Are You an Early Researcher And Want to Become Professional? Common Mistakes in Scientific Writing

Are You an Early Researcher And Want to Become Professional? Common Mistakes in Scientific Writing

Here are some common mistakes made by early researcher in Scientific Writing

Science is already complex and early scholars make it more complicated. You’ve probably had the experience of having your initial papers frequently rejected by publishers. Usually, these are disc rejected. The supervisor normally works with academics to teach them how to research, however, scholars are rarely taught how to write professional scientific papers. Come along with me to avoid making these dumb blunders when attempting to break through the publishing hurdles.

Doesn’t follow the journal guidelines

For the editors, the journal comes first. They will not compromise the journal’s standards. Every editor assumes you’ve read the author section and formatted the work in accordance with the requirements. Your work will be rejected at first sight if it does not satisfy the journal’s requirements, no matter how good your writing is.

Incohesive and inconsistent writing

The first mistake that early writers make is that their writing lacks coherence. The paragraph’s first sentence makes a statement, whereas the supporting sentence moves in a different direction. It’s just like bus tyres are pulling it in all directions. How this bus will go forward in such apposite forces? Your text is unmistakably similar to a bus. The phrases are similar to their tyres in appearance. They must all move in the same direction.

Words are not related to the context

For years, I’ve been reviewing articles, submitted to the top journals. One thing I frequently notice is the use of out-of-context terms that are inappropriate for the case. Although modern technologies have made it easier to write or rephrase, however, these are tools that help you write smarter. The usage of words must be carefully scrutinised.

Tools cannot be completely trusted; they can only assist you in completing your task smartly as possible. so, treat them as a tool rather than a professional writer.

Image by

The crux of the paper is not presented clearly

The editorial or the reviewer check your problem statement, objectives and what you contributed to the community. These cruces must be clearly communicated in abstract, introduction and title as well. After reading the title and abstract, the reader (may not relate to your domain) should get a clear picture of the entire article. If your document fails to show a clear picture, defiantly the editor or reviewer will not put further effort to read it.

Readers expect a clear presentation of the problem, objectives, and contribution in the initial sections of the manuscript

The paragraph does not have the header sentences

Each paragraph of the article deals with a particular subject. The starting sentence is a vital point of this topic and is called a header sentence in literature. The reader expects the header sentence to be a strong hook statement to hook the reader with a paragraph. Early scholars usually fail to sum up the idea in one sentence, and the insight fails to maintain continuity.

The editorial expects the header sentence to be a strong hook statement to hook the reader with a paragraph

Instead of the crux, begin the literary paragraphs with author names.

This is the most common mistake made by early writers. They begin with the author’s name, rather than a powerful backdrop and the section’s crux. This completely breaks the document’s flow and frustrates the reader.

Failure to make proper use of graphics

Graphics are worth a thousand words. It clearly illustrates complex numerical data. However, graphs should be prepared following certain rules. Early authors do not meet these standards. The graphics do not meet the quality, not these are referred to sequentially in the text.

Preparing manuscripts for months and sometimes years. Likewise, months are required for the review. Sometimes, like in the current COVID situation, manuscript review takes years. Nobody will accept that the article be rejected after months or years of review. Therefore, the errors above can be covered before hitting the submit button.

To explore more about professional scientific writing, please see the following article.

The writer can be reached via Medium, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and Google Scholar.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights