Over three decades I’ve published more than 600 papers and supervised over 60 PhD students. Along the way, I’ve seen what makes the difference between a paper that gets published and one that gets rejected. The difference is rarely about technical quality. Many of my “failed” papers were clever, detailed and rigorous.

I recently came across a lecture by Larry McEnerney from the University of Chicago’s writing programme. It’s remarkable since it flips so much of what we think we know about academic writing on its head. His core point is simple: an academic paper must create value for a community of readers. That means every paper should start with a problem that matters to that community.

Editors and reviewers are not interested in a showcase of what you did. They want to know why it matters and who needs to hear it.

From Exams to Publications: A Different Game

Part of the problem is how we’re trained. As students, we write essays and exam answers to show we’ve understood the course material; we demonstrate the learning outcomes to an examiner paid to read our work. That creates a habit of writing where we show what we know. Publishing is different. Readers only read our work if it offers value to their community. To do that, we must address a problem they recognise, care about and want solved.

The Mistake I See Too Often

Time and again, I’ve seen co-authors dive headlong into technical depth. Introductions fill up with equations, code, datasets, results. What’s missing is the one thing readers need first — the problem and the community that cares about it. It’s easy to fall into this trap. We’ve spent months, sometimes years, immersed in the work and naturally we want to show it off. But unless the context is clear; unless the reader can see why the problem matters; the detail is irrelevant. Nobody cares what you did if they can’t first see the value of the problem.

Contribution as Solution

Once the problem is established, position your contribution as a solution. This is where novelty comes in. However, a new idea on its own is not enough. If nobody needs it, it won’t be publishable. What does get published is a result, a method, or a tool that helps a community solve a recognised problem.

I’ve learned this the hard way. Some of my cleverest technical papers went nowhere because they didn’t connect to the issues my community was wrestling with at the time. Others, which seemed straightforward to me, were widely read and cited because they spoke directly to a live problem.

Write Into the Conversation

Too often I see colleagues write a paper and only then decide where to send it. That rarely works. The community must come first. Ask where the people who care about your work publish, then read those papers closely. What problems are being debated? How are they framed? What kind of evidence carries weight? Publication is not broadcasting into a void; It is contributing to an ongoing dialogue in the language the community already uses..

Personal Reflections

After 30 years, the pattern is clear. The most successful papers I’ve written weren’t the most technically sophisticated. They were the ones that engaged directly with the community — framed in its terms, tackling its problems, and offering a contribution readers could use.

I can think of several colleagues who struggled for years to get their work accepted. The technical detail was sound, but the introduction started in the wrong place. Only when they reframed their paper — starting with the problem and the community — did reviewers respond positively. The results didn’t change, the way they presented them did.

The Takeaway

If you want to publish papers don’t start with your results; start with your readers. Identify the community you are writing for, make the problem they care about unmistakable, and show how your work changes the picture for them. This isn’t about proving how clever you are. It’s about creating value for others.