What Journal Editors Mean by “Lack of Clarity” in Writing—and How to Fix It

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

When an editor or peer reviewer says a manuscript has a “lack of clarity,” the comment can feel frustratingly vague. Researchers often wonder whether it means their English is poor, their sentences are too complicated, their argument is weak, or the editor simply does not understand the subject. In practice, what journal editors mean by lack of clarity in writing is usually broader than grammar. The editor is signalling that some part of the manuscript requires more interpretive effort than it should.

Clarity is the reader’s ability to identify what you are saying, why you are saying it, how the evidence supports it, and how one part of the manuscript connects to another. A sentence can be grammatically correct and still be unclear. Similarly, a manuscript can contain sophisticated research yet make its central contribution difficult to identify because the argument is buried under background information, terminology, long sentences, unexplained abbreviations, or poorly organized sections.

This matters because journal editors and reviewers must evaluate not only whether research is potentially valuable but whether the manuscript communicates its methods, findings, reasoning, and contribution adequately. Elsevier’s manuscript-preparation guidance emphasizes that a clear, concise, well-organized manuscript makes it easier for editors, reviewers, and readers to engage with the research. Its Researcher Academy likewise notes that when language prevents editors and reviewers from understanding a manuscript, they may be unable to appreciate the significance of the work.

Importantly, “lack of clarity” is not automatically a judgement about the quality of your research. It may identify a communication problem, structural problem, reasoning problem, terminology problem, or combination of these.

For researchers—especially PhD scholars, early-career authors, and researchers writing in English as an additional language—the useful response is therefore not simply “correct the grammar.” The better question is: Where does the reader lose the thread of the research, and what revision would restore it?

This guide explains how to answer that question systematically.

Quick Answer: What Do Journal Editors Mean by Lack of Clarity in Writing?

When journal editors describe a manuscript as lacking clarity, they usually mean that the manuscript makes an important idea, argument, method, finding, relationship, or conclusion unnecessarily difficult to understand.

The problem may occur at several levels. Your overall research message may not be obvious. The manuscript may lack a logical progression. A paragraph may contain several competing ideas. Sentences may be overly long or abstract. Technical terminology may be undefined. Pronouns may have unclear references. Results may be presented without explaining what comparisons are being made. The Discussion may move from evidence to claims without enough reasoning.

An Elsevier editorial resource describes an “unclear message” in terms of a reader struggling to determine what an author is trying to communicate about the research, particularly in the abstract. It recommends breaking complicated messages into smaller units, simplifying language where appropriate, and asking an independent reader to explain what they believe the manuscript is saying.

So, if an editor writes “The manuscript lacks clarity,” do not limit your revision to proofreading. First identify whether the problem concerns:

• the central message;
• organization and logical flow;
• paragraph focus;
• sentence construction;
• terminology;
• methods or analytical description;
• interpretation of results;
• relationships between claims and evidence; or
• language accuracy.

Then revise at the highest problematic level first. There is little benefit in polishing individual sentences if the paper’s argument remains difficult to follow.

Key Takeaways

• “Lack of clarity” is broader than poor grammar. It may concern the manuscript’s message, argument, organization, paragraphs, sentences, terminology, methods, or interpretation.
• Editors should not have to reconstruct your intended meaning. The relationships between the research problem, methods, findings, and conclusions should be explicit enough to follow efficiently.
• A grammatically correct sentence can still be unclear if it is excessively abstract, overloaded with information, poorly ordered, or ambiguous.
• Clarity and concision are related but are not identical. Removing unnecessary wording often improves clarity, but excessive shortening can also remove essential explanation.
• Revision should begin with meaning and structure before grammar. Fix the research story, section logic, and paragraph organization before performing sentence-level polishing.
• A fresh reader is one of the most useful clarity tests. If a knowledgeable reader repeatedly misunderstands your intended message, the manuscript probably needs revision.
• Clear writing does not mean oversimplifying the science. It means communicating complex research as precisely and efficiently as the subject allows.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• what editors may be referring to when they write “lack of clarity”;
• how clarity differs from grammar, style, and concision;
• the most common forms of unclear journal writing;
• how to diagnose unclear arguments, paragraphs, and sentences;
• practical before-and-after examples;
• how to revise a manuscript systematically;
• how to respond when an editor or reviewer requests greater clarity.

Table of Contents

1. What “lack of clarity” actually means
2. Lack of clarity versus poor English
3. Seven levels of manuscript clarity
4. How editors encounter unclear manuscripts
5. Why perfectly grammatical writing can still be unclear
6. How to diagnose clarity problems
7. A step-by-step revision method
8. Before-and-after examples
9. Common mistakes researchers make
10. A manuscript clarity checklist
11. How to respond to an editor’s clarity comment
12. How Contentxprtz can support clarity revision
13. Summary
14. FAQs
15. About the Author
16. Conclusion

Methodology and Academic Sources

The guidance in this article draws on established scholarly-writing principles and public author guidance from academic publishers and university writing centres.

