During the peer review process, manuscript clarity is the quiet force that keeps editors reading and reviewers nodding. Although clean sentences, replicable methods, and stand-alone figures do not change their findings, they determine how quickly the work moves through the pipeline. This article distils the most effective clarity-editing strategies—rooted in the common concerns raised by editors and reviewers—enabling you to refine the language, enhance the structure, and present the results in a manner that minimises unnecessary back-and-forth communication. If you are nearing submission and seek a gentle guiding hand, a light review from a professional team, such as ManuscriptEdit’s editing and proofreading services, can enhance your work without altering your unique voice.
Table of Contents
Why clarity drives decisions
Different journals emphasise different pain points; however, the underlying clarity signals are universal.
- US journals prioritise transparent statistical reporting and direct claims. Reviewers expect an active voice, precise effect sizes, and figures that communicate without decoding.
- UK journals focus on reporting guidelines and reference accuracy with concise and consistent terminology.
- India-based submissions may face scrutiny of idiom and tense consistency; a brief language editing pass prevents wording queries unrelated to science.
- EU outlets emphasise data sharing, ethics, and reproducibility; structured methods, clarity, and checklist compliance lower the risk of early rejection.
Across geographies, the rule is simple: the fewer places a reader has to pause, the fewer comments you will receive.
Note: This is not mandatory but is derived from the major feedback and analysis performed by Manuscriptedit.
Five clarity fixes that helps in passing editors check
1) Use active voice for direct claims
Abstract
- Passive voice: An increase in enzyme activity was observed after treatment.
- Active: We observed increased enzyme activity after the treatment.
2) Establish logical flow with simple transitions
Why it works: Transitional words orient the reader and connect steps.
Before: We measured X. The treatment was Y. Z improved.
After: First, we measured X. Then, we applied treatment Y. As a result, Z was improved.
Quick check: Read the first and last sentences in each paragraph. If the move was unclear, add a transition or rewrite the topic sentence.
3) Prune sentences to reduce cognitive load
Why it works: Shorter sentences prevent ambiguity from compounding.
Before: It is important to note that the samples collected over a period of six months in three waves were subsequently analysed.
After: We collected samples from three waves over six months and analysed them.
Quick check: One idea per sentence and one action per clause prefer concrete verbs over helper phrases.
4) Keep parallel structure and consistent terms
Why it works: Parallel lists make comparisons obvious and reduce interpretation comments.
Before: The accuracy, error rate, and speed of the model were measured.
After that, we measured the accuracy, error rate, and runtime.
Quick check: In lists, align the grammar (noun-noun-noun). Pick a term and stick to it (e.g., “runtime”, not “speed” elsewhere).
5) Apply a targeted line edit before submission
Why it works: A line edit fixes micro-issues—tense consistency, missing transition words, and jargon control—without touching your scientific content.
Before: Data are shown in Fig. 2, where a t-test was conducted, and significance can be observed.
These data are shown in Figure 2. We conducted t-tests; significant differences appear in panels b and c.
If you are short on time, a focused, pre-submission pass from ManuscriptEdit’s editing & proofreading can catch these clarity issues and harmonise tone across sections.
Section-by-section clarity (what reviewers expect)
Abstract clarity (and title optimisation)
Your abstract will be scanned first and remembered last. Lead with the problem, approach, and outcome in one crisp-opening sentence. Keep numbers where they matter (sample size, effect size, confidence interval) and trim hedges unless the design requires them. Align the title with the main contribution; avoid clever phrasing if it dilutes the meaning.
Checklist: One-sentence problem→ Approach → Result | One concrete number | One sentence on implication.
Methods clarity (replicable, not verbose)
Aim for the “replicable minimum”: everything a qualified reader needs to reproduce without guesswork.
- Use of a predictable scaffold: Design → Participants/Data → Procedures → Measures → Analysis.
- Define every acronym for first use and remain consistent thereafter.
- Standard equation formatting and units: put vendor/model details in parentheses or a brief table.
Tip: If you have moved details to the supplementary material, signal it explicitly, so the reviewers are not forced to search.
Results clarity (statistical reporting that travels)
Present what happened; save why it happened for discussion.
- Report the test, degrees of freedom, statistic, and p-value or provide effect sizes with CIs where appropriate.
- Keep one claim per sentence: one figure or table per key idea.
- Use subheadings to break long sections and mirror the method structure.
Micro style: Prefer “increased by 12% (95% CI 8–16%)” over “substantially higher.”
