things (if not everything): title, abstract, method, experiments, figures, references, hallucinated citations, and final sanity checks. 📄 English & Chinese versions available. 🌐 GitHub: https://lnkd.in/gaQ85ChY Use it. Share it. Improve it. Save a paper (or a career). #CSResearch #AcademicWriting #MachineLearning #PhDLife #PeerReview #LLM #Reproducibility #OpenScience

On kindness in peer review: 9 better ways to say “This paper needs work" Every so often, I come across a reviewer comment that calls a contribution trivial or says it “does not rise to the level expected” at a journal. When I see that language, I wince. Even if the critique has merit, it often overshadows otherwise valuable points in the review. Why? Because it makes the authors feel like the entire review team—not just one reviewer—didn’t see any merit in their work. So, what can we do instead? To help authors actually use your feedback? Soften your tone—not your standards. Use language that clearly signals concern about the contribution without shutting down the possibility for improvement. Rather than making the author angry, use language that engages the author with your comments and encourages them to improve their work. Here are nine thoughtful phrases I’ve seen good reviewers use this past year, that encourage engagement. They’re especially useful in peer review, mentorship, or conference feedback: 1. "The core argument feels underdeveloped, and I had trouble fully engaging with it." This gently signals the paper didn’t land, while pointing to a fixable issue. 2. "I struggled to connect with the contribution—perhaps more framing or positioning could clarify its relevance." Invites the author to sharpen the positioning of their work. 3. "The paper raises important questions, but the current structure makes it difficult to appreciate its full impact." Encourages authors to revise the structure for better clarity. 4. "I found myself wanting more clarity on how this piece fits into the broader conversation." Suggests adding context. Consider: “It doesn’t resonate with me because the context is missing.” 5. "This may reflect my own disciplinary perspective, but I had difficulty connecting with the theoretical framing." Acknowledges your own lens and invites the author to strengthen their framing for a wider audience. 6. "The writing is thoughtful, but I had trouble seeing how the pieces come together to form a cohesive narrative." Encourages a shift from listing elements to telling a coherent story. 7. "The manuscript feels preliminary—there’s potential here, but it’s not fully realized yet." Flags underdevelopment without sounding dismissive or harsh. 8. "The contribution may benefit from more grounding in empirical or theoretical detail to fully resonate with readers." Only use this if you can specify what detail is needed. 9. "This version didn’t quite land for me, but I believe with revision and sharper focus, it could really shine." Provides an honest, hopeful invitation to revise. Never forget. Reviewing is about stewardship. It’s about helping authors make their work stronger—even when it’s not there yet. So rather than tearing down papers, offer a well-phrased critique, that encourages authors to keep working. #PeerReview #AcademicWriting #AcademicJourney #AcademicCulture

This week one of my main goals has been to conduct a final review of a paper prior to journal submission - thus I thought it would be helpful to do a short post about the mental checklist I run through when submitting a paper. (This is a first submission to the target journal, not a submission of a revision; and applies primarily to empirical papers.) 1) Carefully review the title and abstract. Are both informative and accurate? Does the abstract meet word limits (usually 100 or 150 words, depending on the journal)? Note that any errors in the abstract make a hugely negative first impression. Check it again! 2) Check the bibliographic compilation. Careful copy-editing of every entry is not usually necessary at this stage (if you want to do this, AI tools can help) but ensure that there are no missing references, "ADD REFERENCE HERE" notes, "???" compilations in Latex, etc. 3) Review the footnotes. Often, footnotes accumulate during writing as a parking lot for extra notes that someone may think are important or wants to remember. Pruning of footnotes is wise at this stage. Longer or more complex background information is often more appropriately placed in an appendix (where it is more clearly separate, and less distracting) compared to a footnote. 4) Review the exhibits and the notes. Does every exhibit have appropriate notes that are complete and readable? Are the exhibit titles logical, clear, and of generally similar structure? Different people have different preferences, but it is not wise, for example, to have one table named "Results" and one named "Robustness check: Alternate construction of the roads variable." They should be roughly similar in length and structure. A reader who goes straight to the exhibits and reads them alone should be able to understand them and understand the primary story of the paper. 5) Review, quickly, the section and subsection titles. Again, preferences differ - there is no one structure of a paper that is always preferable - but ensure that the titles are logical and internally coherent. 6) Review the acknowledgments and ensure that funders, partners, and others are appropriately acknowledged. If original data was collected, ensure that information about ethical approvals and any pre-registrations is provided (I prefer to provide this in the main text but some provide it an acknowledgments footnote.) 7) Return to the journal requirements and note if there are any other required documents (conflict of interest statements, etc.) Cover letters are generally optional at economics journals and if optional, I usually do not provide them; as editor, I only scan them quickly. The primary goal of a cover letter should be to convey information other than "this is a paper about X", information that can be gleaned from the abstract. For example, if the analysis uses proprietary data, or if there is some important information about the composition of the team. Good luck with your submissions!