Elsevier advises authors to prioritize manuscripts that are clear, concise, well organized, and aligned with the specific journal’s instructions. George Mason University’s Writing Center similarly emphasizes precision and concision, noting that unnecessary wordiness can obscure ideas. Harvard College Writing Center guidance emphasizes paragraph-level focus and explicitly connecting individual points to the larger argument. The University of Toronto’s science-writing guidance likewise stresses clear, concise prose, coherent paragraphs, organization, and sensitivity to audience.

Individual journals and disciplines can nevertheless apply different conventions. Always read the target journal’s author instructions and consider terminology used by the editor or reviewers in the context of their complete comments.

What Does “Lack of Clarity” Actually Mean in a Journal Manuscript?

Lack of clarity means that a reader cannot determine the intended meaning, reasoning, or relationship between ideas with reasonable confidence and effort.

Clarity therefore depends on more than individual sentences.

Imagine a manuscript that contains these statements:

• Climate-related risks influence corporate decision-making.
• Different organizations adopt different strategies.
• Several factors were examined.
• The results indicate important relationships.
• These findings have implications for managers.

None is necessarily grammatically incorrect.

But an editor may immediately ask:

Which climate-related risks? Which decisions? Which organizations? What strategies? Which factors? What relationships? What implications?

The problem is not necessarily grammar. It is insufficient specificity.

Now imagine another manuscript containing technically detailed sentences but no clear indication of why the analysis matters. The terminology may be precise, yet the research message remains obscure.

That is also a clarity problem.

Clarity requires the manuscript to give readers enough information to answer questions such as:

• What problem is being investigated?
• What exactly did the researchers examine?
• Why was this method appropriate?
• What did the analysis show?
• Which result supports which conclusion?
• How does the study differ from earlier work?
• What is the principal contribution?
• Where does the author distinguish evidence from interpretation?

Editors should not have to infer answers that the manuscript itself should communicate.

Does “Lack of Clarity” Mean My English Is Poor?

Not necessarily.

Language errors can cause unclear writing, but clarity and grammatical correctness are different dimensions.

Taylor & Francis identifies language quality, grammar, punctuation, style, presentation, and other manuscript-level issues among factors that can affect journal evaluation. Elsevier similarly emphasizes both language quality and broader manuscript organization.

Consider these examples.

Grammatically problematic and unclear:

“The participants was evaluated and results shows difference that was significant.”

The grammatical problems interfere with interpretation.

Now consider:

Grammatically acceptable but unclear:

“The multidimensional interaction between these interconnected factors produces implications that may potentially influence several relevant outcomes.”

The sentence is grammatically possible, but it communicates almost nothing concrete.

A clearer version might be:

“Higher workload was associated with lower reported job satisfaction, particularly among employees with less than two years of experience.”

The revised sentence identifies:

• the variables;
• the direction of the relationship;
• the subgroup;
• the nature of the finding.

This is why proofreading alone may not resolve an editor’s clarity concern.

The Seven Levels of Clarity Journal Editors May Be Referring To

A useful way to interpret editorial feedback is to identify the level at which clarity breaks down.

Level	What may be unclear	Typical reader reaction	Revision priority
Central message	Main contribution or purpose	“What is this paper actually showing?”	Very high
Argument	Reasoning linking evidence and conclusion	“How does this result justify that claim?”	Very high
Structure	Order and connection of sections	“Why am I reading this here?”	High
Paragraph	Main point and internal unity	“What is this paragraph about?”	High
Sentence	Syntax, length, abstraction, reference	“What does this sentence mean?”	Medium to high
Terminology	Terms, abbreviations, variables	“What does this term refer to?”	Medium
Language mechanics	Grammar, punctuation, word choice	“Did the author mean X or Y?”	Depends on severity

These levels often interact.

A confusing paragraph may contain clear sentences but place them in the wrong order. A clear Results section may still contribute to an unclear manuscript if the Discussion never explains the importance of those results.

Revision therefore requires diagnosis before correction.

1. The Central Message Is Unclear

One of the most serious clarity problems occurs when editors finish reading the abstract—or sometimes the whole paper—without being able to state the manuscript’s central message.

Elsevier specifically identifies an unclear research message as a potential editorial problem and recommends checking whether another reader can accurately explain what the paper is trying to communicate.

Ask yourself:

Could an informed reader summarize my paper in two or three sentences without guessing?

For an empirical paper, those sentences might identify:

1. the problem or gap;
2. what the study investigated;
3. the principal finding or contribution.

If your manuscript contains all three somewhere but does not connect them clearly, the reader is forced to construct the argument for you.

Example

Less clear

“Digital transformation has received substantial attention, although different approaches exist and numerous organizational dimensions must be considered. This study addresses these matters in SMEs.”

What exactly does the study investigate?

Clearer

“This study examines whether digital capability is associated with export performance among manufacturing SMEs in India and tests whether organizational learning mediates that relationship.”

Now the reader knows what the study does.

2. The Argument or Reasoning Is Unclear

A manuscript can present valid observations while leaving the reasoning between them unstated.

