Publishable or not? Analysis of technical issues among manuscripts of faculty researchers

Abstract

Manuscripts that are poorly prepared for publication remain one of the leading reasons why journals reject completed research papers. Although prior studies have identified the skills and challenges faced by academics in scholarly publishing, limited attention has been given to the technical issues within specific sections of manuscripts. This study addresses this gap by employing in-depth document analysis to examine flaws in manuscripts submitted for in-house review. Thirteen manuscripts from faculty members were evaluated by three external expert panels, and significant comments were thematically categorized. The analysis revealed that the introduction section contained the greatest number of weaknesses, particularly in establishing a sound theoretical foundation, integrating empirical evidence, and linking concepts coherently. Study designs were frequently assessed as weak, inappropriate, or inconsistent with the stated methodological approach. Furthermore, discussions often lacked clarity in articulating the rationale behind the study and its broader applicability. These findings highlight the persistent challenges faced by academics in aligning research design, theoretical grounding, and argumentation within manuscripts. The study emphasizes the need for capacity building in academic writing, particularly in structuring arguments, strengthening theoretical frameworks, and ensuring methodological coherence. Addressing these areas can improve the quality of manuscripts, thereby enhancing the likelihood of publication in reputable journals and contributing more effectively to scholarly discourse.

Keywords: academic publishing; faculty development; manuscript preparation; research design; scholarly writing