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. Some reviewers offer gentle, yet unhelpful feedback. Others may be harsh but give insightful comment. Striking the right balance is key. Let me share my approach on being the 'just right' peer reviewer The are 2 parts Part 1: What to pay attention to (per section) Part 2: Scripts on how to critique politely ----------- Part 1: 📝1️⃣ Abstract: • Is it a short, clear summary of the aims, key methods, important findings, and conclusions? • Can it stand alone? • Does it contain unnecessary information? 🚪2️⃣ Introduction: Study Premise: Is it talking about something new on something old? • Does it summarize the current state of the topic? • Does it address the limitations of current state in this field? • Does it explain why this study was necessary? • Are the aims clear? 🧩3️⃣ Methods: • Study design: right to answer the question? • Population: unbiased? • Data source and collection: clearly defined? • Outcome: accurate, clinically meaningful? • Variables: well justified? • Statistical analysis: right method, sufficient power? • Study robustness: sensitivity analysis, data management. • Ethical concerns addressed? 🎯4️⃣ Results: • Are results presented clearly, accurately, and in order? • Easy to understand? • Tables make sense? • Measures of uncertainty (standard errors/P values) included? 9/16: 📈6️⃣ Figures: • Easy to understand? • Figure legends make sense? • Titles, axis clear? 🌐7️⃣ Discussion: The interpretation. • Did they compare the findings with current literature? • Is there a research argument? (claim + evidence) • Limitations/strengths addressed? • Future direction? 📚8️⃣ References: • Key references missing? • Do the authors cite secondary sources (narrative review papers) instead of the original paper? ------------ Part 2: 🗣️ How do you give your critique politely? Use these scripts. Interesting/useful research question, BUT weak method: - The study premise is strong, but the approach is underdeveloped." Robust research method, BUT the research question is not interesting/useful: -"The research method is robust and well thought out, but the study premise is weak." Bad writing: -"While the study/ research appears to be strong, the writing is difficult to follow. I recommend the authors work with a copyeditor to improve the flow/clarity and readability of the text" Results section do not make sense: -"The data reported in {page x/table y} should be expanded and clarified." Wrong interpretation/ wrong conclusion: -"The authors stated that {***}, but the data does not fully support this conclusion. We can only conclude that {***}. Poor Discussion section -"The authors {did not/fails to} address how their findings relate to the literature in this field." Copy this post into a word document and save it as a template. Use this every time you have to review a paper. If you are the receiver of peer review - you can also use this to decode what the reviewer is saying.😉

Get your scientific manuscripts in Shape from Scratch using this workflow. Creating a well-structured manuscript is crucial in presenting your research effectively. Here’s a concise and efficient approach to organizing your manuscript: 1️⃣ Prepare Figures and Tables ✎Start with Visuals: Organize your data into precise, informative figures and tables. ✎Ensure Clarity: Make sure they are accurately labeled and easy to interpret, as these will support your findings. 2️⃣ Write the Methods Section ✔︎Detail Procedures: Describe the procedures and techniques used in your study with enough detail for replication. ✔︎ I'm Be Precise: Ensure your methods are clearly outlined and precise. 3️⃣ Document the Results ✏️Present Findings: Arrange your findings logically and use figures and tables to highlight key data points. ✏️Stay Objective: Focus on presenting the results without interpretation. 4️⃣ Develop the Discussion ✏️Interpret Results: Discuss the significance of your findings, addressing any discrepancies and limitations. ✏️Contextual Comparison: Compare your results with previous studies to underscore your contributions. 5️⃣ Refine Results and Discussion ✏️Review Thoroughly: Ensure your results and discussion sections are comprehensive and well-articulated. ✏️Foundation for Introduction: Use these sections to solidify the scientific significance of your work before writing the introduction. 6️⃣ Conclude Clearly ✏️Summarize Key Points: Provide a succinct summary of your main findings and their implications. ✏️Future Directions: Suggest potential future research based on your results. 7️⃣ Craft the Introduction ✏️Introduce the background and rationale for your study engagingly. ✏️State Research Question: Clearly define your research question or hypothesis and its importance. 8️⃣ Write the Abstract ✔︎Concise Summary: Summarize your study’s background, methods, results, and conclusions. ✔︎Capture Interest: Ensure the abstract captures the essence of your research and entices readers. 9️⃣ Create a Descriptive Title ✏️Develop a title that accurately reflects your study’s content and scope. 🔟 Select Relevant Keywords ✏️Increase Visibility: Choose specific, relevant keywords that represent the main topics of your manuscript. ✏️Ensure they are commonly used in your field. 1️⃣1️⃣ Write Acknowledgements ✔️Show Gratitude: Acknowledge the contributions of individuals, funding sources, and institutions specifically and graciously. 1️⃣2️⃣ Compile References ✔️Complete List: Assemble a comprehensive list of all cited sources. What are your best practices for organizing a manuscript? 🔄 Share this guide to help fellow researchers streamline their writing process! #AcademicWriting #ResearchOrganization #ManuscriptPreparation #Writing

