Section rubric
Use this file when drafting or repairing specific sections. For each section, first ask what job it must perform. Then repair whichever part of the section prevents it from doing that job.
Title
Job
Make the paper legible, searchable, and credible in one line.
It succeeds when
- an adjacent-field scientist can infer what the paper is about
- the title names the right entity, process, system, or intervention
- the claim is neither mushy nor overstated
Common failure modes
- too much mechanism packed into one line
- a generality with no identifiable subject
- promotional adjectives doing the work of evidence
- excessive punctuation or a two-part slogan structure
Repair moves
- cut the weakest noun phrase
- replace evaluative adjectives with the actual object or process
- move from "what this means" back to "what this paper shows"
Summary paragraph or abstract
Job
Orient a broad reader, define the gap, state the principal answer, and end on the nearest real implication.
It succeeds when
- the first lines give a reader enough footing to care
- the gap is specific, not just "little is known"
- the main finding is stated once, plainly
- the last sentence names an implication that truly follows
Common failure modes
- starts too narrowly
- sounds like a compressed Results section
- too many numbers or acronyms
- final sentence leaps into unsupported future claims
Repair moves
- widen the first two sentences
- name the specific unresolved issue
- strip out non-load-bearing numeric detail
- replace general importance claims with the exact consequence of the result
Introduction or opening
Job
Move from field context to the paper's problem and promise without becoming a literature dump.
It succeeds when
- readers know why the problem matters
- the exact unresolved issue is named
- the paper's response feels necessary and proportionate
Common failure modes
- mini-review sprawl
- a gap framed so broadly that any paper could fill it
- final paragraph that merely repeats the abstract
- transition sentences that say "however" without sharpening the problem
Repair moves
- cut citations and background that do not set up the problem
- replace generic "however" moves with the actual unresolved point
- end with what the paper does and why that design can answer the question
Results
Job
Carry the reader through the evidence in the order needed to support the paper's central claim.
It succeeds when
- each subsection answers a question
- each paragraph earns its place in the argument
- interpretation is separated from observation
- the reader always knows why the next figure matters
Common failure modes
- chronological lab notebook structure
- paragraphs that narrate procedures rather than findings
- every sentence starts from "we"
- excessive number dumping
- figure captions transplanted into prose
Repair moves
- reorganise by conceptual dependency
- start subsections with the question they answer
- keep only the numbers that alter interpretation
- end paragraphs on the finding that enables the next step
Discussion
Job
State what the work establishes, what it suggests, and where its scope ends.
It succeeds when
- the main conclusion is re-stated with better perspective, not just repeated
- competing explanations or limitations are acknowledged
- implications are scaled to the evidence
- the ending leaves the reader with a precise field-level consequence
Common failure modes
- generic "these findings highlight the importance of" ending
- sudden new literature review
- limit-free victory lap
- future-work paragraph with no real synthesis
Repair moves
- identify the strongest limitation and address it directly
- replace generic significance language with specific consequences
- separate what is proved, supported, and still unresolved
Methods
Job
Give the reader the details that govern interpretability and reproducibility.
It succeeds when
- the reader can see what was measured, how, on what, and under what rules
- statistical and preprocessing choices are explicit
- software, pipelines, exclusion rules, and sample definitions are clear where material
Common failure modes
- beautiful prose but missing operational detail
- result-critical decisions buried in supplement-only material
- vague "standard methods were used" wording
- statistical analysis described only in slogans
Repair moves
- add the information a sceptical reader would need to judge the claim
- separate acquisition, preprocessing, modelling, and statistics
- name software versions and parameters when they affect interpretation
Figure legends
Job
Let the reader understand the figure without searching the main text for basic decoding.
It succeeds when
- the legend starts with a short title sentence
- panels are described in order
- sample size, statistics, centre values, and error bars are defined where relevant
- specialised symbols are explained
Common failure modes
- legend begins directly with panel letters and no framing
- no statistical definitions
- half the information is hidden in the Methods
- verbose retelling of the main text
Repair moves
- add a title sentence naming the figure's point
- define symbols and statistics explicitly
- keep only the minimal methodological detail needed to read the figure correctly
Data Availability
Job
Tell readers where the underlying data are and how they can obtain them.
It succeeds when
- a repository, accession, or access condition is named
- restrictions are explained, not obscured
Common failure modes
- vague "available upon request"
- statement absent entirely
- multiple data types mixed together without clarity
Repair moves
- separate public deposition from controlled access
- say what is already deposited and what will be released on acceptance if that is the case
- use placeholders rather than making anything up
Code Availability
Job
Tell readers whether custom code exists, where it is, and under what conditions it can be accessed.
It succeeds when
- custom analysis or modelling code is mentioned when central
- repository or access condition is stated
- versioning or release timing is clear where relevant
Cover letter or presubmission enquiry
Job
Help an editor see fit, importance, and evidential strength quickly.
It succeeds when
- it reads like an editor memo, not a reheated abstract
- it explains why the paper belongs in this journal rather than in science generally
- it names the main evidential reasons to trust the claim
Common failure modes
- abstract pasted into letter form
- overclaiming without editorial fit logic
- no mention of scope or limitations
Repair moves
- write for a time-poor editor
- make the fit argument explicit
- state what the paper is not claiming