Headings Are Not Labels: How Section Structure Shapes Academic Judgement

In academic writing, headings are often treated as navigational aids—useful, but secondary to the “real” work of theory, method, and analysis. Reviewers, however, read headings very differently. They interpret them as signals of conceptual control, argument discipline, and scholarly maturity.

Headings do more than divide text. They externalise the internal logic of a paper. When that logic is coherent, reviewers move smoothly through the manuscript. When it is not, even strong ideas struggle to gain traction.

Why Reviewers Read Headings First

Experienced reviewers often scan a manuscript’s headings before reading linearly. This scan answers three immediate questions:

• What kind of paper is this?
• How does the argument unfold?
• Does the author demonstrate control over structure and scope?

If the headings are confused, overly granular, or misaligned with journal norms, reviewers frequently anticipate deeper conceptual problems—even before engaging with the text itself (Belcher, 2019).

The Core Functions of Headings in Academic Writing

1. Making Intellectual Moves Visible

Headings mark shifts in argument, not just shifts in topic. Each major heading should correspond to a substantive intellectual move: problematisation, theoretical development, methodological justification, or interpretive synthesis.

2. Managing Cognitive Load

Dense scholarly prose taxes reader attention. Well-designed headings allow reviewers to orient themselves, anticipate what is coming, and recover quickly if concentration lapses (Sword, 2012).

3. Signalling Disciplinary Competence

Journals have strong, often implicit, conventions about how many heading levels are acceptable and how they should be used. Adhering to these conventions signals that the author understands the genre.

Do’s and Don’ts: A Reviewer-Informed Analysis

DO: Use Headings to Advance the Argument

Effective headings are argumentative, not merely descriptive. They indicate why a section matters, not just what it contains.

Example:
“Problematizing Dominant Accounts of Organisational Trust”
rather than
“Literature Review”

DON’T: Treat Headings as a Table of Contents

Headings that simply list content (“Background,” “More Background,” “Additional Background”) suggest weak theoretical direction. Reviewers expect headings to frame analytical purpose, not inventory material.

DO: Maintain a Consistent Hierarchy

Headings should follow a clear and stable hierarchy (e.g. APA levels). Skipped levels or inconsistent formatting are immediately visible and often interpreted as structural carelessness (American Psychological Association, 2020).

DON’T: Overuse Subheadings

Excessive subheadings—especially in theory sections—fragment the argument. They encourage short, underdeveloped paragraphs and a report-like structure that reviewers associate with weak theorisation.

DO: Align Headings With Journal Norms

Some journals prohibit numbered headings; others limit the depth of subheadings. Reviewers expect authors to know and respect these norms.

Failure to do so is often read as poor journal targeting rather than innocent oversight.

DON’T: Let Headings Do the Analytical Work

Headings should guide the reader, not replace the argument. Overly detailed or claim-heavy headings can appear as a substitute for rigorous reasoning rather than a support for it (Day and Gastel, 2012).

DO: Use Headings to Signal Transitions, Not Conclusions

Well-crafted headings prepare the reader for what follows; they do not announce findings prematurely. The analysis should unfold in the text, not be summarised in the heading itself.

DON’T: Use Headings for Emphasis or Decoration

Headings are not typographic tools. Variations in bolding, italics, or phrasing for emphasis violate academic conventions and draw attention to form rather than content.

How Headings Shape Review Outcomes

Because headings make the argument’s structure visible, they strongly influence how a manuscript is read:

• Clear headings encourage generous, attentive reading
• Confused headings increase reviewer fatigue
• Poor hierarchy creates suspicion about conceptual coherence

In high-rejection-rate journals, these effects matter. Reviewers are not only evaluating ideas; they are evaluating how those ideas are handled.

A Practical Editing Heuristic

When revising a manuscript, experienced authors often ask:

• Does each major heading correspond to a clear intellectual move?
• Could any two adjacent sections be merged?
• Are there more than three heading levels?
• Would the argument still be clear if the headings were removed?

If the answer to the last question is “no,” the structure may be doing too much of the work.

Final Thoughts

Headings are not cosmetic scaffolding. They are part of the argument’s infrastructure.

In academic writing, especially in competitive journals, strong ideas require strong structure. Headings are where that structure becomes visible—and therefore judgeable.

References

American Psychological Association (2020) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 7th edn. Washington, DC: APA.

Belcher, W.L. (2019) Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Day, R.A. and Gastel, B. (2012) How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. 7th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sword, H. (2012) Stylish Academic Writing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

‍