Introductions matter. Sloppily written article introductions will sink your paper every time, no matter how good the rest of the piece is. You have one shot to get the reviewer on board. Do it well, and publishing success abounds. Do it badly - not only are there rejections/ major corrections, but the nature of those corrections are so far off what you had intended, you seriously wonder which article they are reading. It is of course de rigueur to blame the nasty reviewer 2, but trust me, you played your part here; it was the badly written introduction that killed your prospects. Writing a crystal clear, concise and targeted opening sequence in your article is not magic: it is a formula. I can show you here how to craft one to ensure you get maximum traction with your reviewers.

…

See what I did there? Immediately I identified a problem, and why it was a problem, and how I was going to give you the solution. I acknowledge blogs and journal article are different genres, but the point stands. Your article should be doing exactly the same thing, and when it doesn’t….chaos takes the wheel.

what do problematic introductions look like?

Long winded meanderings through the literature or a précis of your entire paper is not an introduction. It is not what the journal reviewers are expecting and when you do this you immediately mark yourself out as not belonging to the club. You don’t know the formula - it is a fail. Similarly not stating some things up front - and being crystal clear in your language and intent - will not pass muster.

Academic articles deal with complex ideas and knowledge and need to follow a script, so that someone who has not done the research can pick up your piece and follow it. You have to build bridges from your brain to theirs, and signposts that keep them on track. A badly written introduction leaves the reviewer feeling confused, or worse, stupid, and well… you know academics. They don’t like that. If you can’t strap them in, like an unruly toddler on the motorway, the car will end up in the ditch. The reviewer needs to be told exactly the direction you are going in and to keep looking down that particular path and nowhere else. Without clear direction, they start to gaze around at the scenery and starting thinking ‘I like the look of that road better’. And then they tell you to write it.

When article introductions are badly written, the reviewer, consciously or otherwise, makes up their mind about how this article should be, and it might not be what you intended. Problems spiral from that point outwards. But if you don’t give them a chance to make the wrong assumption, then…reviews tend to be kinder, more targeted. They can actually be helpful in improving your idea and your communication of it.

Solution

I have a step by step free guide to writing an excellent, compelling, accurate and reviewer proof introduction in my free resources. Good introductions can overcome 4 out of 5 reasons journal articles get rejected. So go ahead and download that guide. You’re welcome!

You can access it here: