A discovery never written down is the same as one that never existed.
Research results become science only when they are "shared in a reproducible form" — the paper is the final phase of the inquiry cycle
What this lecture covers
This page is a readable reconstruction of the Suzuki-A. Lab Lab Forum lecture "Writing Papers" (9 July 2026). The goal is for everyone, from B4 to doctoral students and postdocs, to be able to walk the whole process of submitting a paper with the map they need.
1
Act 1 Write
Draft Mindset — Let go of perfectionism, separate generation from editing
2
Act 2 Prepare
Beyond the manuscript — Authorship, acknowledgements, data, reuse, AI use
3
Act 3 Submit
Cover letter — Write the 90-second pitch to the editor
4
Act 4 Converse
Review process — Peer review is free consulting
B4: Grasp the whole picture and make the roadmap to December your own. M & D: Check where you are now and identify the next bottleneck. Postdocs: Check for gaps and update your practical routines.
Act 1
The greatest enemy is perfectionism
Draft Mindset — Know what the struggle really is, and separate generation from editing
Not being able to write is normal
If it flows easily, it is not new
Struggling is a marker of novelty — struggling to write is evidence that you are challenging the unknown. Uncertainty is a marker of scientific novelty. At the stage where an idea "seems sort of sayable," you have not yet reached the real question.
Paradoxically, the "ugly first draft" is the entrance to originality. Text that flows easily is a reproduction of what you already know. The struggle is not an obstacle to eliminate but a signal that "the novelty is here."
The struggle is not a matter of ability; it is evidence of challenging the unknown.
Separate generation from editing
The writing brain and the editing brain do not run at the same time
Multi-stage drafting — "Perfect Draft Syndrome," trying to write perfect sentences from the start, cuts writing speed to one tenth. The solution is to separate the writing stage and the editing stage into different time slots.
First draft (generation)
A dump only you will see
Precision does not matter, do not stop
Spoken language is fine
Revision (editing)
Done later, as a separate step
Elegance is added here
Reread with a reviewer's eyes
Put "writing time" and "editing time" in your calendar as separate slots.
Prescriptions for when you are stuck
Not willpower, but an intervention matched to the symptom
Tactical fixes for writer's block — there are three kinds of symptoms of being stuck, and a different intervention works for each.
1
Fear of the blank page
Ten minutes of freewriting — dump it out regardless of precision. You may throw away what you wrote
2
Loss of momentum
The WIRMI method — rewrite in spoken language: "What I really mean is…". Saying it aloud loosens the block
3
Feeling overwhelmed
Break the task down to "write the caption of Figure 1." Decide only the next step, not the finish
Suzuki-A. Lab's Writing Paper Skills turn these prescriptions into a system.
Workflow: The first draft is an "unfolding task"
Once Framing and Figures are done, the Draft becomes an unfolding task
From weekly habit to submission — you do not need to start writing from a blank page. If the materials are in place, the first draft is an unfolding task.
The weekly habit of keeping the one-sentence claim "Compared to X, we Y" updated
3
The one-sentence claim is ready
If you have a claim you can state outright, the skeleton of the first draft is done
4
Draft = unfolding
Just unfold the assembled materials into text. Write from materials, not from a blank page (details in Writing Papers — Draft)
Here is this week's habit, so that you do not panic in December.
Writing Paper Skills — The "form" that makes claims stronger
Suzuki-A. Lab has put into words the "form" that makes claims stronger
The strength of a paper is decided by the strength of its claim. A manuscript that ends up writing "we observed X" and one that states outright "we enabled X for the first time" get completely different reactions from reviewers. Writing Paper Skills is this "form for stating outright," made explicit as a process to run together with AI.
BEFORE
Ends up writing "we observed X"
The claim is weak; the novelty does not come through
AFTER
States outright "we enabled X for the first time"
Reviewers' objections are answered in advance
The process run together with AI is Writing Paper Skills (contents in the next section).
Writing Paper Skills — Five checks
Check sentence by sentence, through the eyes of 3–4 imagined reviewers
Five checks, sentence by sentence — check each sentence against the following five items.
①
Claim-strength
Is the level of claim strength appropriate — are observed / indicates / suggests used distinctly?
②
Reviewer objection
Where will the reviewer push — is the anticipated objection pre-empted?
③
Evidence alignment
Are evidence and claim in balance — is the claim as strong as the data can support?
④
Comparison validity
Is the comparison valid — same physical quantity, same conditions?
⑤
Safer rewrite
Is it a safe rewrite without an AI smell — check dashes, stock phrases, and quantified exaggerations
There are two modes of use.
