1, poor innovation. Innovation is the core of medical research papers. Experimental argumentation is to repeat other people's published literature, or it can be inferred from known literature through simple reasoning, or manuscripts that repeat other people's work are often rejected. For medical journals, only by publishing innovative and reportable papers can we ensure the same readership and better promote the development of medical science and technology.

2. The scientific research design is unreasonable. First, there is no design at all, and the author rushed into battle before writing, coping temporarily, and did not seriously consider the overall layout of the article, so that the article has irreparable defects. Second, the design content is flawed, such as there is no real "randomization" in grouping, no criteria for the selection, diagnosis, inclusion and exclusion of research objects, and poor reliability of observation objects, indicating that the advantages are not in the control group, and there is no balance test between groups.

3. It doesn't meet the reporting scope of the contributing journals. There are basically relatively professional journals in all fields of medicine. Therefore, when submitting a manuscript, you should study the journals you have submitted and choose journals with similar coverage to your manuscript.