Besides the issues previously cited, others are:

-Authors want to publish fast without reflecting about the material;

-The introduction is shallow;

-The text is repetitive;

-Equations are difficult to understand (especially when we have vectors, matrices, and sensors);

-Label a review as novelty;

-The discussion does bring in a decent evaluation of the project;

-Not writing rebuttal letters;

-Ignore reviewers' comments and write a biased rebuttal letter;

-Do not care about templates and rules; and

-Ignore definitions.

Some important details are given in this article:

Article How to avoid common errors in writing scientific manuscripts

Always use your own words and rephrase! Keep direct quotations to minimal.

Avoid citing outdated references and try to use more recent references.

Avoid plagiarism!

First of all the quality of the research is very important.

In addition to the above mentioned points, scientific honesty should be highly applied. Moreover, the novelty of the research topic should be high lighted. This is very important.

My Greetings

When writing scientific manuscripts, many important details are left a side which many times causes the rejection of the manuscript from high impact journals. Scientific writing is a combination of a comprehensive literature search and study, collection of statistical data, and a clear and concise structured writing, while avoiding common and known errors. The knowledge and implementation of basic rules of style, structure, and presentation when writing a scientific paper increase the chances of success and ultimately publication. This article aims to contribute with the existing information on how to recognize and avoid common errors for a successful scientific writing and consequently being published.

Please read more in the following article:

DOI: 10.1007/s00238-018-1418-z

Too lazy to cited information from published article

1. Forgetting to paraphrase

2. Put sources that are not cited in the text to reference list

3. Double checking everything before submitting

4. Grammar and spelling

Thank you for your participation Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak Anton Vrdoljak

I agree with you Ayman S. Al-Hussaini . The points I mentioned cover the most important elements of scientific research that many reviewers look to when judging the research.

Danung Nur Adli Certainly, martyrdom is a very sensitive and important issue for a researcher. I have raised a sensitive topic with the presence of some researchers who rely on previous studies of unrelated studies, only for the purpose of supplying a citation for some researchers

Lasni Buddhibhashika Jayasooriya Thank you for sharing with us these important points in evaluating scientific research, especially the language of research, as it greatly reflects the strengths and weaknesses of research

Common mistakes when writing a scientific paper

• The background literature was not checked thoroughly. ...
• The research aim, hypotheses, and predictions are unclear. ...
• The structure of the manuscript is confusing. ...
• The methods are not explained in enough detail. ...
• The wrong statistics are used. ...
• The sections are mixed up. ...
• The conclusions do not match the presented results.

In my opinion, one common mistake is that the authors do not highlight the novelety of their study when presenting the aim of their work

Not to prolonged writing the problem and writing it in a specific, concise and clear manner

Besides the issues previously cited, others are:

-Authors want to publish fast without reflecting about the material;

-The introduction is shallow;

-The text is repetitive;

-Equations are difficult to understand (especially when we have vectors, matrices, and sensors);

-Label a review as novelty;

-The discussion does bring in a decent evaluation of the project;

-Not writing rebuttal letters;

-Ignore reviewers' comments and write a biased rebuttal letter;

-Do not care about templates and rules; and

-Ignore definitions.

Using a neutral title rather than a declarative one that reflects the results.

I made a couple of videos about this topic:

Writing Mistakes That Will Get Your Scientific Paper Rejected

Part 1: https://youtu.be/_YFdiwqi9q4

Part 2: https://youtu.be/1p7XNpvV1ak

The research question being too vague, too broad or not specified. A clearly stated research question helps you organize the information that should be included in your paper. If your research addressed more than one question, write more than one paper. Think in terms of “optimally publishable units” rather than “least publishable units.” https://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/connections/mistakes-avoid-when-writing-research-article

The structure of the paper being chaotic. It can be easy to unintentionally include methods in your results section or results in your discussion section. Take the time to clearly outline your research paper before you begin to write, keep in mind what each section needs to accomplish.

