Six Tips on Getting Research Published

Publishing isn't easy - but there's nothing like seeing your name (and work!) in print. Nature Reviews Materials editor Dr. Charlotte Allard visited NTU Engineering and revealed industry insight for getting that precious yes from top-tier journals.

Getting published in top-tier scientific journals is no easy feat. It demands not only robust data, but also a novel idea and the endurance needed to get through peer review.

Yet the rewards are considerable: publication can validate years of work, elevate careers, and unlock opportunities for collaboration and funding.

It also plays a vital role in society, Dr. Charlotte Allard, editor of Nature Reviews Materials explained at an NTU College of Engineering seminar on Friday July 4.

"Scientific writing is very important because scientific progress ultimately depends on how you communicate your findings to others,” she said.

In her talk, "An Editor’s Insight into Scientific Publishing," Allard offered strategies for improving one’s chances of success -even in journals like Nature, where rejection rates exceed 90 percent.

Tip #1 - Pick the Right Journal

“The most important step when writing your paper is deciding which journals you’d like to write for,” advised the editor.

To do this, researchers should review potential journals, check how many similar papers they publish, and consider whether their main message aligns with the journal’s scope and readership.

Choosing the right outlet not only improves chances of acceptance but also helps a researcher tailor a paper from the start, including for topic, content and narrative as well as formatting, length, and even AI use policies.

Allard also noted the difference between primary research and review journals. While the former prioritise novel, evidence-based findings, the latter focus on timely topics and often favour established voices in the field.

“Pitching to the wrong journal is a waste of time for both you and the editors,” she summarized.

Tip #2 - Don’t Skip the Cover Letter

While cover letters these days are often considered optional, for Allard they are critical.

“This is your chance to convince the editor to invest time in your manuscript,” counselled the editor. She stressed that the cover letter doesn’t need to be lengthy. In fact, shorter is better.

“Editors are short on time,” she explained.

Tip #3 - Maintain Narrative, Precision, and Accessibility

For the manuscript itself, Allard emphasised the importance of a clear narrative.

“Focus on ideas and findings, not the process or people,” she clarified. Detailing every step may be tempting, but it can obscure the core scientific discovery.

Precision is equally important. Saying a process increased yield by 20 percent is far clearer than calling it a “significant improvement.”

Another vital consideration is accessibility. Remember that not everyone has an expert understanding of complex theories or technical terms. If a term or acronym isn’t widely recognised, it’s best to write it out. And where possible, simpler wording improves readability.

Dr. Charlotte Allard, editor of  Nature Reviews Materials

Tip #4 - Title and Abstract Are Critical

While it’s easy to focus on the details within a paper, Allard emphasised that the title deserves just as much attention. Allard advised that a title receives many more views than anything else about the paper.

“Arguably, it’s one of the most important parts of your paper because it draws the reader in,” she disclosed. From there, some will go on to read the abstract, which is essentially a “mini-version” of the paper and often shapes their overall impression.

Effective abstracts, Allard noted, tend to follow a structure: 1–2 sentences of background, 1 sentence stating the problem, 1 summarising the results, 2–3 on methods and findings, and 1 putting it all in context.

Tip #5 - The Editor Can Be a Resource

Though the publication process can feel daunting, Allard reminded researchers that editors are there to help. They can be contacted with questions and also sometimes overrule opinions in peer review. Allard highlighted that in peer reviews, opinions aren’t counted as votes but rather arguments to be evaluated on their merit.

Tip #6 - Rejection Is Sometimes Part of the Process

Finally, it’s important to remember that rejection is often part of the process and seldom reflects the technical quality of a researcher’s work.

According to Allard, the primary reason for rejection is usually that the paper isn’t the right fit for the publication and would be better suited for consideration elsewhere.

“Often I feel better knowing the article will find the right readership somewhere else,” she confided. 

Story by Laura Dobberstein, NTU College of Engineering