Figures, legends, and table titles (stand-alone, high-signal)
A good figure or table reduces the need for a text. A bad one creates confusion and invites comments.
- Write a table title that states the purpose (not “Table 2: Results” but “Table 2: Sensitivity of model accuracy to training size”).
- Legends are used to explain symbols, abbreviations, and panels.
- Ensure that figure quality (dpi, font sizes) meets journal specifications and avoids colour-dependent meaning only.
Quick test: Can a reader new to your field understand the figure’s message in 10 s?
Reference accuracy (style and integrity)
Sloppy references are easily flagged. Choose a style guide, verify DOIs, and ensure that in-text citations match the reference list. Harmonise key terms and author/year references to prevent “please check citation” rounds.
Compliance that reduces friction (by study type)
The right reporting guidelines align your manuscript with reviewer checklists and remove predictable queries.
- CONSORT for clinical trials
- PRISMA for systematic reviews
- STROBE for observational studies
Add brief statements on ethical approval, conflict disclosure, data sharing, and plagiarism checks. These simple elements prevent “administrative” comments and help avoid desk rejection of formal issues rather than content.
Responding smartly: author response and revision strategy
Author response: mirror, answer, point
Quote the reviewer’s point in short form, answer it directly, and point to the exact location of the change.
Pattern: “Reviewer 2 noted the unclear inclusion criteria. Response: We clarified criteria and added a flowchart (p. 6, para 2; Fig. 1).”
Keep the tone factual and appreciative. Where you disagree, provide evidence, and, if possible, compromise (e.g. an explanatory sentence or sensitivity check).
Revision strategy: sequence the wins
- Logical flow at paragraph level (topic sentences, transitions).
- Active voice and sentence pruning in the Results and Discussion.
- Parallel structure and term consistency across lists, headings, and captions.
- Formatting compliance (equations, references, and figure specifications).
- Final read for tense consistency and minor idiom fixes.
If time is tight, concentrate on the abstract, results, figures, and legends, which carry disproportionate weight in decisions.
A final polish by specialists such as ManuscriptEdit can be the difference between “please clarify” and “looks good.”
Frequently asked questions (quick answers editors appreciate)
How can I quickly improve manuscript clarity?
Start with an active voice, shorten long sentences, and add transitions that reveal your reasoning (“therefore”, “in contrast”). Then, we verified that each figure or table stands alone.
What caused the reviewer’s comments?
Ambiguous methods, missing reporting items, unclear figure legends, and inconsistent terminology. Fixing these reduces “what did you do?” and “how should I read this?” questions.
Is line editing similar to proofreading?
No. Line editing improves meaning, flow, and style, while proofreading corrects typos, punctuation, and spacing. Most manuscripts benefit from line editing before proofreading.
How do I avoid desk rejection?
Check scope fit, follow the journal’s guidelines, apply the correct reporting checklist, and ensure that basic elements (ethics, conflicts, data availability) appear in the right places.
Can editing improve acceptance odds?
Editing cannot change the results, but it can reduce clarity-related objections, which often delay or derail good work. Cleaner manuscripts moved faster and obtained fairer reads.
Practical workflow for your next submission
- Outline for flow: write one sentence per paragraph as a skeleton and ensure a logical arc from question to answer.
- Draft fast, then cut: get the ideas down; on revision, remove filler phrases, and compress helper-verb chains.
- Standard language: pick terms and keep them; define acronyms once; select one tense per section.
- Quantify whenever possible: replace adjectives with numbers and confidence intervals.
- Design for skimming: Subheadings, short paragraphs, and informative figure captions.
- Run a checklist: CONSORT/PRISMA/STROBE as relevant; verify references; confirm figure/table specs.
- Final polish: One pass for clarity editing and one for proofreading, ideally by a fresh set of eyes or a professional service.
If you want a light-touch partner for the final pass, consider a quick pre-submission review based on ManuscriptEdit’s editing and proofreading. This is a soft but efficient way to convert effort into readability.
Closing thought
Clarity isn’t cosmetic; it’s operational. It turns hard-won data into arguments that land, helping editors spend less time decoding and more time evaluating them. By adopting active voice, enforcing logical flow, pruning sentences, keeping parallel structure, and investing in a targeted line edit, you make it easier for reviewers to say “yes.” When you are too close to the text to see the last rough edge, a gentle professional polish can help you cross the line without losing your voice.
Click Here to more read interesting blogs.
