My public health manuscript was rejected for 'poor narrative flow'—how to restructure?

A systematic fix for "poor narrative flow" is to reverse-engineer the paper's argument skeleton before touching prose, then surgically rewrite only the connective tissue. In one focused evening, build a one-page outline where each paragraph is reduced to a single sentence stating its claim, the evidence used, and how it links to the next paragraph; gaps where your transitions fall flat will jump out immediately. The most efficient concrete move is to write the Discussion's topic sentences first, since reviewers typically evaluate flow there most harshly, then back-propagate any needed setup into your Results or Introduction so the logical path feels earned rather than abrupt; this is faster than rewriting linearly because you're forcing every section to "pay off" a promise made earlier. As a hypothetical example, if your Discussion suddenly introduces a mechanism the Results never visually anchored, reviewers will read that as a jump even when the science is sound, so you add one transitional sentence in Results that previews it. Given your time constraint, cap revisions at three passes: skeleton, transitions, then paragraph-level polish, and if peer feedback remains mixed, consider a brief consultation with a thesis writing center or your advisor for targeted feedback before resubmitting elsewhere.