• Introduction -state your research question

• Methods - describe how you answered your research question

• Results - explain what you observed

• Discussion - discuss what you think your results mean

https://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/connections/mistakes-avoid-when-writing-research-article

The research question not answered. Because the discussion section allows for the most freedom, it also can be the most difficult section to write. Before you start this section, go back to your research question and think about how you want to answer it. Revisit your research question frequently while writing the discussion. Grammar and use of language being poor https://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/connections/mistakes-avoid-when-writing-research-article

Blind data mining. Some researchers have the tendency to collect data first (using instruments that are already available), and then figure out what to do with it. Note that data collection is only one step in a long and elaborate process of planning, designing, and executing research. In fact, a series of other activities are needed in a research process prior to data collection. If researchers jump into data collection without such elaborate planning, the data collected will likely be irrelevant, imperfect, or useless, and their data collection efforts may be entirely wasted. An abundance of data cannot make up for deficits in research planning and design, and particularly, for the lack of interesting research questions.

https://www.lisbdnetwork.com/common-mistakes-in-researc/

Sometimes I make typographical errors which are luckily pointed out by my co-authors before something.

Some common mistakes are listed below which are shared from my experience both as author and reviewer.

1. Title does not reflect the content of the manuscript precisely.

2. Mixing up tenses in sentences.

3. Improper/inappropriate key words.

4. Failing to acknowledge/discuss sufficient literature work in the introduction to create an artificial fake novelty

5. Dumping the literature in the introduction without adequate discussion to find out the missing aspect or form the basis for the submitted work

6. Failure to follow the defined acronym throughout the manuscript.

7. Suppressing key details of experimentation which does not allow reproducing the same results again.

8. Repeating a well-known procedure again in the experimentation.

9. Too much citations in the discussion section which dilute the contribution and cause to look like a review article.

10. Missing figure/table/reference citations inside the manuscript.

11. Results and discussion is occupied by detailed description of results but misses out adequate discussion/interpretation of the obtained results.

12. Duplicate references.

13. References are not provided in a uniform format or the required format for a specific journal.

14. Writing a lengthy single paragraph as conclusion rather than providing specific key points.

15. Abstract misses key findings of the research work but occupied by background of research and description on experimentation.

16. A lengthy and vague title.

17. Incorrect order of authors which is not based on actual contribution of each authors.

18. Failing to paraphrase sentences taken from other sources.

19. Reference section does not have latest references but too old for the present time work.

20. Too many self-citations in the reference section which fails to acknowledge others work.

21. Number of references is too little or too much for a regular manuscript.

22. Paraphrasing usual terminologies into unusual words to escape plagiarism but eventually depriving the intended meaning.

23. Resolution of figures is low to view all the features clearly.

24. Duplicating a figure content as table and vice versa.

25. Missing funding or other acknowledgements of persons who assisted in the research work.

26. Too many sentences beginning with prepositions.

27. Too long sentences with too many conjunction words reducing the readability.

28. Failing to highlight the changes made in the revised manuscript.

29. Duplication of same sentences within a manuscript.

30. Missing to cite key review papers in a field of research in the reference section.

Thank you for your addition حنان عبد الغفار عطية ابراهيم . Certainly, the research problem is very important, as the most important elements of the research are based on it

Thank you for the addition Ghadir El-Chaghaby . It is sure that highlighting the study’s purpose and contribution correctly shows its strength even if the study is weak, but it is convincing.

Thank you for sharing this valuable information Kamal M Alsaad Maria Aparecida De Jesus

Also submitting your paper in a journal that has one issue per year. so if you fail this year, it will take too long to have your novel idea known. Your idea might be late as others might have seized the opportunity and published in monthly or quarterly ones.

Dear Kiprotich Kiptum , An important point that many researchers do not pay attention to

I think all co-authors have the responsibility to have read the manuscript and to have agreed on its content. I have reviewed papers that need a lot of revision that have co-authors that should have caught the problems.

The following should be avoided while writing scientific papers.

1. Copying figures from some sources without permission

2. using equations without referring them in text.

3. comparing results with some other paper after taking a part of dataset used in that paper.

writing abstract before writing full paper.