All rejected papers share one common flaw: a weak discussion section.
I know because I used to write them too.
If you're stuck on the discussion section,
wondering how to tie it all together,
this is for you:
ALT Annotated parts of the discussion section: big summary/ importance statement for the science, scientific findings as extension of previous work, findings' scientific implications, how this engineering will facilitate future research, forward-looking statements about the field as a whole, a summary/importance of the engineering aspect of the work, how it facilitates scientific research, limitations of the platform show which questions would be unanswered, how it will facilitated medical research.