For example:

“Employee autonomy increased. Turnover decreased. Therefore, the intervention improved organizational resilience.”

The final conclusion may require additional reasoning. How is reduced turnover being operationalized as organizational resilience? Were other indicators examined? Could another factor explain the change?

Clarity requires authors to expose the important steps in their reasoning.

An argument should help readers see:

Evidence → Interpretation → Claim

rather than:

Evidence → unexplained leap → conclusion

This issue is especially important in Discussion sections, where researchers move from reporting results to interpreting significance.

3. The Structure Is Unclear

A manuscript lacks structural clarity when the individual pieces are understandable but their arrangement is difficult to follow.

Possible symptoms include:

• background information appearing after the research question;
• methods described partly in Results;
• the same concept being introduced repeatedly;
• Discussion paragraphs following no identifiable analytical sequence;
• theoretical arguments appearing only after findings have been interpreted;
• sections that seem disconnected from the research objectives.

Academic writing does not require every paper to follow an identical structure. However, the reader should understand why information appears where it does.

University writing guidance consistently treats organization and connections between ideas as central elements of clear academic prose. Harvard’s Writing Center, for example, recommends focusing paragraphs around identifiable main points and showing how each contributes to the larger argument.

A useful test: reverse outline your manuscript

After drafting, write one sentence beside every paragraph describing its main function.

For example:

• establishes prevalence of problem;
• identifies unresolved methodological limitation;
• explains theoretical framework;
• states hypothesis;
• describes participant selection;
• reports primary result;
• interprets unexpected result.

Then read only those summaries.

Do they form a logical sequence?

George Mason University describes reverse outlining as a technique for seeing the structure or progression of a completed draft and identifying paragraphs whose main purpose is difficult to extract.

If your reverse outline looks disorganized, the manuscript probably needs structural revision before sentence editing.

4. Paragraphs Lack a Clear Focus

A paragraph should generally perform an identifiable intellectual function.

A paragraph becomes unclear when it:

• begins with one idea and ends with another;
• includes several unrelated claims;
• contains evidence without explaining its relevance;
• provides multiple citations but no synthesis;
• lacks a discernible connection to the preceding paragraph;
• changes analytical direction without signalling the shift.

Harvard Writing Center guidance recommends centring a paragraph around one main point and using topic sentences to help establish both that point and its relationship to the broader argument.

Consider:

Less clear

“Remote work has become increasingly common. Employee autonomy affects motivation. Technology adoption differs across organizations. Several studies have examined communication quality. Managers are also concerned about productivity.”

Every sentence may be relevant to a general topic, but the paragraph lacks a single controlling idea.

Clearer

“Remote work may influence productivity partly by changing employee autonomy. Greater scheduling discretion can increase perceived control, although the effect may depend on communication practices and organizational technology. For this reason, the present study evaluates autonomy as a potential mediator between remote-work intensity and self-reported productivity.”

The paragraph now moves toward a specific purpose.

5. Sentences Are Grammatically Correct but Difficult to Process

Long sentences are not inherently poor academic writing. Complex research sometimes requires complex sentences.

The problem begins when sentence structure hides the relationship between ideas.

Potential warning signs include:

• several subordinate clauses;
• numerous abstract nouns;
• excessive passive constructions without a clear actor;
• long distances between subject and verb;
• multiple parenthetical qualifications;
• unexplained pronouns;
• unnecessary nominalizations;
• several claims packed into one sentence.

George Mason University advises academic writers to communicate relevant information as concisely as possible and warns that wordiness and redundancy can cloud ideas.

Example

Less clear

“The implementation of the assessment of the development of organizational capability was undertaken through the utilization of a multi-stage methodological approach.”

Clearer

“We assessed organizational capability using a three-stage method.”

Nothing academically important was lost.

The second sentence simply puts the actor, action, and object where the reader can find them.

6. Terminology Is Undefined, Inconsistent, or Excessively Abstract

A specialist journal may expect technical vocabulary. Clarity does not require replacing every disciplinary term with everyday language.

The issue is whether readers can determine exactly what each important term means in your study.

Problems arise when authors:

• use two labels for the same construct;
• use one term for different constructs;
• introduce abbreviations unnecessarily;
• assume a contested definition is universally accepted;
• move between theoretical and operational definitions without explanation.

Suppose a paper alternates among:

• customer engagement;
• consumer interaction;
• digital engagement;
• online participation;

without explaining whether these terms are synonymous.

A reviewer may reasonably question whether the variables or constructs themselves are being changed.

Consistency is therefore part of clarity.

7. Methods or Results Are Not Described Clearly Enough to Evaluate

Clarity is especially important when the reader must understand precisely what was done.

A Methods section may be unclear because it omits necessary procedural information, mixes chronology, uses undefined variables, or makes the analytical sequence difficult to reconstruct.

A Results section may be unclear because the author:

• reports numbers without identifying the comparison;
• refers vaguely to “significant differences”;
• moves inconsistently between tables and narrative;
• mixes interpretation into result reporting;
• changes variable names;
• discusses secondary findings before primary outcomes.

