Follow me on Twitter
My Tweetspatter on facebook
-
Recent Posts
- The up in writing
- feeling like an imposter? ask “what’s going on here?”
- categories of literatures work – what’s “new” about researching now
- Ten! Ten! Ten!
- the problem with gap talk
- make your case stronger – argue against yourself
- a qual. research strategy – empathy mapping
- make a poster – it may also help you write a paper
- academic writers as readers
- concluding a paper
- Structuring and sequencing chunks of writing
- the thesis discussion – making the move work
Copyright
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
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 conclusion conference conference papers conference presentation contribution data data analysis doctoral research early career researchers editing examiner feedback introduction journal journal article literature mapping literature review literature reviews literature themes methods chapter peer review PhD publishing reader reading research research methods revision revision strategy starting the PhD supervision Tate Summer School theory thesis time Uncategorized voice writing
Top Posts & Pages
- aims and objectives - what's the difference?
- The up in writing
- writing a bio-note
- feeling like an imposter? ask "what's going on here?"
- concluding the journal article
- connecting chapters/chapter conclusions
- the literature review - how old are the sources?
- leave a good last impression - the thesis conclusion
- a planner's approach to the first draft
- headings and subheadings – it helps to be specific
Meta
Category Archives: reviewing
style, tone and grammar – native speaker bias in peer reviews
This is a guest post from Dr Randi Stebbins. Randi is Director of the University of Iceland Centre for Writing. Peer review is a central part of academic publication. The process of back and forth between authors and reviewers is … Continue reading
Posted in English language, grammar, journal article, peer review, reviewing, style
Tagged "native speaker", grammar, peer reviewing, publication in English, Randi Stebbins, style
2 Comments
peer reviewing your first paper
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
Posted in academic writing, feedback, journal article, peer review, refereeing, reviewing, reviews
Tagged journal article, peer review, reviewing a paper
1 Comment
the lazy reviewer costs us all
This is a guest post from Dr Julie Rowlands. Julie’s research applies a critical sociology of education perspective to academic governance, higher education systems, academic work and organisational change. The book of her PhD is on its way – Academic Governance in Contemporary Universities: … Continue reading
reviewing a journal article – are you Jekyll or Hyde?
So you’ve been sent a paper to review. Before you even start thinking about what to do, and before you start thinking about reading beyond the abstract, it’s a good idea to check the stance you are about to take. … Continue reading
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
should a journal editor know if a paper is from a doctoral researcher?
One of the most obvious difficulties of a PhD which requires published, rather than publishable, papers is the dependence of the doctoral researcher on the reviewing process. At a very early stage they must brave what can be a lengthy … Continue reading
writing course day four
Today in the writing course we began with a shut-up-and-write about what needed to go in the methods section. • What does the journal’s community expect in this section? • What do readers need to know to trust what you … Continue reading
Posted in academic writing, conclusion, middle work, reviewing
Tagged ending work, middle work, Pat Thomson, reviewing, writing course
1 Comment
