Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week Ten

I’m using Wendy Laura Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success to prepare my paper for publication. This is Week Ten. 

In this chapter, Belcher distinguishes between marcostructure revising and microstructure revising. Revisions discussed during previous nine weeks dealt with marcostructure revising, which, according to Belcher, is the most difficult type of editing. This week is about editing sentences. Belcher lists several basic principles of microstructure revising:

• Don’t use two words when one will do;
• Don’t use a noun when you can use a verb;
• Don’t use an adjective or adverb unless you must;
• Don’t use a pronoun when a noun would be clearer;
• Don’t use a general word when you can use a specific one;
• Don’t use the passive voice unless the subject is unknown or unimportant.

Belcher believes that certain words can signal possible need for microstructural revisions. She offers a diagnostic test to help her readers locate those signal words and improve their writing. The diagnostic test consists of three parts. The goal of the first part is to cut unnecessary words. The second part involves adding extra words for better clarity. The third part of the diagnostic test is designed for revisions that can’t be accomplished by either cutting or adding words and require replacing a weak word with a strong one. 

On the first day, I read the workbook. On the second day, I ran the entire diagnostic test. I used the Microsoft Word search function and applied different colors to different test components. It was a rather mechanical work, but I felt exhausted by the end. Belcher allocates Days Three and Four to making revisions based on the diagnostic test. However, it took me three full days to revise the entire paper. On the sixth day I worked on correcting other types of problem sentences (i.e., problems with comas, quotation marks, capitalization, hyphens, spelling, etc.).

I find this week one of the most productive (except maybe for Week Three, which dealt with building an argument). Belcher’s diagnostic test was very helpful. I remember several years ago I took a qualitative data analysis course, where I learned a lot. One week at the end of the course, we were told to work on micro editing of our analyses. The guidelines were similar to Belcher’s principles of microstructure revising, but, without her diagnostic test, I felt lost and wasn’t quite sure how to implement those principles. This time having the test made all the difference. Now I better understand what to do at this stage of revision.

Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week Nine

I’m using Wendy Laura Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success to prepare my paper for publication. This is Week Nine.

This week deals with giving, getting, and using others’ feedback. Belcher argues that in academia people are a lot better at pointing out what is wrong than in enabling better performance of others. Consequently, she focuses on instructions for giving feedback, not receiving it. First, Belcher explains what not to do when giving feedback:

• Do not obsess about the author’s bibliographic sources (“You job is to focus on what the author does with what they have read”);
• Do not obsess with what not in the article (It is your job to focus on improving what is in the article, not to insist that the author include what isn’t in the article”);
• Do not obsess about fixing the article (“It is not your job to fix other people’s work; it is your job to give them your reading of it”);
• Do not obsess about judging the work (“You need not consider yourself an expert on anyone else’s writing. You are simply a reader”).

Instead, she suggests:

• Start with the positive;
• Be specific (“when starting with the positive, make sure it’s specific.” Also “if you feel that you do have a solution [to the article’s problems], that you do know something specific that would improve the article, be clear about it”);
• Focus on giving a response (“tell them what you understood their article to say”);
• Always suggest (“The period places you as the authority; the question mark places the author as the authority. ‘Sentence fragment. Rewrite?’”);
• Focus on the macro (i.e., the article’s argument, evidence, structure, findings, or methods, and  don’t be distracted by the small stuff);
• Spend time (2-5 hours are usually needed to read and comment on someone else’s article thoroughly).

Then, Belcher turns to what to do when you are getting feedback:

• Give instructions (“Feel free to say that you are not currently looking for line editing, spelling and grammar correction, but attention to more macro issues. Or, vice versa”);
• Separate the delivery from the message (“Try to ignore the emotion with which comments or suggestions are delivered. . . . Criticism delivered in a hostile manner can still be correct; criticism delivered in a kind manner can still be wrong”);
• Listen, don’t talk;
• Take advantage (“Every criticism is an opportunity for you as to explain your ideas more clearly”);
• You are the final authority on your own writing (“You don’t have to do anything anyone tells you to do, no matter how hard he or she pushes”).