Clear research reporting does not mean repeating every value from every table. It means helping readers understand what was analysed and what the analysis showed.

Why Clear Academic Writing Is Not the Same as “Simple” Writing

Researchers sometimes resist editorial requests for clarity because they fear that simplifying the writing will oversimplify the scholarship.

That is not the goal.

A technically complex concept can remain complex while its presentation becomes clearer.

The University of Toronto’s science-writing guidance emphasizes clear, concise prose, coherent paragraphs, and well-organized ideas while acknowledging that disciplinary conventions differ.

Compare:

Overly simplified

“Stress is bad for workers.”

This loses necessary precision.

Needlessly complicated

“The phenomenological manifestation of occupational stress potentially demonstrates a multiplicity of adverse employee-level consequential outcomes.”

Clear and academically precise

“Higher occupational stress has been associated with adverse employee outcomes, although the type and magnitude of these relationships vary across contexts.”

Academic clarity occupies the middle ground: precise without being unnecessarily difficult.

How Can You Tell Where Your Manuscript Lacks Clarity?

Use several diagnostic tests rather than rereading the manuscript passively.

Test 1: The 30-Second Message Test

Without looking at your manuscript, complete these sentences:

My paper investigates…

The reason this matters is…

The main contribution is…

The principal finding or argument is…

If these answers are difficult to formulate, the manuscript’s central message may not yet be sufficiently developed.

Test 2: The Abstract Test

Ask an informed colleague to read only your abstract.

Then ask:

What do you think this paper is claiming?

Do not explain the study first.

Compare their interpretation with yours.

Elsevier similarly recommends obtaining a fresh reader’s interpretation when checking whether a manuscript’s message comes across clearly.

Test 3: The One-Paragraph-One-Purpose Test

Write a five-to-ten-word description of every paragraph’s function.

If one paragraph requires several unrelated labels, split or restructure it.

If several paragraphs have identical labels, consider whether they repeat information.

Test 4: The Pronoun Test

Circle words such as:

• it;
• this;
• these;
• they;
• those;
• such;
• former;
• latter.

Ask what each word refers to.

For example:

Unclear:
“This resulted in an improvement.”

What does “this” refer to?

Clearer:
“The revised training programme increased participants’ mean assessment scores.”

Test 5: The Abstract-Noun Test

Underline nouns ending in forms such as:

• -tion;
• -ment;
• -ance;
• -ity.

They are not inherently problematic, but clusters may indicate that actions have been hidden inside abstractions.

Before

“The implementation of the evaluation resulted in the identification of…”

After

“We evaluated the programme and identified…”

Test 6: The Evidence-to-Claim Test

For every major conclusion, ask:

Which result supports this statement?

Then reverse the process:

Why is this result important?

If either answer is difficult, the manuscript may need stronger connections between evidence and interpretation.

A Step-by-Step Method for Fixing Lack of Clarity

The most efficient revision proceeds from large-scale meaning to small-scale language.

Step 1: Identify the Editor’s Actual Concern

Read the complete decision letter and reviewer reports.

Do not isolate the phrase “lack of clarity.”

Look for accompanying comments such as:

• “The contribution is difficult to identify.”
• “The rationale is insufficiently developed.”
• “The manuscript is difficult to follow.”
• “Please clarify the relationship between X and Y.”
• “The methodology requires clearer explanation.”
• “The Discussion is confusing.”
• “The English requires substantial revision.”

These comments reveal the likely level of the problem.

Step 2: Write the Manuscript’s Core Message in Plain Language

Write three sentences:

1. What problem does the paper address?
2. What did you do?
3. What should the reader learn from it?

You are not necessarily going to include those exact sentences in the manuscript.

Their purpose is diagnostic.

If you cannot write them clearly outside the manuscript, editing the manuscript itself will be difficult.

Step 3: Check Section-Level Logic

For each major section, define its job.

For example:

Introduction: Why was this study necessary?

Methods: What exactly was done?

Results: What did the analysis find?

Discussion: What do those findings mean?

The wording varies across disciplines and article types, but the underlying principle remains useful.

Step 4: Reverse Outline Every Paragraph

Create a short outline from the existing draft.

Move, combine, divide, or remove paragraphs where necessary.

Do this before polishing sentences.

Step 5: Strengthen Topic Sentences and Transitions

Readers need signals showing where the argument is going.

Useful transitions can express relationships such as:

• contrast;
• consequence;
• continuation;
• qualification;
• causation;
• chronological order;
• methodological sequence.

Do not insert transition words mechanically. Make the logical relationship itself explicit.

Step 6: Make Subjects and Actions Visible

Where possible, let readers quickly identify:

Who or what is acting?

What is happening?

Compare:

“An evaluation of participant responses was undertaken.”

with:

“We evaluated participant responses.”

Both may be acceptable in some contexts, but the second exposes the action immediately.

Step 7: Replace Vague Language With Specific Language

Watch words such as:

• things;
• aspects;
• factors;
• issues;
• various;
• several;
• certain;
• important;
• significant;
• relevant;
• this;
• it.

