|
Writing for |
Papers are published in the Journal of Teacher Education on the recommendations of blind reviews. This process, of reviewers working in anonymity, evaluating unattributed manuscripts, allows for a real-world approximation of objectivity. Thus, if your paper has merit, explores interesting new ground, and fits the other criteria of the JTE, its chances for acceptance are good. Many times, however, technical problems in the execution of a paper will distract the reviewers from its substance, which will inevitably be to the detriment of your chances for acceptance. A reviewer can not help but question the substance of an ill-prepared paper; the muse of professional publications wears a blindfold and carries a very big axe.
In order to help you avoid some of the more common complaints of reviewers, we have analyzed our files of completed reviews for recurring problems of presentation. These difficulties generally fall into three areas: issues of structure, presentation of data, and problems of style.
To judge from the language reviewers use, structural problems are most likely to make a reviewer irritated with a paper. Comments on structure are generally in the context that such problems should not make it out of a word processor.
It is a good idea to proofread, and correct, your final draft before it is sent. Final draft means the sheaf of papers that you are inserting into the envelope, not the electronic file before the final spellcheck on the word processor. It is a practical reality that it is easier to catch simple errors on a hard copy than when reading from a screen. It is another fact of life that reviewers are unlikely to respect a paper when they feel that its author did not make the effort to check it for errors. Be sure to check your references for errors as well.
A large number of structural problems fall under the complaint, "check APA style." Manuscripts submitted to the JTE must be in accordance with the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. When writing the paper you should keep this book at your elbow, with a post-it note at the beginning of the section on punctuation. Most editors are inordinately fond of their style book, and if they think you are as well, you will have gone a long way towards making a friend. One specific point of APA style that should be mentioned here is on page format. A manuscript submitted in the APA style must have all lines double spaced, and all margins (left, right, top, and bottom) must be 1-1/2 inches (not 1 inch). Assuming, after these recommendations, that you made a mistake, this format will allow the reviewer enough room to insert their corrections.
Be sure that your headings are consistent, both with one another and to the text. Headings often originate in the outline; be sure they are valid for the final draft. Make certain that they still contribute to the development of your idea. Make sure that your tables are consistent with one another, and with the text. Eliminate data that turned out not to fit the paper. Be sure that points mentioned in the paper have corresponding data. Avoid giving tables for data that was fully documented in the text.
The substance of data is the second important area of reviewer complaints. Although these problems can be rooted in the earliest collection of data, many may be the result of less serious difficulties such as not communicating criteria, assumptions, and processes in the text. Make sure that your data do not rest on poorly-defined terms. Be certain that, with a single reading, the reader can determine what your thesis is, how your data relates to that thesis, and how the data were gathered.
Common complaints of reviewers are that the researcher is not looking in the right place, used "mushy" terms for the thesis or survey questions, gathered data incorrectly or inadequately, or took too small a sample. Sometimes these difficulties are the result of being too close to the issues; it is easy to forget initial assumptions, or lose track of an early sticky point after months of intensive work on a subject. If you have conducted a careful, thoughtful study, the reader should have enough information to assure them of the quality of your work. A simple method for clearing up obscure points is to have a colleague, uninvolved in your study, read the paper and make note of anything that is unclear.
Problems of style can sink an otherwise good paper. "Good style" is subjective and difficult to pinpoint. It is a holistic process that can best be achieved by keeping your sights on certain priorities.
"Be concise" is a good rule to start with, flesh out your outline (your outline!) but do not get discursive, (save that for the conclusion section). Know what your paper is about and aim for that as a goal. Two common, specific reviewer complaints relate to this: poor abstracts and weak introductions. The abstract should quickly summarize the contents of the paper, concisely and sequentially. Upon reading the abstract the reader should be able to know what the paper is about and even which sections of the paper will hold their interest. The abstract is not the place to build suspense. Introductions must be concise. Your paper has a thesis; your introduction should mainly be an enlargement on that thesis. Some background information may be necessary to set up the problem being addressed, but if you have not plainly stated the thesis by the end of the first paragraph of the paper you are probably running into some problems. Even if you have valid reasons to delay the statement of thesis, consider how many potential readers may not get to the second paragraph.
Good style involves sticking to the point. "Choppy style" is a common evaluation when the writing and the substance of the paper are not working together. The paper should be organized so as to make its point; the sequence of sections arranged to provide information to develop the main idea. All of the transition words in the world (e. g., however, although, since, therefore) will not create a logical argument.
Some other points that reviewers make about style have to do with the specifics of a professional paper. The rhetoric of a paper is different from that of spoken language. Be aware of these differences when transcribing papers that were originally presented as speeches . Many necessary techniques of speaking (e.g., repetition, humor, asides) are unacceptable in a paper; be sure to weed these out. Try to be dispassionate; emotional and opinionated statements in the body of a paper are not only unprofessional, they detract from your effectiveness. People may not read your paper if they feel they can guess its conclusion; worse still, they may guess wrong. All communication requires a shared medium for symbolic transmission.
The standards of the APA handbook and the hints given here are designed to ensure a medium with a maximum clarity of information exchange. By tending to these practical matters of structure, data, and style in composing your manuscript, you will be assuring that the substance of your work will have the optimum chance for being understood, recognized, and disseminated among your peers.