Follow me on TwitterMy Tweets
- #litreview. Defining – It’s your ‘take’
- #litreview – getting to argument, part 2.
- Starting a part-time doctorate? Three top tips
- #LitReview – Getting to structure, part one
- dealing with rejection
- revision – writing without protection
- running a tweetchat
- the ‘later on’ PhD
- how to start your literature review
- this, they, it, those, these – a revision strategy
- “discussion” – it’s about moving forward
- so you want to blog – a blog of my own
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.
SEE MY CURATED POSTS ON WAKELETLOOKING FOR POSTS ON WRITING FOR JOURNALS? REVISING AND EDITING? GIVING FEEDBACK AND REVIEWING? READING? GIVING A CONFERENCE PAPER? VISIT MY WAKES ON https://wakelet.com/@patter
- abstracts academic blogging academic book academic writing argument authority in writing blogging blogging about blogging books book writing chapter co-writing conference conference papers conference presentation contribution crafting writing data doctoral research early career researchers editing ethics examiner feedback introduction journal journal article literature mapping literature review literature reviews literature themes methods chapter peer review PhD public engagement publishing reader reading research research methods revision revision strategy supervision Tate Summer School theory thesis time Uncategorized voice writing
Top Posts & Pages
- #litreview. Defining - It's your ‘take’
- aims and objectives - what's the difference?
- writing a bio-note
- #litreview - getting to argument, part 2.
- #LitReview - Getting to structure, part one
- concluding the journal article
- I can't find anything written on my topic... really?
- bad research questions
- practice - writing field notes
- about me
Category Archives: peer review
This is a guest post from Dan Cleather. Dan is a strength coach, educator, scientist and anarchist. His latest book, “Subvert! A philosophical guide for the 21st century scientist”, was published in May. Being an academic requires a thick skin. Very … Continue reading
Patter now has over 800 posts. It’s pretty hard to find things on here, even when you know what you’re looking for. Some of the elderly posts are, I hope, still useful. I’ve decided to start an occasional ‘best of’ … Continue reading
Yep. Those dreaded words when you get the email back from the journal. R and R. Anything but Rest and Relaxation. Groan. In essence, the message says We have considered your paper and we have decided that – well it’s … Continue reading
Paul Stein’s 1939 film, The Poison Pen, is set in a small English village whose residents receive anonymous letters alleging sexual and moral misbehaviour. The recipients become increasingly angry and bent on revenge. A formerly quiet and placid place becomes … Continue reading
Continuing random posts on peer reviewer behaviour… So we all know what scent marking is. It’s when animals set out the boundaries of their territory by leaving their scent in strategic places. Scentmarked territories are often used for sleeping and/or mating … Continue reading
Meet Dr Oozing-Confidence. He knows his work is important. Very important. Superior even. He gets very miffed when he reads anything that is on his topic, or connected with it, that doesn’t recognise his contributions and their significance. He is always keen … Continue reading
A post for academic book week. When you send in a book proposal to a publisher, chances are that it will be sent out to reviewers. This is peer review – and a version that actually gets talked about very little. … Continue reading
We all know that real estate agents write in code. Renovation potential means it’s a dump. First home buyer’s dream means it’s a dump. Original condition means it’s a dump. Now, journal reviewers have codes too. You may find that … Continue reading
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