-
Recent Posts
Archives
Meta
- abstracts academic blogging academic book academic life academic writing argument authority in writing blogging books conclusion conference papers crafting writing discourse dissertation doctoral education doctoral research early career researchers epistemology Europe introduction journal knowledge production literature review mess methods chapter note-taking ontology peer review PhD PhD by publication powerpoint publication plan public engagement publishing readership reading refereeing reflection rejection research education research methods research plan research project scholarly identity signposts theory thesis time voice writing
Twitter Updates
- RT @litreviewhq: NEW POST: You have 2 options – get organised or quit bit.ly/12ME27j 4 hours ago
- RT @Acwri: Join us at 8pm, GMT tonight for #Acwri, when we'll be discussing turning conference papers into journal papers. All welcome! @Th… 4 hours ago
- looking after your body while writing: tip one wp.me/p1GJk8-yO 4 hours ago
Top Posts & Pages
- looking after your body while writing: tip one
- writing the thesis
- why write book chapters
- seven reasons why journals reject papers
- a Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis
- methodology isn't methods.. or... what goes in a methods chapter
- academic writing
- writing for journals
- what not to do in a thesis conclusion, part one: christmas present five
- about me
Category Archives: refereeing
there’s no such thing as a free publication
This is a story told against myself. It’s about doing something that I really, really shouldn’t have done. Before I go on I will just say that the story is actually pretty trivial in the overall state of the world, … Continue reading
Posted in journal, journal editor, refereeing, temptation
Tagged major revisions, Pat Thomson, temptation, the quick publication
7 Comments
a case of conflicting reviewer comments
So you’ve sent the paper into the journal and now the referee comments are in your in-box. You finally pluck up the courage to open the email and what do you find? Contradictory comments. Not helpful. Not at all. We … Continue reading
Posted in conflicting reviews, journal, journal editor, peer review, refereeing
Tagged conflicting reviews, editor, journal, Pat Thomson, peer review
4 Comments
seven reasons why journals reject papers
I’ve written about rejections several times, and most of this is scattered throughout the blog, so I thought it might be helpful to amalgamate the most important points together. All in one place. There are some very common reasons why … Continue reading
Posted in journal, premature publication, publishing, refereeing, rejection, writing, writing research
Tagged journals, Pat Thomson, reasons for rejection
19 Comments
refereeing a journal article. part 3. writing the feedback
Having read the article carefully, and decided whether it’s accept without change, revise and resubmit or reject, there is now the task of writing the feedback to the author/s. There are four things to keep in mind when writing feedback: … Continue reading
Posted in feedback, journal, peer review, refereeing
Tagged academic publishing, feedback, Pat Thomson, peer review, refereeing
12 Comments
refereeing a journal article. part 2: making a recommendation
Journals always ask reviewers to recommend whether an article should be published as is, or whether the writer should do small or large revisions. They also ask if the article should be rejected outright. Making a publication recommendation can feel … Continue reading
Posted in acceptance, journal, peer review, refereeing, rejection
Tagged acceptance of publications, Pat Thomson, refereeing, rejection of articles
3 Comments
refereeing a journal article. part 1: reading
So you’ve just got an article to review and you’re not sure how to go about it. Before even beginning to read, the first thing to get clear about is the STANCE you have to take as a reviewer. Once … Continue reading
Posted in journal, peer review, reading, refereeing
Tagged conflict of interest, critical stance, journal article, Pat Thomson, peer review, refereeing
4 Comments