Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Research Career Club

659 members • Free

4 contributions to Research Career Club
Ask me anything about publishing (weekend edition)!
For the next 48 hours, I will be answering any of your questions that you might have about publishing. So if you have any questions regarding manuscript preparation publication process, how to make sure your work is not rejected by reviewers or editors, how to handle rejection, how to handle peer review. Anything really that is related to writing academic papers, drop your question below in the comments and I’ll make sure I answer.
1 like • 6d
Thank you for this. What suggestions do you have for developing a conceptual paper?
1 like • 6d
This is extremely helpful - many thanks @Dawid Hanak
[early access] how to identify trends in research using AI
As a part of our partnership with AnswerThis, I’ve recorded a short guide how I use this tool to understand specific area of research better. It’ll go live tomorrow, but I thought I’d give you early access - hope it helps! P.S. what do you think of using AI for research?
[early access] how to identify trends in research using AI
1 like • Feb 26
Thanks for sharing!
Why I reject papers?
Nobody will tell you this: As a reviewer, I reject papers in Q1 journals more often than I’d like. Not because I’m harsh. Because high quality paper is less about “interesting” and more about proof. Most reject votes happen for the same reasons: - The contribution isn’t one clear, testable sentence - The methods don’t support the headline claim (scope/validation mismatch) - Benchmarking is unfair (weak baselines, mismatched conditions, cherry-picked comparisons) - “Novelty” is cosmetic (new label, minor tweak, same mechanism) - Uncertainty is ignored (no sensitivity/error analysis; no robustness checks) - Key assumptions are hidden or under-justified - The logic is hard to audit (writing obscures what was actually done) How to make reviewers want to say yes: - State your contribution in one line: “We show X because Y, validated by Z” - Compare against state of the art under matched conditions, same metrics, explain exclusions - Present assumptions early and quantify the top 3 sensitivities - Separate results from interpretation; label speculation as speculation - Make reproduction possible (data/code, or enough detail to replicate the workflow) Remember, reviewers don’t reject effort. We reject unsupported certainty.
1 like • Feb 24
This is excellent; however, I don't think the goal of a peer-review process is to reject papers. Authors should be given the opportunities to address issues/concerns raised and reconcile authors' and reviewers' disparate perceptions/viewpoints, as many important points are removed to meet the word count. I can understand that some papers are beyond repair and may warrant rejection. Reviewers and editors must be educated; there is no need to act like dictators or authoritarians. I understand the workload and the need for speedy review, but in some cases, reviewers and editors may not have sufficient knowledge of the papers they handle.
What’s your core research area?
Many of you are here to network but we don’t often know who is doing what - let’s change this: In a few words, please explain what is your core research area. Enjoy!
3 likes • Feb 12
Innovation and resilience in SMEs, including family business.
1 like • Feb 13
@Dawid Hanak Thank you for your comment. My focus is on food manufacturing operations and supply Chains.
1-4 of 4
Adekunle Oke
2
12points to level up
@adekunle-oke-9470
My work centres on exploring how firms, especially within the food and drink manufacturing sector, can develop resilience capabilities.

Active 1d ago
Joined Feb 9, 2026