Publishing in reputable journals is never easy. While researchers often dedicate months—sometimes years—to collecting and analyzing data, many manuscripts are rejected not because of weak evidence, but because of how policy recommendations are presented.
At Research & Report Consulting, we have reviewed hundreds of manuscripts and observed a consistent pattern: journals hold exceptionally high standards for the “policy implications” or “recommendations” sections. Unfortunately, many authors underestimate these requirements and treat recommendations as an afterthought. Below, we unpack the critical issues that most researchers don’t know—but editors always notice.
1. Recommendations Not Grounded in Evidence
One of the most common reasons for rejection is that recommendations appear too general or disconnected from the study’s results. Journals expect to see a clear and logical derivation of policy implications from the data analysis. For example, a regression showing regional disparities in education should lead to targeted, evidence-backed suggestions—not broad appeals to “increase investment in education.”
Tip: Always build recommendations as a direct extension of your findings.
2. Lack of Feasibility and Context
Strong recommendations recognize the political economy, institutional capacity, and local realities. Advice that ignores these complexities often appears idealistic or unimplementable.
Example: Suggesting nationwide reform in a low-capacity context without acknowledging resource limitations signals to reviewers that the author is disconnected from reality.
Tip: Ask yourself: Can this recommendation realistically be implemented in the context I studied?
3. Missing the Analytical Bridge
Editors look for a visible bridge between results and recommendations. When authors fail to show how their findings justify specific advice, reviewers dismiss the recommendations as speculative.
Tip: Trace the chain: Finding → Interpretation → Policy Implication.
4. Advocacy Without Analysis
Journals distinguish between academic recommendations and activist slogans. Statements like “Governments should prioritize sustainability” are rejected if they lack analytical justification.
Tip: Frame recommendations as implications, not commands. Instead of “Governments should…,” use “The findings suggest that policymakers may need to consider…”
5. Ignoring Multi-Level Governance
Policy is rarely controlled by a single actor. Many recommendations mistakenly assume that “the government” is the sole decision-maker. In reality, responsibilities are distributed across ministries, local governments, and sometimes international organizations.
Tip: Identify who specifically should act—central government, local authorities, private sector, or civil society—and how.
6. Overlooking Unintended Consequences
Top journals expect nuanced thinking. Policy recommendations that fail to mention potential risks, trade-offs, or unintended consequences appear incomplete.
Tip: Strengthen recommendations by noting possible limitations, risks, and monitoring mechanisms.
7. Absence of Stakeholder Linkage
Recommendations gain credibility when they identify stakeholders. However, many manuscripts miss this step, leaving readers unsure who the advice is meant for.
Tip: Align recommendations with relevant actors: policymakers, practitioners, communities, or the private sector.
How Research & Report Consulting Can Help
At Research & Report Consulting, we specialize in helping researchers, practitioners, and development professionals translate complex findings into rigorous, context-sensitive, and journal-ready policy recommendations.
Our services include:
- Research Design & Data Analysis – ensuring findings are robust and actionable.
- Policy Translation Support – transforming results into credible recommendations.
- Manuscript Review & Editing – aligning with journal standards.
- Stakeholder Mapping – ensuring recommendations are context-specific and realistic.
By bridging the gap between research and policy practice, we help authors not only get published but also create real impact.
Conclusion
Policy recommendations are not an afterthought—they are a critical test of a manuscript’s credibility. Journals want to see recommendations that are:
- Evidence-based
- Feasible in context
- Linked directly to findings
- Analytical, not normative
- Attentive to governance complexity
- Aware of trade-offs
- Stakeholder-focused
You require both research expertise and policy insight to cover up these elements. At Research & Report Consulting, we support scholars in delivering recommendations that survive peer review and influence real decisions.
Learn more at Research & Report
Follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook for insights.