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.