Writing Paper Skills — Two ways to use it
Draft-diagnosis mode and supervisor mode are different things
Two modes, one purpose: sharpen the claim — both modes share the same core principle, "make the claim stronger."
Student mode: Draft diagnosis
Check what is being said vs. what should be said
Take the "form" home through before / after
No clean copy — the next one you do yourself
Supervisor mode: Working draft
Working draft → expressing what feels off
Translate what feels off into a claim
Final responsibility for the text stays with the author
Common principle: AI is a drafting device, not the writer. Being able to say, sentence by sentence, "why it is there" is the author's final responsibility.
AI is a tool. Only humans can bear responsibility.
Act 2
A paper is not complete with the text alone
Beyond the manuscript — Authors, acknowledgements, data, reuse, AI
Authorship — The four criteria
Authorship requires all four criteria
Under the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) criteria, an author must meet all four of the following. If even one is missing, the person is not an author.
①
Substantial contribution
Substantial contribution to conception, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation
②
Drafting or revising
Drafting the manuscript, or critically revising it for important intellectual content
③
Final approval
Final approval of the very version to be published
④
Accountability
Accountability for all aspects of the work — all four together make an author
"Data collection only" or "funding only" is not authorship; it goes in the acknowledgements.
Authorship — When to talk about it
Discuss author order and responsibilities before you start writing
Talk early, not at submission — the most draining authorship troubles are disputes right before submission. Agree on author order, first author, corresponding author, and the roles of co-authors during the project's Framing period.
If in doubt, consult Suzuki. The final decision is made in consultation with your supervisor. The same goes for acknowledgements: always obtain the person's consent before listing them.
The time to talk is the Framing period — right before submission is too late.
Data Repository — Data is part of the paper
An era in which data is reviewed as part of the paper
Open science is the default — many journals, including Geothermics, have data-sharing policies. Follow the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and publish in a repository with a DOI (Zenodo, etc.).
Required README items: file naming conventions, variable definitions, software requirements, ORCID. Dates in ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). State the license explicitly, CC0 or CC-BY. Grant numbers must be exact (LOTUS etc. — do not forget to check the funding conditions).
Data is a package for an unknown someone in the future. Hand it over with a README and a license.
Self-plagiarism
Even your own text becomes self-plagiarism when copy-pasted
The tolerance for text recycling differs by section. Take particular care when turning a master's thesis into a journal paper.
Section
Reuse
Conditions / cautions
Methods
○
Generally accepted if the source is cited
Introduction
△
Wholesale copying is not allowed. Substantial rewriting is required
Results / Discussion
✕
Reuse amounts to duplicate publication. Always write anew
Master's thesis → journal paper is the most dangerous moment.
AI use — Why AI cannot be an author, and the rules of Suzuki-A. Lab
AI cannot be an author — because it cannot bear responsibility
Deficit of accountability & confidentiality — AI cannot sign a copyright agreement and cannot bear ethical responsibility.
Risks
All responsibility for hallucinations (fake citations) lies with the author
Uploading a paper under review is a breach of confidentiality and copyright
Violation of publisher policies (Springer Nature: generative-AI figures prohibited in principle, etc.)
Suzuki-A. Lab rules
If used, disclose tool name, version, and purpose in Methods / acknowledgements
Never enter unpublished manuscripts — absolutely
Keep a usage record and check the disclosure statement before submission
Only humans can bear responsibility — hence records and disclosure.
Act 3
The first thing the editor reads is not the paper
The cover letter — Most desk rejections are decided here
The role of the cover letter
The cover letter is a 90-second pitch to the editor
Your first (and maybe only) pitch — most desk rejections (rejection without review) are decided at the stage of reading the cover letter. A copy-paste of the abstract is spotted instantly.
You are expected to write three points — "why this journal, why now, what is new" — in your own words. Editors are busy researchers handling dozens of submissions every day. If these three points do not come through clearly, the journey ends before it reaches the reviewers.
A copy-paste of the abstract is spotted instantly. Tell the three points in your own words.
Four axes of persuasion
Speak along four axes: trust, logic, curiosity, timing
Ethos, Logos, Pathos, Kairos — the four axes of persuasion organized by ancient Greek rhetoric apply directly to the cover letter.
Ethos (trust)
Declaration of ethical compliance and no duplicate submission. Show that the authors understand this journal's rules
Logos (logic)
The difference from prior work, in plain words. Make "what is different" clear without leaning on jargon
Pathos (curiosity)
Hint at an elegant solution to a long-standing problem. Pose a question the reader wants to read about
Kairos (timing)
Why now, and why this journal. Show the timely reason and the fit with the journal
If the four axes cannot be filled, the story of the submission is not yet settled.