These words are sometimes appropriate. The question is whether the reader knows exactly what they refer to.

Step 8: Split Overloaded Sentences

A sentence containing three major claims may be clearer as two or three sentences.

Do not shorten sentences merely to reach an arbitrary length. Split them when doing so makes relationships between ideas easier to process.

Step 9: Standardize Terminology

Create a terminology sheet containing:

• construct names;
• abbreviations;
• variable labels;
• participant-group names;
• intervention names;
• analytical terms.

Use each consistently.

Step 10: Perform Grammar and Style Editing Last

Only after the manuscript’s meaning and structure are stable should you concentrate on:

• grammar;
• punctuation;
• spelling;
• articles and prepositions;
• sentence rhythm;
• repetition;
• formatting.

This ordering prevents you from spending substantial effort polishing text that later needs to be removed or rewritten.

Practical Example 1: The Contribution Is Buried

Situation

A researcher has completed a study of mobile-payment adoption among small retailers.

Less clear version

“Digital technologies have become important in the modern economy, and mobile payment is one area where numerous developments have been observed. Many businesses have different approaches to technology adoption. Previous research has considered several related matters. Therefore, this study investigates mobile payments.”

What an editor may struggle with

The passage does not identify:

• the unresolved problem;
• the population;
• the variables;
• what previous studies have failed to explain.

Improved version

“Although mobile-payment adoption has increased among small retailers, less is known about why adoption remains uneven among businesses operating in regions with comparable digital infrastructure. This study examines whether perceived transaction risk and owner digital literacy are associated with mobile-payment adoption among independent retailers in [study location].”

Why the revised version is clearer

It identifies the known situation, the unresolved issue, the study population, and the specific relationships being investigated.

Practical Example 2: Results Are Reported Without a Clear Meaning

Less clear version

“There was a significant change in Group A compared with Group B, indicating that the intervention produced important effects and was therefore useful.”

Problems

Which outcome changed?

In what direction?

At what measurement point?

What does “useful” mean?

Does statistical significance establish practical usefulness?

Improved version

“At the post-intervention assessment, Group A reported lower mean perceived-stress scores than Group B. This result supports an association between participation in the intervention and lower reported stress within the study sample; it does not by itself establish the intervention’s long-term effectiveness.”

Why it is clearer

The revision separates:

• observation;
• interpretation;
• limitation.

The claim no longer exceeds what the stated result can support.

Practical Example 3: A Paragraph Contains Too Many Ideas

Situation

An education researcher is explaining why teacher feedback may influence student engagement.

Less clear paragraph

“Feedback is widely used in education. Digital technology has also changed classrooms, and teachers may use different tools. Engagement is important for achievement, although students respond in different ways. Feedback can be immediate or delayed. Online learning expanded considerably and therefore this topic requires further research.”

Improved paragraph

“The timing of teacher feedback may influence how students engage with online learning tasks. Immediate feedback can allow students to correct misunderstandings during an activity, whereas delayed feedback may encourage reflection after task completion. Because these mechanisms differ, the present study compares student engagement following immediate and delayed feedback in an online undergraduate course.”

Why the revision works

Every sentence contributes to one question: why feedback timing is being compared.

Practical Example 4: Technical Language Hides a Simple Relationship

Less clear

“The operationalization of the organizational resilience construct was conducted through the implementation of a multidimensional measurement instrument.”

Improved

“We measured organizational resilience using a multidimensional scale.”

The improved sentence is shorter, but the more important benefit is that the actor, action, construct, and instrument are immediately visible.

Weak vs Improved Clarity Examples

Less clear wording	Main problem	Clearer wording
Several factors affected the results.	“Factors” is unspecified	Participant age and prior training were associated with the outcome.
This indicates an important relationship.	“This” and “important” are vague	The negative correlation indicates that higher workload was associated with lower job satisfaction.
It has been studied extensively.	Unclear referent	Employee burnout has been studied extensively.
Various methods were applied.	Methods are unspecified	We conducted semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis.
There was a significant difference.	Comparison and outcome missing	Group A had a higher mean retention score than Group B.
The findings prove that the programme works.	Overstated inference	The findings provide evidence that the programme improved scores in this sample.
The literature has many gaps.	Uninformative generalization	Few studies have compared X and Y among first-generation university students.
The results are discussed below.	Weak signposting	The following section examines three explanations for the unexpected decline in X.

The general principle is simple: replace interpretive gaps with information the reader needs.

Common Mistakes Researchers Make When Responding to a Clarity Comment

Mistake 1: Correcting Grammar Only

Grammar editing may help, but it will not repair an unclear argument or disorganized Discussion.

Better approach: Diagnose whether the problem exists at manuscript, section, paragraph, sentence, or language level.

Mistake 2: Making the Manuscript Longer

Researchers sometimes assume that “clarify” means “add more explanation.”

Sometimes it does.

But clarity often improves by removing:

• repeated background;
• unnecessary qualifications;
• redundant definitions;
• tangential literature;
• inflated phrasing.

