What It Was Like to Publish as Lead Author — And What I’d Do Differently Next Time

For many early-career researchers, if not all, having a first-author publication is a highly sought-after milestone. I set out to achieve this milestone in June 2022, and finally saw it published in April 2025. Yes, it took nearly three years, and this alone shows that the path was far from smooth. But it was a journey full of learning.

When I began, I worked solo—conceptualizing, collecting data, analyzing, and writing the first draft, all by myself. When I finished the first draft, I could sense that it was not yet ready for submission, but I couldn’t pinpoint what was missing. As a result, I invited two of my colleagues to contribute. By December 2022, the manuscript went through several changes. Still, the discussion part remained weak, as pointed out by one co-author.

However, I was impatient. As the lead author, the final call was mine—and I was in a hurry to hit the milestone of publication. Therefore, without much reflection, I submitted to a high-impact journal. Unsurprisingly, it was desk-rejected. I tried again. Then again. The same results every time—without reflecting meaningfully on what needed to change. My co-authors suggested that it was time to reevaluate the manuscript before the next submission.

In late 2023, I turned to my former teacher Dr. Haseeb Md Irfanullah, a Rising Scholar Steward recognized for his work mentoring early and mid-career researchers. Besides, he had previously published research in my topic area. He agreed to be a part of it and gave me thoughtful feedback—work that required not just weeks but months to revise properly. I started but lost momentum in between my other work. Procrastination set in. I began to dread working on the manuscript.

I missed an important deadline and failed to communicate what I was going through. My mentor was understandably upset and even considered withdrawing from the paper. However, being my former teacher, he stayed. But that was my wake-up call.

From there, we worked closely and consistently. The manuscript underwent significant changes with revision to the introduction, conceptual framework, addition of fresh analysis, reorientation of the findings, and writing a robust discussion. Dr Irfanullah guided me through every step. He was always available—weekends, odd hours, even from abroad. Finally, all of us were satisfied that the manuscript was ready for submission. This time, we chose a journal that better aligned with our research. After much persistence and patience, we succeeded—our paper was published in Local Environment, a Q1 journal, in April 2025.

This experience taught me to think of a research paper as a narrative that resonates. It should tell a coherent story—every section should flow into the next, each deepening the reader’s understanding. The introduction sets the stage, the methods explain how the story was explored, the findings reveal what was uncovered, and the discussion interprets what it all means. 

Not being a lone wolf, at least not when you are new, is an important lesson that I learned the hard way. Meaningful early collaborations bring in new perspectives and strengthen the research concept and design. Next time, I’ll engage my peers from the beginning, especially a mentor.

Another lesson was the importance of respecting both deadlines and the people who invest their time in your work. Procrastination and lack of proper communication with co-authors not only slow you down, it may erode trust too. In my future work, I’ll set realistic timelines and communicate consistently so that everyone is on the same page and no one’s effort goes unacknowledged. 

One major misstep I won’t repeat is writing about concepts without fully understanding them. In earlier drafts, I leaned on jargon and ideas I hadn’t completely unpacked, thinking they would add depth. Instead, they weakened the foundation. Going forward, I’ll make sure I can confidently explain every concept I use, both to myself and to others.

And then there’s rejection. At first, I took it personally, especially the desk rejections. But now I see that rejection is only wasted when you don’t revise meaningfully. Moving forward, I’ll treat feedback—whether from journals or mentors—as a map, not a verdict.

I used to think the discussion section was just a place to summarize findings. But I’ve learned that it’s where your voice as a researcher truly matters—it’s where you interpret, connect the dots, and make your argument count. I’ll pay more attention to this section in future, ensuring it adds value and doesn’t just repeat results.

Lastly, I won’t rush journal selection. Initially, I went straight for high-impact journals, without checking if our paper was actually the right fit. This time, I’ll research potential journals more carefully—looking at scopes, previously published articles, and editorial styles—so that submission feels strategic, not desperate.

Publishing isn't just about getting the paper out, it’s about becoming a more reflective and responsible researcher. I may not be able to fast-forward the process, but now I know how to move through it with more clarity, collaboration, and confidence. And that’s a journey I’m now better prepared to walk—this time, with fewer missteps and more intention.

Mohammad Budrudzaman

A social research enthusiast, currently focusing on climate change, non-economic losses, and community resilience.

Email: mohammad.budrudzaman@gmail.com

Second image: Getty Images on Unsplash

Thumbnail image: Photo by Sebastian Kuss on Unsplash