Practice at Suzuki-A. Lab
Use the checklist plus the Geothermics supplementary sheet
1
Lab checklist (Notion)
The submission checklist includes cover-letter items. Pass the checklist before pressing the submit button
2
Recommending and excluding reviewers
Watch for conflicts of interest. Always consult your supervisor before filling this in
3
Check overlap with Editorial Manager
Rules on overlap between the submission system's fields and the letter differ by journal. Check in advance
Next: what happens after you press the submit button.
Act 4
Peer review is not criticism; it is free consulting
The review process — From submission to publication, the conversation begins
The whole process
From submission to publication, a conversation of several months on average
What actually happens after you click submit
1
Submission
The editor acknowledges receipt and checks scope and format. If it does not fit: desk rejection
2
Review (1–3 months)
2–4 reviewers evaluate anonymously. The editor invites and chases the reviewers
3
The decision arrives
Four kinds: Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject. Major is a sign of "still alive"
4
Revision → re-review
Submit the response letter and the revised manuscript. The re-review → decision loop may continue once or twice
Major revision is a sign of "still alive." It is not a Reject. It is evidence that the editor judged "this can be published if fixed." Respond carefully and there is a good chance of acceptance.
When the decision arrives — first, manage your emotions.
Managing emotions
For harsh comments, a 72-hour cooling-off period
Never reply in anger — the emotional reaction on first reading the review comments never goes into the response letter.
1
Do not write a rebuttal on first reading
Wait 24–72 hours before designing the response. Vent the anger in a memo; do not put it in the response letter
2
A reviewer's misunderstanding = your insufficient explanation
Start with "As you point out, our explanation was insufficient." Do not blame the reviewer
3
Separate emotion from response
Feeling angry is normal. But carrying that emotion into the response letter lowers the acceptance rate
Once you have cooled down — on to the craft of the response letter.
The craft of the response letter
Make the response letter self-contained, and write the conclusion first
Self-contained, answer-first responses — a good response letter can be understood without the reviewer opening the revised manuscript.
A bad response letter
Starts with a long rebuttal
Makes the reviewer open the manuscript and search
The conclusion comes last
A good response letter
States Yes / No / Revised explicitly at the top
Quotes the revised text directly in the response letter
Distinguishes comment, response, and revised text by color and indentation
Reducing the reviewer's effort is the shortest path to acceptance.
Dealing with an unfair review
The opponent is not the reviewer; fight through a letter to the editor
If an unfair attack by a competitor is suspected, do not fight directly in the response letter.
Response letter (public)
Stick to calm, fact-based responses
Do not confront the reviewer directly
Show your handling of the comments carefully
Letter to the editor (confidential)
Convey the concern about an unfair attack by a competitor in a private letter
Lay out facts, not emotions
Ask for the editor's judgment
Let us also uphold the culture of reviewing the Work, not the Peer. The peer-review process exists to evaluate the research, not the person.
There are ways to counter an unfair review. But calmly, and fact-based.
Closing
December's submit button starts with today's step
Count backwards — from December to today
Counting backwards from December
For a December submission, freeze the Figures in October
Not a distant goal, but a weekly habit.
Now
Now (July): Polish the one-sentence claim on the Paper card
Write, this week, a sentence you can state outright in the form "Compared to X, we Y"
Oct
October: Freeze the Figures + agree on author order
Fix the minimal figure set that supports the claim, and agree on author order and roles with co-authors
Nov
November: Complete the Draft → circulate to co-authors → write the cover letter
Finish the manuscript, get co-author feedback, then write the letter
Dec
December: Submit — inquiry cycle Phase 6 complete
Press the submit button. And the next Discomfort (Phase 0) begins
Not a distant goal, but a weekly habit.
Takeaways by role
Your next step is this
B4
Write the claim in one sentence
Try writing it on the Paper card in the form "Compared to X, we Y"
M & D
Self-diagnose
Check where your manuscript stands with the submission checklist
Postdocs
Update your routines
Update the response-letter template to your own style
December's submit button starts with today's step.
Now, start writing
A paper becomes research only when it is written.
The picture up to submission is already in view
The inquiry cycle closes with Expression (Phase 6) and leads to the next Discomfort (Phase 0). Publishing a paper is not the end; it is the beginning of the next question.
Questions and consultations anytime: Lab Forum / Team Meeting / individual consultation