Academic concision is not merely about shortening text; it is about keeping the information needed to communicate meaning efficiently. George Mason University’s guidance similarly warns that wordiness and redundancy can obscure ideas.

Mistake 3: Adding More Technical Terminology

More sophisticated vocabulary does not automatically make a manuscript more scholarly.

If a simpler established term communicates the same concept accurately, it may be the stronger choice.

Mistake 4: Assuming the Reviewer “Should Have Understood”

Sometimes reviewers do misunderstand manuscripts.

But a misunderstanding can still provide useful evidence.

Ask:

What in the manuscript allowed this interpretation?

If two reasonable interpretations are possible, clarification may improve the paper even if your original wording is technically defensible.

Mistake 5: Explaining the Issue Only in the Response Letter

A common revision mistake is writing:

“By X, we meant Y.”

in the response letter without revising the manuscript itself.

The future reader will not have your response letter.

If clarification matters, revise the paper.

Mistake 6: Removing Necessary Complexity

Do not delete methodological nuance, uncertainty, or qualifications solely to make prose shorter.

A qualified statement can be longer because scientific accuracy requires it.

The goal is necessary complexity expressed clearly, not artificial simplicity.

A Practical Manuscript Clarity Checklist

Before resubmission, check the manuscript from the perspective of someone who knows the discipline but has not participated in your research.

• Can a reader identify the manuscript’s main research problem quickly?
• Is the purpose of the study stated explicitly?
• Is the principal contribution distinguishable from general background?
• Does every major section have an identifiable function?
• Do paragraphs generally develop one main point at a time?
• Do topic sentences help readers understand why each paragraph is present?
• Are transitions based on genuine logical relationships?
• Are technical terms defined where readers need definitions?
• Are abbreviations necessary and used consistently?
• Are key constructs labelled consistently throughout the manuscript?
• Can readers identify what pronouns such as “this,” “it,” and “they” refer to?
• Are important actors and actions visible in sentences?
• Have excessively abstract phrases been replaced where possible?
• Are long sentences divided when they contain several separate claims?
• Are research questions or hypotheses consistent with the Methods?
• Is each major result clearly linked to the analysis that produced it?
• Does the Discussion distinguish findings from interpretations?
• Do conclusions remain within the scope of the evidence?
• Have repeated or irrelevant passages been removed?
• Has someone unfamiliar with the draft tested whether your intended message is understandable?
• Have you checked the target journal’s author guidelines?

What Should You Do If the Editor Says “The Manuscript Requires Substantial Improvement in Clarity”?

Treat the comment as a manuscript-level revision unless the editor clearly limits it to particular sentences or sections.

A practical sequence is:

1. Read every editor and reviewer comment.
2. Group clarity comments by manuscript level.
3. Identify recurring misunderstandings.
4. Revise structure first.
5. Revise paragraph logic second.
6. Revise sentences and terminology third.
7. Perform language editing and proofreading.
8. Reread the complete manuscript.
9. Document substantive changes in the response letter.

Do not merely state that “the manuscript has been thoroughly revised.”

Tell the editor what changed.

For example:

“We revised the final two paragraphs of the Introduction to state the research gap and primary objective explicitly. We also reorganized Section 4 so that each hypothesis is discussed immediately after its corresponding result.”

That response is more useful because it identifies the action taken.

How Should You Interpret “Please Improve Clarity Throughout”?

This usually suggests that the problem is recurring rather than isolated.

Possible causes include:

• consistently long sentence structures;
• excessive abstraction;
• unclear paragraph organization;
• nonstandard or inconsistent terminology;
• repeated grammatical ambiguity;
• poor transitions;
• weak connection between evidence and interpretation.

In this situation, editing a few highlighted sentences is unlikely to be enough.

Review the manuscript systematically from beginning to end.

Clarity, Concision, Coherence, and Correctness: What Is the Difference?

These terms overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

Concept	Core question
Clarity	Can the reader understand the intended meaning?
Concision	Is the meaning expressed without unnecessary wording?
Coherence	Do ideas connect logically and form an understandable whole?
Correctness	Does the language follow relevant grammatical, factual, technical, and formatting conventions?
Precision	Is the wording sufficiently exact for the claim being made?

A manuscript may be:

• grammatically correct but unclear;
• concise but insufficiently explained;
• coherent overall but imprecise in terminology;
• clear at sentence level but incoherent at section level.

Good academic editing therefore needs to examine several dimensions at once.

When Is Self-Editing Enough?

Self-editing may be enough when:

• the editor identifies a small number of specific ambiguous passages;
• you understand why each passage caused difficulty;
• the manuscript structure is already strong;
• a co-author or colleague can independently test the revision;
• language problems are minor.

A useful technique is to leave some distance between drafting and revision where your schedule permits. Familiarity with a manuscript makes authors unusually good at filling in information that is not actually written on the page.

A fresh reader cannot rely on your internal knowledge.

That makes fresh-reader feedback especially valuable for clarity.

