Follow me on Twitter
My Tweetspatter on facebook
-
Recent Posts
- #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
Copyright
Patter 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 WAKELET
LOOKING 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
- writing a bio-note
- aims and objectives - what's the difference?
- #litreview. Defining - It's your ‘take’
- #LitReview - Getting to structure, part one
- practice - writing field notes
- concluding the journal article
- #litreview - getting to argument, part 2.
- I can't find anything written on my topic... really?
- bad research questions
- the literature review - how old are the sources?
Meta
Category Archives: rejection
dealing with rejection
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
Posted in academic writing, peer review, rejection, research funding
Tagged Dan Cleather, peer review, rejection, research funding
4 Comments
the appraisal and rejection of conference abstracts
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
Posted in abstracts, conference papers, early career researchers, peer review, rejection, reviewing
Tagged conference abstract, Pat Thomson, rejection, reviewing
8 Comments
seven reasons why journals reject papers
I’ve written about rejections several times, and most of this is scattered throughout the blog, so I thought it might be helpful to amalgamate the most important points together. All in one place. There are some very common reasons why … Continue reading
Posted in journal, premature publication, publishing, refereeing, rejection, writing, writing research
Tagged journals, Pat Thomson, reasons for rejection
36 Comments
the cruel reviewer
It’s funny how the bad stuff sticks with you. I was thinking about this last week as I was giving feedback after a viva and hoping that the candidate was hearing all the good things and not just the small … Continue reading
Posted in feedback, journal, rejection, revision
Tagged bad review, Hugh Miller, Pat Thomson, rejection, Steven Mumford
16 Comments
what’s at stake for an early career researcher in going for publication in a top ranked journal ?
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
how to make sure your research funding bid is rejected
I’ve been reviewing funding bids. For days. And still more to go. I’ve seen some interesting ideas. But also, so many basic issues that could so easily be sorted out. AAARGH. So, how does setting up your bid to fail … Continue reading
Posted in bid writing, rejection, research funding
Tagged bid rejection, Pat Thomson, research funding
6 Comments
refereeing a journal article. part 2: making a recommendation
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
Posted in acceptance, journal, peer review, refereeing, rejection
Tagged acceptance of publications, Pat Thomson, refereeing, rejection of articles
6 Comments