While I was trying to search for possible reviewers for a manuscript I am currently handling, I decided to make this screenshot. This reminds me of how essential it is to maintain constructive practices when serving as a reviewer (every review is an opportunity to contribute to the growth of our fields). Here are some short tips that I hope might help others to do their “B.E.S.T”: B - Be Constructive: Focus on providing clear, actionable feedback to help authors improve their work. Avoid harsh or dismissive language. Be realistic and empathetic. E - Ethical Standards: Uphold integrity by avoiding conflicts of interest (e.g., if a manuscript falls outside your expertise, it's better to recommend someone more suitable than to provide a subpar review; avoid suggesting authors cite specific work(s) unless it is genuinely relevant, etc.). S - Stick to Timelines: Timely reviews benefit everyone. If you cannot meet a deadline, communicate it early (especially during travel and holiday seasons, etc.). T - Thorough Evaluation: Carefully assess all aspects of the manuscript—structure, methodology, relevance, and clarity—without rushing. Highlight the strengths of the manuscript along with areas for improvement. Focus on the “content”, not the person(s)/institution(s). There are plenty of other best practices and sources that can help: 1. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers [https://lnkd.in/etSSVrZT] 2. Notable publishers have similar guidelines [https://lnkd.in/ez5vy_tx, https://lnkd.in/e6FFKM-A, https://lnkd.in/eR9anKQK]

Mastering the Research Article – My Step-by-Step Approach One of the most important skills for any scientific writer is knowing how to write a research article. It’s the foundation of what we do—and learning how to structure it well is crucial. Here’s exactly how I approach it: 1️⃣ Start with the figures – Once all figures are finalized, I begin by writing the figure legends. Take this seriously—figures should be self-explanatory. If someone looks only at the figures, they should still understand your story. 2️⃣ Write the Methods – Explain how the results were obtained. 3️⃣ Then the Results – Present what you found. Stay factual and link directly to each figure. 4️⃣ Now the Discussion – This is where you explain what the results mean. Connect your findings to the bigger picture. Compare to existing literature, mention limitations, and offer hypotheses. 5️⃣ Go back to the Introduction – Now that you’ve written the core, you can clearly explain why this study matters. Set up the context and the research question. 6️⃣ Finally: Title, Abstract, and the rest – These come last: the abstract, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest, funding info, etc. Save them for when you have the full picture in place. How do you approach writing a research article? Do you follow a similar order? #ScientificWriting #ResearchArticle #WritingTips #AcademicWriting #ScienceCommunication

In a recent post, I discussed the conditional probability of acceptance at top #journals at different stages of the #review process. I was blown away by the response—many of you found encouragement in the idea that your odds improve significantly once your paper passes the editor’s desk. Today, I want to offer further encouragement to #PhD students and junior #faculty: aim your best research at top journals—but do so with the understanding that #rejection is part of the process, and that thoughtful engagement with reviewer feedback can still move your work forward. What do I mean by this? After a rejection, it’s tempting to brush off reviewer comments and send the same version of your manuscript to another journal. I’ve been guilty of this myself earlier in my career. But there’s a better approach: Treat the feedback you receive—even with a rejection—as if it were a revise-and-resubmit. Even if the paper didn’t make it this time, the feedback can help it succeed next time. Use the reviewers’ comments to strengthen your paper before the next submission. I suggest the following: 👉 Create a task list or draft a response document to systematically work through the feedback. 👉 Revise based on the points your team finds most salient and feasible. 👉 Acknowledge any methodological or data limitations you can't fix, so the next reviewer knows you've thoughtfully considered them. 👉 Set aside comments you find unhelpful or misdirected—but be prepared to justify your rationale if the issue comes up again. You may still face rejection—probably more than once. But if you treat each round of feedback as an opportunity to improve your work, your manuscript will evolve. And with each revision and submission, you increase the likelihood of finding the right home for your research. Think of your research career like building a long-term investment portfolio. Just as financial advisors recommend diversifying assets for sustainable wealth creation, #scholars should aim to develop a balanced portfolio of publications—some in elite journals, others in strong niche or second-tier outlets, all contributing to the larger body of work you develop over time. This strategy will enable you to consistently produce rigorous, thoughtful #research that builds your reputation, deepens your expertise, and contributes meaningfully to the field—creating a foundation for long-term success and career durability. #academiclife #publishing #scholarship