When Might Academic Editing Be Useful?

Professional academic editing may be useful when the problem extends across the manuscript and you have difficulty distinguishing between what you intended to say and what the text actually communicates.

Relevant support may include:

• structural review;
• paragraph-level coherence review;
• sentence-level language editing;
• clarity and concision editing;
• terminology consistency;
• checking relationships among objectives, methods, results, and conclusions;
• proofreading after substantive revision.

Editing should strengthen communication rather than invent the research argument, alter data, fabricate evidence, or replace the researcher’s intellectual contribution.

Researchers also remain responsible for their claims, methods, data, interpretation, references, and final submission. Institutional and journal policies concerning editing assistance should be checked where relevant.

How Contentxprtz Can Help With Manuscript Clarity

When an editor’s comment is broader than proofreading—for example, “the manuscript lacks clarity,” “the argument is difficult to follow,” or “substantial language revision is required”—a structured academic review can help separate language problems from deeper communication problems.

Contentxprtz describes its work as academic editing, writing and research-support assistance and states that it has operated since 2010 with researchers across more than 110 countries.

Depending on the manuscript, support may focus on:

• clarity and logical flow;
• academic language;
• paragraph structure;
• sentence construction;
• concision;
• consistency of terminology;
• readability for scholarly audiences;
• alignment across manuscript sections;
• final proofreading.

Researchers who need manuscript-specific revision support can explore the research paper editing service. Broader academic editing may also be appropriate when the paper requires language and structural improvement rather than correction of isolated errors.

For a thesis or dissertation from which a journal paper is being developed, revision may require a different level of restructuring because a thesis chapter is not automatically a journal article. Relevant support is available through thesis services and dissertation services.

Professional editing should help authors communicate their own research more effectively—not manufacture findings, arguments, citations, or intellectual contributions.

Summary: What Journal Editors Mean by Lack of Clarity in Writing

When journal editors refer to a lack of clarity, they are usually telling the author that some important part of the manuscript is harder to understand than it needs to be.

That difficulty may arise because:

• the central message is buried;
• the research gap is vague;
• arguments contain logical jumps;
• sections appear in an unhelpful order;
• paragraphs lack focus;
• sentences are overloaded;
• terminology is inconsistent;
• methods cannot be reconstructed easily;
• findings and interpretations are not clearly distinguished;
• grammar or word choice creates ambiguity.

The strongest response is therefore not simply to “improve the English.”

Instead:

Diagnose → restructure → clarify → simplify where appropriate → language-edit → proofread → test with a fresh reader.

Editors and reviewers ultimately need to evaluate your research rather than spend unnecessary effort decoding your prose.

Clear academic writing helps make that possible.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What exactly do journal editors mean by “lack of clarity”?

Journal editors generally mean that they cannot understand some aspect of the manuscript as efficiently or confidently as necessary. The unclear element may be the central argument, research purpose, methodology, interpretation, paragraph structure, terminology, or individual sentences.

It is therefore important not to assume that “lack of clarity” means only grammatical mistakes.

If the comment is accompanied by statements such as “the rationale is unclear” or “the contribution is difficult to identify,” the issue is probably conceptual or structural. If the editor instead mentions sentence construction, grammar, or readability throughout, language editing may be a larger part of the required revision.

Read the complete editorial letter before deciding what kind of revision is needed.

2. What journal editors mean by lack of clarity in writing when my grammar is already correct?

Correct grammar does not guarantee clear communication.

A sentence may follow grammatical rules yet still be too abstract, overloaded, ambiguous, or poorly connected to surrounding ideas. Similarly, several well-written paragraphs may create an unclear manuscript if they appear in an illogical order.

For example:

“Several important factors contributed to this outcome.”

The sentence is grammatically correct, but the reader does not know which factors or which outcome.

A clearer sentence names them:

“Higher baseline knowledge and prior technical training were associated with better post-intervention scores.”

When grammar is already strong, focus on specificity, reasoning, organization, paragraph unity, terminology, and relationships between claims.

3. Does an editor saying “lack of clarity” mean my manuscript will be rejected?

Not necessarily.

The meaning depends on the decision and the surrounding comments. A journal may request revision, while in another case clarity problems may contribute to rejection, particularly if editors cannot confidently evaluate the manuscript’s contribution or methods.

Publisher guidance consistently emphasizes clear communication as an important component of manuscript preparation. Elsevier, for example, advises authors that clear, concise, well-organized manuscripts help editors and reviewers engage with research effectively.

Your most useful response is to treat the comment seriously without assuming an outcome that the decision letter does not state.

4. Is lack of clarity the same as poor academic writing?

Not exactly.

Academic-writing quality includes several dimensions: clarity, coherence, precision, grammar, structure, argumentation, disciplinary convention, citation practice, and appropriate scholarly tone.

A paper can therefore contain sophisticated academic language but remain unclear. Conversely, a clearly written paper can still have methodological or theoretical weaknesses.

When revising, separate communication questions from research-quality questions.

