Understanding reviewers - a guide for authors

I recently came across an online article by W. S. Warren, the deputy editor of Science Advances.  In the article Warren outlines some easy ways for submitting authors to improve their paper's chances of being accepted for journal publication.

Since 2005 I have published numerous academic papers, and reviewed many more (although nowhere near as many as  a deputy editor like Warren).  Based on my experiences as both author and reviewer, here are a few things that prospective authors should know:

1. Reviewers are authors too (I).  It's a good idea to show how your work ties in with existing knowledge.  It's a particularly good idea to cite recent authors, as they form the reviewer pool that editors fish in.
2. Reviewers are authors too (II). Editors sometimes struggle to find willing reviewers. However, if you intemperately attack Author B's work, Author B will be the first person the editor approaches.  It might feel good putting the boot in while writing the paper, but the boot will be on the other foot during review.
3. Reviewers are not spell-checkers. Computerised spell-checkers have been around for over forty years. There is no excuse for submitting work with spelling errors.
4. Grammar. If you are not a native English speaker, find one to proof-read the final version of your paper. However, if one of the authors is a native English speaker, then that person must do more than one round of proof-reading. It is irritating to review a paper with numerous grammatical errors when one of the named authors is obviously a native English speaker. It is a sign that said person did not proof-read the paper, and quite possibly made little or no contribution at all.
5. Figure labelling. Some authors like to pack in lots of detail on their figures by using tiny fonts. This can irritate editors and reviewers.
6. Walls of numbers.  Large amounts of numerical information are often best presented as graphs, not tables.  See Tufte (2001) for advice on the graphical presentation of information.
7. Diversity of references. It is not a good look if your list of references is dominated by one name.  It's an even worse look if that name is your own.
8. Referencing unpublished work. A reference is useless if the reviewer cannot access it. I always ask for such references to be removed.
9. Referencing ephemeral sources. Web links are poor-quality sources, as the content can be changed, moved or may disappear entirely. Web links are also a warning sign that an author isn't reading good-quality primary sources. Stick to referencing sources that will still be around in twenty years for consultation by later readers.

There are of course exceptions.  If you are building on your earlier work, you obviously can't avoid citing your previous paper on the subject.  And it is acceptable to cite a not-quite-published paper if the journal has assigned a DOI number.  However, if you want to avoid annoying reviewers, you could give the above points some consideration.  It might be enough to tip the balance in your favour.