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
Follow me on TwitterMy Tweets
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.
- 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 introduction journal journal article literature mapping 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 thesis time Uncategorized voice writing
- what is author ‘voice’?
- ‘the PhD experience’
- a part-time and distance PhD
- self-citation by proxy
- citing yourself – in the text
- citing yourself – how much is too much?
- use a vignette – #wakeupreader
- co-writing – strategies for working with other people’s words
- tame your inner writing demon
- researching on someone else’s project – it’s a relationship
- EN and me
- co-writing with your supervisor – do we need a code of good practice?
Top Posts & Pages
- aims and objectives - what's the difference?
- what is author 'voice'?
- the literature review - how old are the sources?
- connecting chapters/chapter introductions
- writing the introduction to a journal article
- concluding the journal article
- a part-time and distance PhD
- connecting chapters/chapter conclusions
- 'the PhD experience'
- a Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis
Category Archives: peer review
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
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