Ask:

Is the study unclear because the writing obscures a sound idea, or is the writing exposing an unresolved problem in the research itself?

Sometimes the answer is both.

5. How can I make academic writing clearer without making it too simple?

Preserve necessary technical precision while removing unnecessary linguistic difficulty.

Keep disciplinary terminology when it is the most accurate language for the concept, but define unfamiliar or study-specific terms. Break overloaded sentences into manageable units. Replace vague language with specific nouns and verbs. Make relationships between ideas explicit.

You do not need to convert scholarly writing into conversational prose.

The objective is to ensure that complexity comes from the research itself, not from avoidable sentence construction.

University of Toronto science-writing guidance similarly emphasizes clear, concise prose and coherent organization while recognizing that conventions vary among disciplines.

6. Should I shorten every long sentence after receiving a clarity comment?

No.

Sentence length is not a reliable measure of clarity by itself.

Some long sentences clearly express relationships among several connected ideas. Some very short sentences are vague.

Revise a long sentence when its structure forces the reader to keep too many ideas in memory, creates ambiguity, separates the subject from its action excessively, or combines claims that need different levels of qualification.

Concision is useful when it removes unnecessary wording. George Mason University’s Writing Center recommends precision and concision while cautioning that wordiness can cloud ideas.

The aim is not “short sentences.” The aim is efficiently understandable sentences.

7. How do I know whether the problem is structure or English?

Perform two separate tests.

First, summarize every paragraph in a few words. If the resulting outline is disorganized, repetitive, or difficult to follow, you probably have a structural problem.

Second, examine individual sentences. If their intended meaning becomes clear once grammar, vocabulary, or syntax is corrected, language is contributing substantially to the problem.

Many manuscripts contain both.

Do not begin with proofreading if paragraphs or sections may later need to be reorganized. Structural revision should generally come first because sentence polishing is inefficient when substantial text may still move or disappear.

8. How should I respond to a reviewer who says a paragraph is unclear?

First determine what interpretation the reviewer appears to have made.

Then revise the paragraph so that the intended meaning becomes explicit.

In the response letter, briefly acknowledge the concern and identify what you changed. For example:

“We agree that the relationship between the two constructs was insufficiently explained. We revised the paragraph on page X to define both constructs separately and explain the hypothesized relationship before introducing H2.”

Do not rely solely on explaining your intention in the response letter. The manuscript itself should be understandable to future readers who will never see the reviewer exchange.

9. Can a manuscript be unclear because the research question itself is unclear?

Yes.

Writing problems sometimes reveal conceptual problems.

If you repeatedly struggle to explain the paper’s purpose, it may be necessary to revisit the relationship among:

• the research problem;
• research question;
• objectives;
• methods;
• analysis;
• conclusions.

A clear research question should ordinarily provide enough specificity for the audience to understand its purpose and scope; George Mason University’s research-writing guidance similarly emphasizes clear, focused, concise research questions.

No amount of sentence polishing can fully compensate for a study whose central question remains conceptually unresolved.

10. When should I consider professional editing for a clarity problem?

Professional editing may be useful when clarity problems are widespread, revision comments repeatedly concern readability or organization, English-language issues obscure meaning, or you need an independent reader to identify passages that make sense to you only because you already know the research.

Look for support appropriate to the actual problem. Proofreading is suitable for final surface-level correction. Language editing addresses sentence-level communication. More substantive academic editing may examine clarity, coherence, consistency, and manuscript structure.

No ethical editing service should guarantee publication or journal acceptance. The researcher remains responsible for the intellectual content, evidence, interpretations, references, and final submission.

About the Author

Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Dr. Aanya Mehta is a research-oriented writer and professional communicator with a strong focus on accuracy, clarity, and evidence-based insight. Her work combines analytical thinking with accessible writing, helping readers understand complex business topics through well-researched, credible, and practical content.

Conclusion

A journal editor’s comment about “lack of clarity” should be interpreted as a request to make the manuscript’s meaning easier to identify and evaluate—not automatically as a judgement that the research itself is poor.

The source of the problem may be global or local. Your contribution may be buried. Your reasoning may contain unstated steps. Paragraphs may lack clear purposes. Sentences may be overloaded. Terminology may change unexpectedly. Methods may be difficult to reconstruct. Findings may be mixed with interpretations. Language errors may create ambiguity.

The most effective revision therefore begins by asking where the reader loses the research story.

Start with the manuscript’s central message. Then review section order, argument structure, paragraph focus, sentence construction, terminology, and finally grammar and proofreading. Where possible, ask an informed reader who is not closely involved in the study to explain what they believe each important section is saying.

If that interpretation matches your intended meaning, you have strong evidence that clarity is improving.

If you can identify and correct the problem yourself, professional intervention may not be necessary. When clarity difficulties run throughout a manuscript, however, independent academic editing can help identify problems that authors often overlook because they know their own research too well.

Whatever revision route you choose, preserve the central academic principle: the ideas, evidence, interpretation, and intellectual contribution remain the researcher’s responsibility. Editing should make those ideas easier to understand—not replace them.

“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”