Most researchers are gettng rejected for WRONG reasons 3 top editors revealed their internal review process.. Here's what I learned (Save & Repost) ⤵️ 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 → 1 line max. No questions. Make it a statement about your main finding. → Don't ask "Does X work?" Say "X improves Y by 40%" 𝗔𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘆 → Skip the long intro. Get to the point. → Include actual numbers, not just "significant improvements" → Many readers never go past this. Make it count. 𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗱𝘀 = 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸 → First sentence MUST mention ethics approval → No sample size calculation? Instant rejection. → If someone can't repeat your study from your description, you failed. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 → Don't tell readers everything you know → Four parts only: main findings, context, limitations, clinical use → Stop repeating your results here Biggest mistake I see everywhere: Type II errors from small sample sizes. Here's the thing: These editors review thousands of papers yearly. They spot patterns instantly! Follow their blueprint.. ..& your acceptance odds jump dramatically. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗹𝗲? 1/5