SNIPPETS TO MY FELLOW RESEARCHERS (Part A):
This collection of 15 key snippets provides essential guidance for researchers in academic writing. Emphasizing quality over quantity, the snippets stress the importance of starting strong, owning the manuscript, and understanding the distinctions between writing for journals and book chapters. They advise matching manuscripts with appropriate journals, avoiding common pitfalls in conclusions and literature reviews, and highlighting the significance of methodological details. The resilience in facing manuscript rejection and the continuous development of writing skills are also emphasized.
This collection of 15 key snippets provides essential guidance for researchers in academic writing. Emphasizing quality over quantity, the snippets stress the importance of starting strong, owning the manuscript, and understanding the distinctions between writing for journals and book chapters. They advise matching manuscripts with appropriate journals, avoiding common pitfalls in conclusions and literature reviews, and highlighting the significance of methodological details. The resilience in facing manuscript rejection and the continuous development of writing skills are also emphasized.
Here are 15 snippets to be conscious of in your academic writing. They are not exhaustive and are in no particular order.
- Dear Researcher, start well or miss it. From the first page, some reviewers will already form a bias to your manuscript. So strive to get it right from the beginning.
- Dear Researcher, do not be tempted to get long write-up at the expense of quality. This will result to unnecessary repetitions and bundle of irrelevances which reduces the quality of your manuscript
- Dear Researcher, it is your manuscript, own it! Be creative in your writing but methodological. At the end, ask yourself, have I achieved the purpose set out to achieve?
- Dear Researcher, writing theoretical manuscript for journal and for book chapter are not on the same league. Know the difference and avoid rejection.
- Dear Researcher, empirical studies have greater chances of acceptance especially in journal outlets.
- Dear Researcher, cut your cloth according to your material. Select journal outlet(s) base on the quality of your manuscript. Else, you face severe and several manuscript rejection.
- Dear Researcher, be sure to ascertain the scope of journals and expectation of Editors before sending them manuscript to avoid desk rejection.
- Dear Researcher, your *conclusion* is not the section to write your summary of findings. This is a common mistake observed when reviewing manuscripts.
- Dear Researcher, it is better to have an excellently brief manuscript than a long manuscript deprived of excellence.
- Dear Researcher, your introduction is not your literature review.
- Dear Researcher, truly there is the temptation to cut and paste in your literature review. But at least let it be coherent, lend your voice to it and put it in context.
- Dear Researcher, never underestimate the power of details, especially in your methodology.
- Dear Reseacher, not all articles require recommendations. Do not be tempted to follow the tradition and enter the “bush”.
- Dear Researcher, manuscript rejection is not the end of the world. Dust it up by effecting corrections and try elsewhere. I repeat “try elsewhere”. Chances are same journal (especially international) will reject if they know they have rejected it before.
- Dear Researcher, writing is a skill. Develop it and get better at it. No one is born with it.
From:
Your Fellow Researcher, section. Also, please share your experience in scholarly writing and publishing as it relates to any of the above items.
Do feel free to add yours in the comment