Belcher suggests to use Week Nine for giving and getting feedback. On the first day, I read the workbook and exchanged articles with a fellow doctoral student. I asked her to look for gaps in my argument and what seemed unclear, and she wanted pretty much the same thing. On the second day, I read her article following Belcher’s instructions. First, I read it without a pen in my hand, just to familiarize myself with it. Then, I went through the article for a second time putting check marks next to whatever was clear, insightful, or well-written. During the next round of reading, I circled everything that I didn’t understood completely or found unclear. The last step was to write a summary of what I got from the article. After that, I met with my writing partner, and we took turns going over our comments. I took notes as she talked, and, at the end of my turn, gave her the summary I wrote. On the third day, I reread my notes, took another look at my paper, and made a list of what remained to be done. I spent Days Four and Five implementing those changes and revising my paper according to the feedback.

Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week Eight

I’m using Wendy Laura Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success to prepare my paper for publication. The Week Eight was about opening and concluding an article. It took me two weeks instead of one to complete all the tasks.

In a brief introduction to this week’s section, Belcher presents an argument on the importance of the opening. Unlike other weeks, Week Eight doesn’t have a substantial theoretical section, which should be read on Day One. Instead, from the very first day, Belcher offers specific revision tasks.

The first day is about revising the article’s title. Belcher provides several guidelines:

• Avoid broad titles that would serve better for entire books or series;
• Avoid strings of vague terms;
• Name your subjects;
• Suggest your argument if possible;
• Embed your title with searchable keywords;
• Avoid overly dense titles;
• Include a verb if possible (I find it ironic that virtually none of the examples of effective titles that Belcher provides under the other headings includes a verb);
• Avoid using your title to prove how witty or well-read you are.

I understand the importance of a title and have been working on mine for a while. Nevertheless, Belcher’s suggestions helped me to further strengthen the title of my paper through including additional keywords and moving things around a few times.

On the second and the third day, I worked on revising my introduction. According to Belcher, “the main purpose of the introduction is to provide enough information for the reader to be able to understand your argument and its stakes” (p. 209). She suggests that an introduction can be strengthened by

• Using an effective type of opening (i.e., anecdotal opening, subject opening, historical opening, etc.);
• Starting with a gripping first sentence;
• Giving basic information about your subject;
• Stating your argument and, if possible, your findings;
• Identifying your position vis-à-vis the previous research;
• Articulating the significance of your subject;
• Providing a road map of your article.

On Day Four, I revised my abstract and literature review. These revisions were unavoidable because of the changes I made to my argument during the last several weeks. Belcher doesn’t provide many guidelines and instead refers the readers back to Week Two, in which she gave advice on writing effective abstracts, and to Week Five, in which she dealt with literature review.

Day Five was about revising my conclusion. Belcher explains that

A good conclusion is one that summarizes your argument and its significance in a powerful way. The conclusion should restate the article’s relevance to the scholarly literature and debate. Although the conclusion does not introduce new arguments, it does point beyond the article to the larger context or the more general case. (p. 217)

I needed to rewrite the entire conclusion to summarize my newly revised argument and explain its significance. During that process, I realized that I needed to include a few more sources. This, in turn, resulted in the introduction of new material, which I had to move from the conclusion to the literature review.

My favorite part of this week’s section was Belcher’s observation that often it’s difficult to find a fresh language to speak about one’s project without sounding repetitive:

By the time you reach the conclusion, you may feel that you have no language left. If you are finding the conclusion difficult to write, ask your colleagues to read your article and tell you what they understand the article to be about and why it is important. They can often give you new language and slightly different ways of saying the same thing. (p. 218)

Often (though not this time) I do feel that I have no language left by the end of the project. At such times, I feel like a parrot that keeps repeating the same words over and over. I’ll try Belcher’s advice next time I encounter this problem.

As I mentioned earlier, it took me two weeks to complete the tasks of Week Eight. Why did it happen? My first day went well, but then I got off track. I was catching up with the revisions of my argument left from the previous week. These new connections were difficult to articulate. It was easier for me not to deal with them and to avoid writing, which, in turn, made me feel unproductive and unable to develop my thoughts and put them on paper. For me, the only way out of that stalemate is to keep writing and slowly pushing forward without expecting swift progress. Such expectations, when left unmet, dig me even deeper into the hole. So far, the only way that has consistently worked for me in such situations was to keep (slowly) writing, but subconsciously I keep hoping for a swift miracle, which would turn the tables in a moment. In these hopes, I allow several days to pass without any substantial writing. That’s what caused the delay.