How to Write a PhD thesis for the University Standards Level

1.Understand What a PhD Thesis Is

A PhD thesis must:

  • Solve a real research problem
  • Add new knowledge (novelty)
  • Be systematic, deep, and defendable
  • Show you are an independent researcher

Rule: If your work can’t be defended with logic + evidence → it’s not PhD-level.

2.Choose a Strong Research Topic

Your topic should be:

  • Specific (not broad)
  • Researchable (data/tools available)
  • Novel (gap exists)
  • Relevant to your field

Bad topic:

“Machine Learning in Healthcare”

Good topic:

“A Hybrid Deep Learning Model for Early Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy Using Fundus Images”

3.Standard PhD Thesis Structure (Most Universities)

Chapter 1: Introduction

Write:

  • Background of the problem
  • Problem statement
  • Research gap
  • Objectives
  • Research questions / hypotheses
  • Scope & limitations
  • Thesis organization

This chapter answers: Why this research?

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Write:

  • What others have done (last 5–10 years)
  • Compare methods, results, limitations
  • Tables comparing papers (very important)
  • Identify research gap clearly

This chapter answers: What is missing in existing work?

Chapter 3: Methodology

Write:

  • Research design
  • Data sources
  • Tools/software
  • Algorithms / models / experiments
  • Flowcharts, equations
  • Validation methods

This chapter answers: How did you solve the problem?

Chapter 4: Results & Analysis

Write:

  • Experimental results
  • Tables, graphs, charts
  • Statistical analysis
  • Comparison with existing methods
  • Interpretation of results

 This chapter answers: What did you find?

Chapter 5: Discussion

Write:

  • Meaning of results
  • Why your method works better
  • Practical implications
  • Limitations of your approach

This chapter answers: Why are your results important?

Chapter 6: Conclusion & Future Work

Write:

  • Summary of contributions
  • Key findings
  • Applications
  • Future research directions

 This chapter answers: What next?

References

  • Use tools like:
    • Zotero
    • Mendeley
    • EndNote
  • Follow APA / IEEE / Springer / Elsevier style (as per university)

4.Writing Style (Very Important)

  • Formal academic English
  • No casual language
  • No copy-paste
  • Use passive voice mostly
  • Cite every idea not yours

Example:
“I tested the model and got good results”
“The proposed model was evaluated and achieved superior performance”

5.Daily Writing Plan (Realistic)

  • Write 500–800 words/day
  • Don’t wait for perfection
  • First draft → refine later

 Example:

  • Month 1–2: Literature Review
  • Month 3: Methodology
  • Month 4: Experiments
  • Month 5: Results & Discussion
  • Month 6: Final editing

6.Tools You Should Use

  • MS Word / LaTeX (LaTeX preferred for tech fields)
  • Grammarly (academic mode)
  • Turnitin / iThenticate (plagiarism)
  • Excel / Python / MATLAB (data)
  • Draw.io / Visio (diagrams)

7.Common Mistakes to Avoid 

  • Too much theory, no contribution
  • Weak research gap
  • Poor figures/tables
  • Plagiarism (even self-plagiarism)
  • Ignoring supervisor feedback

8.Before Submission Checklist 

  • Novelty clearly stated
  • Objectives met
  • Figures labeled
  • References consistent
  • Plagiarism < university limit
  • Supervisor approval

 


Research Paper Rejection Checklist (SCI & Scopus)

Before resubmitting a rejected research paper to an SCI or Scopus journal, use this checklist to identify and fix common issues. This checklist helps convert rejection into a stronger resubmission.

Journal & Scope Check

☐ Is the paper clearly within the aims and scope of the selected journal?
☐ Have you read recent papers published by the same journal?
☐ Is the journal’s indexing status (SCI/Scopus) verified and current?

Novelty & Contribution

☐ Is the research contribution clearly stated in the abstract and introduction?
☐ Does the paper explain what is new compared to existing studies?
☐ Is the contribution highlighted in the conclusion section?

Literature Review

☐ Are recent (last 5–7 years) studies included?
☐ Does the literature review clearly identify a research gap?
☐ Are comparisons with previous work properly explained?

Methodology & Data

☐ Is the research methodology clear and detailed?
☐ Are datasets, tools, and experimental procedures properly explained?
☐ Are results reproducible and justified?

Results & Analysis

☐ Are results presented clearly using tables or figures?
☐ Is there sufficient analysis and interpretation of results?
☐ Are results compared with existing literature?

Plagiarism & Ethics

☐ Is the similarity index within acceptable limits (usually <15%)?
☐ Is there zero plagiarism in abstract, results, and conclusion?
☐ Are ethical approvals or declarations included (if required)?

Language & Presentation

☐ Is the paper written in clear academic English?
☐ Are grammar, spelling, and sentence flow corrected?
☐ Are figures, tables, and captions properly formatted?

Formatting & Guidelines

☐ Is the journal’s official template used?
☐ Are citation and reference styles followed correctly?
☐ Are word limits, figure limits, and file formats respected?

Reviewer Comments (If Available)

☐ Have all reviewer comments been fully addressed?
☐ Is there a point-by-point response document?
☐ Are responses polite, clear, and professional?

Resubmission Strategy

☐ Is the same journal suitable after revision, or should a new journal be chosen?
☐ Is the revised paper significantly improved compared to the rejected version?
☐ Has the paper been rechecked before resubmission?

