How To Write Good Academic Papers

How To Write Good Academic Papers There is nothing mistaken with utilizing the same word a number of times in a sentence or paragraph. Resist the temptation to make use of a unique word to discuss with the same conceptâ€"doing so makes readers surprise if the second word has a barely totally different which means. Mostly, they differ in how nicely they serve a affected person reader versus an impatient one . The C-C-C scheme that we advocate serves a extra affected person reader who's keen to spend the time to get oriented with the context. A consequent disadvantage of C-C-C is that it may not optimally engage the impatient reader. This disadvantage is mitigated by the fact that the structure of scientific articles, particularly the primacy of the title and abstract, already forces the content to be revealed quickly. Then I even have bullet points for main comments and for minor comments. Minor feedback could embrace flagging the mislabeling of a figure within the textual content or a misspelling that modifications the that means of a common time period. Overall, I try to make feedback that may make the paper stronger. If I find the paper particularly interesting , I tend to provide a extra detailed review because I need to encourage the authors to develop the paper . My tone is certainly one of attempting to be constructive and helpful even though, after all, the authors may not agree with that characterization. My evaluation begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. I often write down all the issues that I seen, good and bad, so my choice does not affect the content material and size of my evaluation. I solely make a suggestion to accept, revise, or reject if the journal particularly requests one. The determination is made by the editor, and my job as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to help the editor. I begin with a brief abstract of the outcomes and conclusions as a way to present that I have understood the paper and have a common opinion. I always touch upon the form of the paper, highlighting whether it's nicely written, has appropriate grammar, and follows an accurate structure. I want to give them trustworthy suggestions of the identical kind that I hope to receive when I submit a paper. My evaluations are inclined to take the form of a summary of the arguments in the paper, adopted by a summary of my reactions after which a series of the particular points that I wanted to raise. Mostly, I am trying to establish the authors’ claims in the paper that I didn't find convincing and guide them to ways that these points may be strengthened . New requests and reminders from editors saved piling up at a sooner price than I may full the reviews and the issue seemed intractable. And now I am within the joyful situation of solely experiencing late-evaluation guilt on Friday afternoons, after I nonetheless have some time ahead of me to complete the week's evaluate. I almost always do it in one sitting, something from 1 to five hours relying on the size of the paper. This varies broadly, from a couple of minutes if there is clearly a major drawback with the paper to half a day if the paper is really attention-grabbing but there are aspects that I don't perceive. If the research presented within the paper has serious flaws, I am inclined to recommend rejection, until the shortcoming can be remedied with a reasonable amount of revising. The incontrovertible fact that only 5% of a journal’s readers may ever take a look at a paper, for example, can’t be used as standards for rejection, if in reality it's a seminal paper that will influence that area. And we by no means know what findings will amount to in a couple of years; many breakthrough studies were not recognized as such for a few years. When you ship criticism, your comments must be sincere however always respectful and accompanied with suggestions to enhance the manuscript. I attempt to act as a neutral, curious reader who desires to understand every element. If there are issues I wrestle with, I will suggest that the authors revise components of their paper to make it extra stable or broadly accessible. Bear in mind that some of the dangerous traps a reviewer can fall into is failing to recognize and acknowledge their very own bias. To me, it's biased to achieve a verdict on a paper primarily based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for instance. Also, I wouldn’t advise early-profession researchers to sign their reviews, at least not until they either have a everlasting place or otherwise really feel secure in their careers. Although I consider that all established professors ought to be required to sign, the fact is that some authors can maintain grudges against reviewers. So I can only fee what precedence I believe the paper ought to receive for publication right now. The choice comes alongside during reading and making notes. If there are severe errors or missing components, then I don't advocate publication. Thus, a reader who proceeds to the introduction is likely engaged enough to have the endurance to soak up the context. For these reasons, we advocate C-C-C as a “default” scientific story construction. In the end, your struggle to search out this balance might appropriately lead to “one contribution” that's multifaceted. At the beginning of my career, I wasted various power feeling responsible about being behind in my reviewing.