‘Not a course assignment…’: MS student turns off-syllabus research into Elsevier paper; this is how

By Ronak Macwan

The question which led to my first Elsevier paper was raised outside the classroom. After living in Canada and then moving to Los Angeles, I began to notice how housing, weather and personal safety affect each other in daily life. One question stayed with me: when extreme heat makes a rented home unsafe, what protection does the person living there actually have?

On August 7, 2026, Climate Risk Management, a peer-reviewed journal published by Elsevier, accepted my research on that question. It was published online three days later. That was a milestone for me. Getting there meant turning an everyday observation into a study that could hold up to expert review.

I am from Nadiad, Gujarat. I studied biochemistry and biotechnology in India, worked in Gujarat’s chemical industry, completed a postgraduate certificate in project management in Canada, and then joined the MS Environmental Science programme at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) in Los Angeles. This paper was not a course assignment. I started it on my own alongside my classes, and I read existing research to see what was already known and where a useful topic was still open.

Also read Jadavpur University has 63 researchers in top 2% scientists list – highest count among state institutions

The right research question

Local heat action plans usually cover cooling centres, public warnings and emergency help. I wanted to know whether they also deal with conditions inside rented homes, where tenants may not be able to make structural changes or install permanent cooling. I designed the method, collected and analysed the data, and wrote the first draft. My co-author, Bignesh Thakur, supervised the work, checked the results and reviewed the manuscript.

We audited 15 public heat plans and related government documents from U.S. cities and counties. I built a 26-field checklist and two scores to compare general heat response with specific protection for renters. All 15 plans covered cooling centres, but only four named renters as a group at risk from heat, and only two referred to an indoor temperature or cooling standard for rental housing.

Also read At 7 IITs, 1,495 reserved SC, ST, OBC faculty posts vacant; IIT Kharagpur alone has 710, reveals RTI data

We were careful about the limits of these findings. We looked at what each plan promised on paper. We did not test how rules are enforced, and we did not review every law in each city or county. If a plan leaves out a protection, that does not prove the protection is missing everywhere else.

Needed no lab or grant

The study needed no laboratory and no research grant . The government documents were online, but a fair comparison still needed clear definitions, evidence I could trace back to its source, and repeated checks. A spreadsheet could organise the information, but it could not decide whether a sentence in a plan counted as a real protection. I had to justify each of those decisions and leave them open for others to check.

Publishing has not been a straight path for me. Across different research projects, I have received a few journal rejections, and not all of them were for this paper. Sometimes a journal turns a study down because it does not fit the journal’s scope. Sometimes reviewers find weaknesses that need fixing. I read every decision carefully and fix what the evidence supports. I have learned to treat a rejection as a reason to make the next submission stronger.

Also read Sociology at a Crossroads: Why the discipline must move beyond departments to reclaim relevance

For this paper, we submitted the manuscript on May 2, 2026, sent a revised version on June 25 and received acceptance on August 7. That timeline was specific to this paper. Peer review is demanding because every claim has to stand up to criticism and be corrected where needed.

Choosing a journal, learning from peer review

I have also reviewed manuscripts for academic journals. In that role, I look for a clear question, sound methods, open evidence and an honest account of the study’s limits. Authors should be able to explain each of these in their own words. Polished language cannot fix an unclear method.

Before submitting, check the journal’s scope, read some of its recent articles, confirm who publishes it and where it is indexed, and understand how its peer-review system works.

Be careful with emails that invite you to publish quickly. I receive these messages myself, often with flattering titles and urgent deadlines.

I also would not call weak publishing only an Indian problem. Researchers in India do important work, and pressure to publish and confusion about journal quality affect early-career researchers in many countries.

AI in Research: Using responsibly

I am not against artificial intelligence in academic writing . It is common now, and responsible tools can help a student check language, organise a document or correct formatting. My own published paper disclosed AI-assisted support for language editing, formatting and consistency checking. The authors reviewed and edited the content and took full responsibility for the final manuscript, data, coding decisions and interpretation.

What I would discourage is asking AI to do the intellectual work instead of learning how to do it yourself. Reading papers, finding a question, testing an idea, making difficult decisions and correcting mistakes are how you become a researcher.

If a tool produces nearly the entire manuscript, you may have polished pages without understanding the work behind them. For me, the original contribution and the final judgement must remain with the human researcher. Reputable journals increasingly have policies for AI use, so students should check those rules and disclose assistance where required.

Start with a problem you understand

Studying in the United States has helped me, mainly through access to research. LMU’s library gives students academic databases and Elsevier journals on ScienceDirect, so I can read subscription journals without paying for each article. Reading that work helped me see where my question fit. This access is a real advantage, but it does not guarantee publication, and it does not do the research for you.

Also read AI engineer builds app for blind students in higher education; over 1,000 use it to read in 30 languages

My studies in India, my work in industry and my time in Canada also shaped how I approach problems. The government documents in this study were public, so the core work did not depend on an American lab. A motivated student in Gujarat could start similar work by finding a meaningful question and following the evidence.

My advice to students is simple. Start with a problem you understand, read carefully, write down your decisions and welcome tough criticism. Choose a journal because it suits your work, not because it promises quick acceptance.

Ronak Macwan is an M.S. Environmental Science candidate at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and the first and corresponding author of “ Heat without protection ,” published in Climate Risk Management (Elsevier) in 2026. He is from Nadiad, Gujarat.