Your research is solid, but your English paper gets rejected by peer review. Learn the hidden grammar, structure, and tone rules that separate native-like academic writing from obvious non-native work.
Try Amélie free →French academic writing emphasizes elegance and philosophical depth, but English research papers demand direct, evidence-first arguments. French writers often bury findings in complex sentences; English expects them upfront in the first line of Results. You'll learn to restructure your thinking for IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Analysis, Discussion), handle peer review feedback without defensiveness, and master the grammar traps that reveal a French L1 speaker instantly—like dropping articles in Methods ("the samples" not "samples") or softening claims too much ("suggests" vs. "demonstrate").
French writing lets ideas flow; English expects rigid sections where each has one job. Introduction motivates the problem. Methods describes exactly what you did. Results reports findings without interpretation. Discussion interprets within existing literature. No philosophy in Methods. No new methodology in Discussion.
French writers spend 2–3 paragraphs building context before the finding. English: finding in sentence 1–2 of Results, then support it. "We identified a novel mutation in 34% of samples" comes before the table, not after three paragraphs of justification.
Many French L1 speakers avoid passive entirely. In Methods, passive is standard and preferred ("samples were analyzed by mass spectrometry" not "we analyzed"). In Discussion, shift to active ("our model predicts" not "it can be predicted"). Know the switch.
When a reviewer says "this methodology is questionable," you can't respond defensively. Learn phrases: "We acknowledge this limitation" or "future work should address this" or "our findings are preliminary pending validation." Showing intellectual humility wins.
French academic prose loves qualifiers ("très intéressant," "remarquablement complexe"). English is lean. "Interesting" already signals relevance. "Complex" is enough. Remove "very," "quite," "rather"—they weaken technical claims.
French academics may see criticism as personal attack. English peer review is collaborative problem-solving. Acknowledge valid points, explain what you'll change, ask for clarification if confused. A good response = revised paper that passes the next round.
French L1 speakers drop articles instinctively ("samples were analyzed" instead of "the samples were analyzed"). In Methods and Results, articles matter: "the analysis" means a specific one; "analysis" alone is vague. Consistency = professionalism.
It's the hardest section to write first. Once Results and Discussion are locked, abstract becomes a precise 150–250 word summary of novelty, methods, findings, and implication. If you write it first, you'll rewrite it anyway.
Check the journal's guidelines first—most top journals accept both consistently. American is slightly more common in STEM; British in social sciences and humanities. Pick one and apply it throughout. Inconsistency looks careless.
Separate the critique from the critic and assume good intent. Respond point-by-point, acknowledge valid criticisms explicitly, explain what you'll change or add, and ask for clarification if confused. A thoughtful response often converts a skeptical reviewer into a supporter.
Article abuse—dropping "the" and "a" in technical sections, especially Methods and Results. In English, "the samples" (specific) means something different from "samples" (generic). Missing articles signal non-native writing instantly.
Typical ratio: Introduction 20–30%, Methods 20–25%, Results 30–40%, Discussion 20–30%. This varies by journal and field, so check published papers in your target journal. But this baseline keeps your paper balanced and prevents the French mistake of over-philosophizing the Introduction.
The only AI English coach that catches L1 transfer errors. 19,99€/mo — first session free.
Get started →