Final Confidence Check

☐ Does the paper clearly communicate its value to readers?
☐ Is the research contribution easy to understand?
☐ Would you confidently explain the novelty to a reviewer?

 


Ways to Convert Research Paper Rejection into Acceptance

Rejection from SCI or Scopus journals can be discouraging, but it does not mean the research is poor or useless. Many high-quality papers are rejected in the first attempt. The key is to understand the reasons for rejection and use them as guidance to improve the manuscript.

Read the Reviewer Comments Carefully

The first step after rejection is to calmly read the editor and reviewer comments. Avoid reacting emotionally. Reviewer feedback usually highlights weaknesses in the paper, such as methodology issues, unclear explanations, or lack of novelty. These comments are valuable inputs for improvement.

Identify the Type of Rejection

Not all rejections are the same. A desk rejection usually means the paper does not match the journal scope or basic quality standards. A peer-review rejection indicates that the research has potential but needs improvement. Understanding the rejection type helps decide the next steps.

Improve the Research Contribution

If reviewers mention lack of novelty, refine the contribution section. Clearly explain what is new in your work, how it differs from existing studies, and why it is important. Even small improvements can be acceptable if justified properly.

Strengthen the Methodology and Analysis

Many papers are rejected due to weak or unclear methodology. Recheck your experimental design, data collection, and analysis methods. Add missing details, improve explanations, and include additional experiments or validation if required.

Enhance the Literature Review

Update the literature review with recent and relevant studies. Compare your results with previous work and clearly highlight the research gap your paper addresses. A strong literature review improves the credibility of the manuscript.

Improve Language and Presentation

Poor language quality can negatively impact reviewer perception. Rewrite unclear sections, correct grammar, and improve flow. Well-labeled figures, clear tables, and consistent formatting make the paper easier to understand and review.

Reduce Plagiarism and Improve Paraphrasing

If similarity was a concern, rewrite the highlighted sections carefully and cite sources properly. Avoid copying sentence structures and ensure originality throughout the manuscript.

Choose a More Suitable Journal

Sometimes rejection occurs simply because the journal is too competitive or not the best fit. After revision, consider submitting to another SCI or Scopus journal with a similar scope but more suitable acceptance criteria.

Prepare a Strong Revision or Resubmission

When resubmitting, ensure all reviewer concerns are addressed. If resubmitting to the same journal, provide a clear, point-by-point response explaining how each comment was handled. Polite and professional responses leave a positive impression.

Stay Patient and Persistent

Rejection is a normal part of academic publishing. Many successful researchers have faced multiple rejections before acceptance. Persistence, continuous improvement, and learning from feedback are key to success.

Conclusion

Converting rejection into acceptance requires a positive mindset, careful revision, and strategic resubmission. By addressing reviewer comments, improving research quality, and selecting the right journal, authors can significantly increase their chances of publishing in SCI or Scopus journals.

 


Why Are Research Papers Rejected by SCI or Scopus Journals?

Rejection is a common part of academic publishing, especially in SCI and Scopus journals, which maintain high quality standards. Understanding the reasons for rejection helps researchers improve their manuscripts and increase acceptance chances in future submissions.

Mismatch With Journal Scope

One of the most common reasons for rejection is submitting a paper that does not align with the journal’s aims and scope. Even a well-written paper may be rejected if its topic is outside the journal’s focus area. Editors often perform an initial screening and reject unsuitable manuscripts without peer review.

Lack of Originality or Novelty

SCI and Scopus journals expect original research that contributes new knowledge to the field. Papers that present minor modifications, repeated studies without justification, or already well-established results are often rejected due to insufficient novelty.

Poor Quality of Research Methodology

Weak or inappropriate research methods can lead to rejection. If the methodology is unclear, data is insufficient, or experimental design is flawed, reviewers may question the validity of the results. Strong methodology is essential for acceptance.

High Plagiarism or Self-Plagiarism

Plagiarism is strictly prohibited. Papers with high similarity scores, copied text, or reused content from the author’s previous work without citation are often rejected. Even well-cited papers may be rejected if paraphrasing is poor.

Weak Literature Review

A literature review that lacks depth, ignores recent studies, or fails to identify research gaps can weaken the paper. SCI and Scopus journals expect a critical and up-to-date review of relevant work.

Poor Language and Presentation

Manuscripts with grammatical errors, unclear sentences, or poor structure may be rejected even if the research idea is strong. Clear academic language and proper formatting are essential for effective communication.

Inadequate Results or Analysis

If results are unclear, poorly explained, or unsupported by data, reviewers may reject the paper. Incomplete analysis or lack of discussion comparing results with existing studies also affects acceptance.

Ethical Issues and Data Concerns

Ethical violations, such as missing approvals, manipulated data, or unclear data sources, can lead to immediate rejection. Journals take research ethics very seriously.

Failure to Follow Journal Guidelines

Ignoring journal-specific guidelines related to formatting, citation style, word limits, or submission requirements often results in desk rejection.

Poor Response to Reviewer Comments

If authors do not properly address reviewer comments during revision or respond unprofessionally, the paper may be rejected in later review rounds.

Conclusion

Rejection in SCI and Scopus journals is usually due to quality, relevance, or ethical issues rather than personal reasons. By selecting the right journal, improving originality, strengthening methodology, and following guidelines carefully, researchers can significantly improve their chances of acceptance.

 


🏠