Getting to absolute clarity and alignment of question - method - results is hard work. Writing doesn't arrive fully formed and perfect: it will always needs juggling, polishing and smoothing. It is worth the reworking; even if it feels like purgatory at the time and we end up being sick of the sight of the piece.
Trying to rewrite without the benefit of an unbiased reviewer perspective is very difficult. We need someone we can trust - who has expertise - to review our work and make suggestions that will make it stronger. A good reviewer is worth their weight in gold, as a good review will help to prevent us finding, once we get our data, that we have measured the wrong thing. Terrible to get to the end of all that effort and find we can't answer our question or provide a benefit for the reader's effort.
We need to proof-read before we get our reviewer to review. Our reviewers shouldn't be reviewing for spelling or grammar, but for clarity and logic. We mustn't waste our reviewers time by distracting them with our poor APA abilities or our lack of understanding of paragraph structure (both of which I have been guilty of often!).
We shouldn't leap onto our defensive podium too quickly following reviewer feedback. Sometimes reflecting and putting work away for a few days may give us the insight we need to 'hear' clearly what our reviewer is telling us. Making something tighter and more focused often means we have to get rid of some of our favourite pieces of carefully crafted wisdom. Banking the precious bits somewhere safe to recycle later sometimes helps us let go.
All good things :-)
No comments :
Post a Comment
Thanks for your feedback. The elves will post it shortly.