This week I received a criticism of a short letter of mine, along the line of "the starting point is not well justified, and the rest of the paper are just calculations". It is not the first time that I get a critique in this format; in the first paper I got rejected, the referee asked "where the formula (1.1) was coming from", and finished telling that the rest was just algebraic manipulation or calculations. Is it me -because I do the introduction very short-, or do you get rejections following this pattern too? Are there other common rejection patterns which everyone should be aware of? Myself, when rejecting a paper, use the structure "I would accept the paper with minor changes, such as xxx in the abstract, yyy in the body, and zzz in the conclusions. Ah, and perhaps the authors could consider a title along the lines of ..."