Discover how rejection became my career booster pack; free here:

lennartnacke.substack.com/p/how-i-tur...

Revise the manuscript based on patterns.
More likely to get accepted that way.

The issue is often not the journals.
But your refusal to genuinely revise.

If two journals reject for similar reasons,
that's bad writing (or bad research) not bad luck.

Fix the actual problem before you submit again.

Don't submit the same flawed paper to multiple journals.
Stop collecting rejections.

Same limitation.
Vastly different academic presence.

Language matters in your defence or viva.

Use it wisely.

Turn thesis flaws into researcher power moves with my FREE guide:

lennartnacke.substack.com/p/6-ways-i-...

Subscribe to my newsletter for weekly updates on research productivity: go.lennartnacke.com/newsletter

Which of these habits would've saved you most time?
Drop a 👍 if you've experienced PhD burnout.
Save this post for your next burnout moment 📌

And over the last 20+ years, I've supervised dozens of PhDs to completion and secured millions in research funding.

It's how I help researchers finish faster without burning out.

You already know what to do.
The gap is between knowing and doing.

Excellence doesn't come from talent, genetics, or luck.
It comes from what you decide to do every single day.

I love helping researchers build sustainable habits.

Treat limitations as temporary gaps to address.
Intellectual humility accelerates your growth.
Seek perspectives that challenge yours.

→ Study approaches that contradict your assumptions
↳Request feedback before it's required
↳Document mistakes as learning data

Time management creates space for thinking.
Research requires sustained attention.
Protect your peak hours from meetings and email.

→ Batch administrative tasks to afternoons
↳ Say no to most committee requests
↳ Block mornings for writing only

Question assumptions that waste everyone's time.
Pursue changes that help future students.
Advocacy drives systemic improvements.

→ Challenge unnecessary requirements with evidence
↳ Propose solutions alongside criticisms
↳ Build coalitions for meaningful reforms

Rejection and criticism hit differently in academia.
Emotional regulation protects your progress.
Separate your self-worth from peer reviews.

→ Wait 24 hours before responding to harsh feedback
↳ Recognize patterns in your stress responses
↳ Maintain a rejection collection as data

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it yet.
Simplification isolates great from good researchers.
Dense writing signals unclear thinking.

→ Use concrete examples over abstract concepts
↳ Summarize each chapter in three sentences
↳ Remove every unnecessary qualifier

Practice explaining your work to non-specialists monthly.
Your findings matter only if others understand them.
Communication determines your impact.

→ Test explanations on friends outside academia
↳ Record yourself presenting core concepts
↳ Iterate based on confusion

Strong relationships accelerate everything.
Empathy creates unexpected advantages.
Respect everyone's time and constraints.

→ Remember administrative staff control your access
↳Acknowledge colleagues' expertise across fields
↳Offer help before you need it

Track your time for one week without changing anything.
Most researchers overestimate their capacity by 40%.
Build self-awareness through data.

→ Adjust future commitments based on patterns
↳ Log actual hours spent on each task
↳ Compare estimates to reality

Your research quality depends on finishing.
Start with execution habits first.
Perfect conditions never arrive.

→ Set artificial deadlines two weeks before real ones
↳ Block two-hour sessions for deep work only
↳ Track completion rates weekly

Dark examples from my own research:

1. Writing a side paper (Value 8 × 0.7 ÷ 1 month = 5.6)
2. Finishing a doomed collaboration (Value 3 × 0.4 ÷ 6 months = 0.2)

→ Easy decision: quit the doomed collaboration.

Learn how I turned crushing rejection into my biggest career catalyst for free here:

lennartnacke.substack.com/p/how-i-tur...