We receive a lot of articles from authors every day. All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo the quality control and rigorous peer review. The results thereof inspired us to give some recommendations for preparing a manuscript. So, we collected for you some widespread pitfalls that may lead to considering an article to be improved or even rejected.
These reasons are mostly related to some main parts, especially conclusion. We remind them: Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References. Articles within the social sciences should have main parts and obviously have aim and conclusion. Let’s consider them.
- Title. In some cases, the title does not reflect the paper’s topic. Obviously, the title of an article plays a great role in promoting your scientific work. Firstly, the title should not contain more than 12-15 words. Secondly, it should be clearly formulated and show the main sense of the investigation.
- The Abstract is too long or is not concerned with an article – one of the widest spread mistakes. The Abstract should briefly describe the object and report the main results and conclusions that are obtained during an investigation.
- The Introduction is indistinct. This section of the manuscript should briefly open timeliness and reasons of the research. Since reviewers pay much attention to this part and often reject an article after it.
- Materials and Methods are not relevant to the topic or they are too short. Methods, as a rule, describe an experiment so full, that other researchers could obtain similar results in the same conditions of the experiment(s).
- Results do not show the whole picture of an investigation. Lack of the data or its inconsistencies often leads to the rejection of manuscripts by the editor or reviewers.
- The Discussion is unoccupied. In some cases, when expressing data in other way, authors devote much consideration to results without clarification of obtained results. Another mistake deals with explanations of the issue of investigation. The real aim of the discussion is to give readers a reflective analysis of why this research is important in theoretical and practical senses. Surely, all definitions author should argue in favour of all definitions by using literature observe.
- The Conclusion is not clear. This part of a scientific article summarizes all results found during the study. The Golden Rule is the summary reflecting the aim of the research with facts obtained in the course of an investigation.
- References are too old or there are few literature sources. The suggestion to authors about literature sources consists in lining up with the topic. It’s better to use only useful and recent references for this investigation.
To summarize this issue we would like to say about the strong points of a manuscript. Articles, which are made properly, always have highlights and some contributions to the area of research. This is the main key to a successful publication, but each author should remember about journal templates to follow them. In our next set of articles we will provide an in-depth coverage of problems and mistakes met in each part separately.