1. Publishing educational research
Top Tips and Lessons Learned

2. Lessons Learned

3. Intellectual streaking
Bearman & Molloy (2017)
Intellectual streaking
Bearman, M., & Molloy, E. (2017). Intellectual streaking: The values of teachers exposing minds (and hearts). Medical Teacher, 39(12),

4. I am not certain about what type of research paper this manuscript is classified. My questions include: is the paper based upon an empirical study? Is the paper developed from a literature review study? Or is the paper simply a review paper to contribute to the theoretical knowledge on assessment feedback? The authors should reiterate the aims and objectives of the paper very clearly at the outset.
To me the paper seems to be more of a discussion paper than a research article. It's something between the literature review and empirical study and this is also the weakness of the study.
Make no assumptions

5. I also felt that the authors used causal language in this section (…”emerged as important influences”…) without providing a reader with much information regarding the quality of research designs or the number of studies that were used as the basis for making these statements. Further, the authors used vague phrases such as, “many studies focused…”, “…was emphasized in the literature.”, or “A large portion of the literature…”. The lack of detail made it difficult to understand what “large” or “many” actually meant? In short, there was too much ambiguity in this section regarding how conclusions or inferences were made. It was as if the authors performed some type of analysis and came up with some general take away messages.
If only…

6. A consistent feature of the paper is the obfuscate nature of the presentation and limited justification and qualification of decisions, issues, and content. For example the repeated use of words such as potential, what appears, may, unlikely, could, perhaps, is unhelpful to the reader and the transparency of the research. Please review.
I disagree!

7. Peer review results in better work
In this revision, I think the authors have done an outstanding job of taking up reviewers' comments on the first version of this manuscript. Thus, in its current version, I think this manuscript could make a very important contribution to the literature.
Peer review results in better work

8. Managing the process

9. Where to submit

10. One paper or two?

11. Anticipating reviewers

12.
Dealing with reviews
“However, I’ve found that when I make my first step rewriting the feedback comments into actionable todos for myself that this stops me from needing to affectively engage again. In rewriting I’m making them tasks I assign myself rather than critique – I’m ‘defanging’ the feedback. The emotional charge is mostly gone and I’m left with a set of todos”.

13. Top Tips

14. Tip #1 Set firm foundations
Theory
RQs
Map RQs to results section, and discussion

15. Tip #2 Don’t get it right, get it written

16. Tip #3 Signpost

17. Tip #4 Follow the thread

18. Tip #5 Focus on WHY

19. Tip #6 Don’t dress it up

20. Tip #7 Look outwards

21. Tip #8 Focus on feedback

22. Tip #9 Focus on fit

23. Tip #10 Perseverance pays