- starting the phd – comparing and contrasting papers
- defining a contribution – #studythewriting
- conferencing your way through doctoral research
- #acwri strategy – start small, amplify, then rehearse
- things to do during your PhD – help to edit a special issue of a journal
- buffering your thesis
- why do I feel afraid to share my journal paper with the wider world? is this Imposter Syndrome?
- the writing is never done – a post for #acwrimo
- beyond the CV, or: how I learned to stop worrying and love my subject association
- things to do during your PhD – organise an event
- things to do during your Phd – an internship, with granola
- starting the PhD – don’t panic
CopyrightPatter by Pat Thomson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at Patricia.Thomson@nottingham.ac.uk.
Follow me on TwitterMy Tweets
- abstracts academic blogging academic book academic writing argument authority in writing blogging books book writing chapter co-writing conclusion conference conference papers conference presentation contribution crafting writing data dissertation doctoral education doctoral research early career researchers epistemology ethics examiner feedback introduction journal literature review literature themes mess methods chapter peer review PhD public engagement publishing reader reading research methods research project revision signposts supervision Tate Summer School theory thesis time Uncategorized voice writing
Top Posts & Pages
- aims and objectives - what's the difference?
- starting the phd - comparing and contrasting papers
- what’s with the name doctoral ‘student’?
- concluding the journal article
- defining a contribution - #studythewriting
- a Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis
- what not to do in a thesis conclusion, part one: christmas present five
- methodology isn't methods.. or... what goes in a methods chapter
- connecting chapters/chapter introductions
- three stages of empirical analysis
Category Archives: peer review
I had an email recently from an early career researcher who’d just had an abstract for a conference knocked back. When they asked for feedback, they were shocked by what they read. Presumably assuming that the writer would never see … Continue reading
So you’ve sent the paper into the journal and now the referee comments are in your in-box. You finally pluck up the courage to open the email and what do you find? Contradictory comments. Not helpful. Not at all. We … Continue reading
One of the things that can count for or against you when bidding for research project money is track record. All funders would like to give their money to someone who they are pretty confident can produce the goods. So … Continue reading
I often get asked in workshops whether early career researchers should aim to get into a top journal. I want to give the first two parts of my answer in this post. My first response – WHO IS SAYING THIS … Continue reading
Having read the article carefully, and decided whether it’s accept without change, revise and resubmit or reject, there is now the task of writing the feedback to the author/s. There are four things to keep in mind when writing feedback: … Continue reading
Journals always ask reviewers to recommend whether an article should be published as is, or whether the writer should do small or large revisions. They also ask if the article should be rejected outright. Making a publication recommendation can feel … Continue reading