English 5390: Writing for Publication Weekly Blog Post - Lessons learned

Question: As you've completed the scholarly article assignment, what are the major challenges and lessons learned you've encountered? Include at least 3-5 items.

1. Time management: Yes, this is generic, but one of the main points that I had trouble with during this course. It seems like the time flew away from me, especially with challenges at work that were concurrent with the class. I can't make more hours in the day, so I have do my best with what I have. I ended up taking some vacation days from work to get myself caught up.
2. Overambitious topics: My topic was more like a book topic than an article topic. It actually counts over 6000 words when you look at the file as a whole, but I did not include the tables or the references in my class word count. My paper took a lot of cutting and revising and I ended up covering only two points instead of six or so.
3. Small group of willing reviewers: Being an online student, I don't seem to have the contacts to get subject-matter expert review easily. I ended up with plenty of people who will look it for grammar and outrageous claims, but very few who can look at it for content

I am sure that there are more but these are some of my big ones. I formatted my paper nicely, though likely that would not be acceptable or helpful when submitting it to a publication. I just like the way it looks and since taking document design, I would have a tough time turning in something without a little tweaking.

I've enjoyed the class and whether I submit the paper for publication or not, I have learned a lot. I am also one step closer to my Master's degree.

English 5390: Writing for Publication Weekly Blog Post - Submission checklist

Question: What are the major items that you would include on a punch list, or list of final tasks to complete before submitting work? Identify at least 7-10 and briefly explain your process or plan for completing these final tasks.

1. Double-check the page numbers in all the quotes: There are quite a few quotes from the papers examined for this work. All of them need to have the page numbers double-checked.
2. Confirm that the correct Leeds paper is cited in the correct place: There are two papers by Albert Leeds in the 1880s group, one from 1880 and one from 1883. I need to double-check that I attached the correct Leeds paper citation to the correct portion of the discussion.
3. Judiciously cut the paper back: The paper is running too long and needs to be cut. This will require careful pruning in this last week.
4. Re-edit the Introduction: Make sure nothing in the Introduction speaks to things that were cut from the paper. This is misleading and could cause issues in the long run.
5. Re-edit the Abstract and Conclusion: Again, I need to double-check that nothing that was cut from the body of the paper remains in the Abstract or Conclusion
6. Punch up the title: My title still stinks and I am seriously blocked on it. I need to devote time and energy to punching up the title
7. Double-check the quotes from Prelli and Rolande: These need to be correct. Incorrect quotations are embarrassing
   
8. Flesh out the discussion on the third-person usage in some of the papers: This is weak, but fleshing this out may require more cutting elsewhere.
9. Double-check references to Tables: Make sure that Table 1 is cited in the correct place in the paper and that 2 is not cited where 3 should be, etc.
10. Try not to panic: This is self-explanatory

The biggest part of these corrections are the judicious cutting and fleshing out of different areas of the paper. This is what will make this a good paper instead of an acceptable paper. This work is under progress, but is not likely to be finished until the last possible minute. The two Leeds papers can be confusing. In fact, I realized that I cited the wrong Leeds paper on my opening quotation in my Introduction already. This is going to require careful and watchful editing. The other steps are pretty average, but are also important, especially that last one. I am getting very nervous about this paper. It has become a different animal from its original form and I am not sure that I still like it. It may be the I have been looking at this too much hatred or just plain this is not where I wanted to be. We will see. Hopefully, things will look up soon.

English 5390: Writing for Publication Weekly Blog Post - Review Checklist

Question: Using the Review Checklist from Huff (Appendix C), briefly rate your Scholarly Article work in progress using the questions under the "Summarizing the Paper" and "Introduction" sections. Based on your responses, what changes do you need to work on in terms of developmental editing of your title, abstract, and introduction?


The two points under "Summarizing the paper" are "Can you identify the one or two main points of the paper?" and "Is the target journal an appropriate outlet for the paper?" For the first question, the main point of the paper is an analysis of how writing in one Chemistry journal has changes over time. How clear this is I am not sure at this point. It is clear to me, but that maybe authorial blindness to the errors in my paper. Hopefully, I am seeing it clearly. For the second question, again, I am not entirely sure. I think I identified an appropriate target in my journal analysis assignment, but I do not know that it is the best choice. That would require further analysis. OF course, I am still not sure if I want to go through the hassle of publishing a work. Sad isn't it?

There are 5 points under the "Introduction" heading. The first is "Does the introduction entice the reader to read on?" I believe that the introduction does a good job of luring the reader into the paper. The opening quote is interesting and eye-catching. The second point is "Does it establish a need for the paper by highlighting gaps or disagreements in the literature?" As of now, my paper is very weak in this area. The type of analysis seems to be unique, but it may be too weak to make an impact in the literature because of my rather rustic methods. The third point is "Does it organize the material in a logical and meaningful sequence, which is then reflected in the body of the paper?" On this point, I feel that my introduction is well organized and in a logical sequence that is reflective of the body of the paper. The fourth point is "Does it introduce key concepts from the paper?" This is a mixed bag in my paper. I have only partially done this and I still need work in this area on revision. The fifth point is "Does it highlight the key contribution or 'value added' by the paper?" On this point, I think I fall down completely and need a lot of additional work.

I need to work on my title, abstract, and introduction to ensure that the paper answers all the questions in this section, especially contribution to the field.