1, no problem consciousness. For example, when writing textbooks, there is only "narration" and no "theory". Some on-the-job students write their papers as legal guides or workbooks, such as "research on saliency identification", which is a practical introduction to saliency identification without "research". Another example is "Research on Charge Mechanism of Collective Management Organizations", which mainly discusses how to collect money. The paper must have a sense of problem, and the "problem" here refers to the proposition that is necessary for discussion in theory or system. If the theoretical or institutional scheme is clear, reasonable and uncontroversial, but the actual operation is not satisfactory, it usually does not constitute a "problem" in the sense of legal research. Assuming that there are no defects in the theory and system of theft, car theft is serious in real life, which may constitute a sociological problem, but it does not constitute a legal problem.

2. The restrictions in the title are meaningless. For example, "research in network environment" and "research in e-commerce environment", but the content written is no different from the traditional technical or commercial environment.

3, the title does not match. For example, the topic is "Research on Drug Data Protection", but the content mainly discusses the explanation of drug data protection obligation in TRIPS, which is that the content is too narrow. There will be problems with too much content.

4. I don't know how to define the core concept. The core concepts of this article must be defined. Even if there are theoretical disputes, we should choose the most reasonable definition as the premise of discussion on the basis of analysis.

5. Discussion violates logical rules. A paper studies "merchandising right", and the conclusion of the conceptual analysis part is "adopting the theory of merchandising right". The so-called B theory of the concept of A is "explaining A with B". For example, "the theory of intangible property rights of intellectual property rights" means "thinking that intellectual property rights are intangible property rights". The theory of merchandising right is undoubtedly tautology. The viewpoint of this paper is against the creation of "merchandising right", and it is contradictory to use the expression of "merchandising right" everywhere.

6, the scarecrow fallacy. A certain article points out a legislative flaw: Article * of the Patent Law does not express the legislative purpose and principle. The legislative purpose will only be written in the purpose clause or explained by academic and judicial authorities, and there is no specific rule clause to express the legislative purpose. Making up a question to criticize is like stabbing a scarecrow to death.

7. Introduce irrelevant or meaningless content. A certain article studies the protection of trade secrets, and devotes a chapter to discussing the value of trade secret protection and anti-unfair competition. The mainstream view has no objection to the value of the two, unless this article is to explore the legitimacy of trade secret protection (especially questioning the legitimacy), otherwise there is no need to discuss it.

8. Pseudo-comparative study. Most papers will set up a "comparative study" chapter, and pile up some foreign legislation or cases at will, but it has nothing to do with the following discussion. There is neither comparison nor research. All parts of the paper must be related. The introduction is meaningful only when the foreign system is the object of paper review, citation and analysis and serves the conclusion. It is suggested that it is best not to set up a special chapter to pile up foreign systems, but to naturally introduce foreign systems as witnesses when discussing a certain issue.

9. The chapter design is unreasonable. For example, some chapters have no sections or only one section, and the structure is unbalanced. It is illogical to design the content that originally contained relationships into parallel chapters.

10. Inappropriate topic expression and translation. The thesis statement should be solemn, concise and clear, avoid verbosity, and try not to use subtitles (unless necessary). Generally, it is expressed as "on * *" or "research * *", not necessarily "discussion, discussion, inquiry" or "research * *". Prepositions in English translation should be lowercase, and the first letters of other words should be capitalized.