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.