 Let's talk more about why research papers are rejected and what are some of the common reasons for rejections in a research report. First of all, a paper is likely to be rejected if there's no review of the literature with the manuscript. For a research paper, the review of the literature should tell the reader what is known about the topic, what is not known about the topic, and how your idea or your research will fill the gap in knowledge. So a research paper must have a brief, succinct review of the literature that gives the reader the information so they understand the gap in the knowledge that your study will help fill. A second common reason for rejection of research papers is if the actual research method and or the statistics used are inappropriate. That's harder to fix because that may take a lot of work for you to go back and do some additional work in order to make that flaw fixable. Another common reason for rejection of research papers is you don't adequately describe how your sample was obtained, what's the inclusion criteria, what was the exclusion criteria, and you must state in the paper that you had institutional review board permission otherwise research cannot be published if there was no IRB approval. Another common mistake made in research papers is in the results sections the author includes a discussion of the findings. Instead, the results section should simply be a synopsis of the data. Maybe there's tables, figures, but it's simply presenting to the reader the facts or the results of that study. In the discussion section is where you discuss those results, you compare your results to the literature, and you then conjecture why you found what you found. But let me tell you another common mistake in the discussion section. In a paper, for example, an author may say I had a wonderfully adequate sample size for my study. I also had research instruments that were valid and reliable. But unfortunately the results of your study did not support your projected hypothesis. So the mistake authors often make then in the discussion section is to pretend they did find the result they wanted. So rather than discussing why they didn't find the correlation, let's say that they predicted. Instead, you'll see authors say, well, if I had had a bigger sample, if I had had better instruments, I would have found what I wanted to find. And then the discussion continues as if the findings occurred when in reality they did not. So if your findings do not support your hypothesis, you must explain why. Conjecture why you didn't find what you hoped to find. You cannot discuss what you wished you had found. Because it's difficult if you say to us at the end, well, in reality, my sample wasn't big enough. In reality, my instruments weren't good. That should not be the reason to explain your findings. In the conclusion section, it's good to explain the limitations of your study. All studies have some aspect of limitations. And this is the place where you want to describe those limitations. And finally, the paper should conclude with what are areas for future research, what topics need to be studied next. So without all of these elements in a research paper, you put yourself at likelihood of being rejected.