How do you know when to stop editing your manuscript and submit it for review? As a PhD student, I tinkered with my manuscripts for months before submitting them. It took me years to realize that my first submissions to journals wouldn't be perfect and that it's better to get the review process started sooner rather than later. Here are some key areas that I assess before submitting my manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals: ✅ Ensure that your study rationale is strong ➡ If you feel like you make a strong case for why your study is needed, it's time to submit ✅ Confirm that your methods are transparent ➡ If you believe that readers know everything needed to replicate your study, it's time to submit ✅ Verify that your results directly answer your research questions ➡ If you believe that your results section adequately describes findings in relation to your research questions, it's time to submit ✅ Make sure that you provide the reader with a maximum of 3 key takeaways that they can use in their research and/or practice ➡ If you believe that you provide clear implications of your study, it's time to submit ✅ Check for grammatical errors and typos ➡ If no major issues arise, it's time to submit ✅ Get external feedback from trusted advisors ➡ If they don't have major criticisms, it's time to submit ✅ Ask yourself a simple question, "How can I make this paper 10% better?" ➡ If you can't, it's time to submit 💡 Reviewers will likely want you to make revisions. So, the quicker you submit, the faster you can start addressing their concerns and move closer to publication. P.S. How do you know when it's the right time to submit your manuscript to a journal? ➖ ➖ ➖ ➖ I'm Joseph Rios, the founder of Grad Student Academy. Follow me if you enjoyed this content. I write about graduate school and professional development issues for PhD students. My mission is to unveil the hidden PhD curriculum to all, not just the privileged few. Learn the strategies I used to go from being rejected by nearly every PhD program to: ✅ obtaining a top-notch industry job ✅ landing a tenure-track faculty position ✅ becoming an award-winning researcher

✍🏽 Are you an early career researcher serving as a journal peer reviewer for the first time? Or planning to soon? Here are a few of the questions I think about in each section as I am peer-reviewing journal manuscripts: 1️⃣ Abstract • Is it clear what was studied and why? • Are the main methods and results clear? • Are the conclusions supported by the study results? • Does it contribute meaningfully to the scientific literature? 2️⃣ Intro • Is it reasonable (e.g., evidence-based, logical)? • Any major bodies of evidence/literature missing? 3️⃣ Methods • Are methods technically sound and justified? • Are methods sufficiently detailed for someone to reproduce? • Are methods reasonable for the study objective or hypothesis? 4️⃣ Results • Are results appropriate? • Any major results missing? 5️⃣ Discussion • Is the discussion balanced/unbiased? • Any major topics or literature missing? • Are study limitations sufficiently discussed? • Are results discussed in the context of prior literature? • Are interpretations reasonable and supported by the results? 6️⃣ Conclusion • Are conclusions supported by results? • Are conclusions over-generalized or over-stated? ❌ For many early career researchers, you are used to getting red-ink-soaked manuscript pages back from your advisor. Or maybe you've been put thru the ringer before by Reviewer 2—we all have! So, it may seem natural to provide similar levels of edits during peer-review. Don't. RESIST THIS URGE! ☝🏽 Remember: you are not a co-author on the paper, so it's not the same level of revisions you would do internally on our own paper and when your own name is on the document. 📈 I largely look at scientific manuscripts as progress reports. As a research community, we gradually and collectively build up the evidence and understanding in our fields. ⚡️ To close, here are 3 more bonus tips to keep in mind while you review: 🧘🏽 Try not to be too nitpicky about individual sentences or wording. The goal of peer review isn't to correct or improve every minor little thing. And no paper can comprehensively cover every tangential topic and reference. Nor is it going to be written in your preferred style or be perfectly clear (that's ok and normal). 👍🏽 If you suggest major changes or provide major critiques, then explain why (including references if helpful) and, when possible, suggest constructive ways for authors to address your feedback. 👏🏽 Reviewing manuscripts isn't just about critiquing the negatives! It's ok (and appreciated by authors!) when you point out positive things: great figures or tables, clear writing, clever study designs, well-explained interpretations, etc. 🎯 TL/DR: Focus on evaluating whether the research is technically sound and the manuscript is sufficiently rigorous (not to be confused with comprehensive or perfect). You can hold research to a high standard while being constructive and reasonable. Don't become Reviewer 2 or confuse yourself with being a co-author.