One frustration I have with the writing process is the revisions I get back from my adviser. It is difficult for me to discern if he has made a change based on preference or based on clarity. At times I have trouble believing what he has written is better, especially when he decides to change something he wrote in the first place. I understand that writing is a dynamic process and a manuscript, or any written work, can never truly be finished-a sentiment shared by Ecogeofemme. There is always a different way to present your ideas, plot your data, ect. However, as a graduate student and someone who has always struggled with writing I have trouble learning from this process. How can I become a better writer if I don’t know what my adviser really thinks is good? I tend to feel that everything I do is wrong because I have struggled with writing for so long and have deemed myself no good at it. I’ve gotten to the point where I wish he wouldn’t change sentences that are clear and only change sentences which make no sense. This I feel would help my confidence, i.e. knowing that what I wrote wasn’t “wrong” and help me become a better writer by helping me identify what I’m doing correct and what really needs changing.
positive another note I submitted a short letter to big name journal this week-end. It is the data that I was known for at the December conference. I’m guessing it will get rejected but at least it should be quick and painless and It got rejected and I know who I’ll turn around and resubmit to. I was amazed that my coauthors had very little comments, except adviser-of course- and I think thought my cover letter was convincing that this data is of interest to a larger reader base.
I also finished manuscript 2 today and sent it to my coauthors. I debated if I should send it to adviser first or to both coauthors at the same time. I’ve completely changed it due to coauthors suggestions but I have this feeling that I don’t mind looking “dumb” in front of my adviser but would hate to send a sub par manuscript to coauthor from another university. It can also be confusing to get contradictory comments from your coauthors. However I decided to take my husbands advise, which is, THIS IS MY MANUSCRIPT. So I’ll see what the coauthors think of it and if the comments aren’t major I’ll fix it up and submit it without them looking at it again.
5 comments:
I had an undergrad class where we had to write formal lab reports every week. They were graded (by professors, not TAs) and returned totally covered in red ink. But we got to rewrite them based on the comments. I think the idea was for it to be similar to dealing with peer review comments. Anyway, I learned so much by rewriting and being regraded. More than by simply reading an instructor's comments. Unfortunately, it's so time consuming to grade papers that it's a rare gem of a professor who's willing to do it twice. I also had several comosition classes in the Enlgish department that involved "workshoping" papers. I learned a lot form that too.
I guess my point is that I dont' think I'm a great writer, but I think I've gotten better over time because of classes that teach through writing and reviewing. I think it's like anything else -- there are people who are innately talented, but everyone else can develop skills.
Anyway, I hope your paper is accepted. Congratulations on submitting it! And hang in there with the both the internal and external review processes.
I am sad to see the updates to your post... The whole process is so subjective, it is hard to know what advise to listen to and what decisions to expect. Hang in there - the "semantics" aren't as important as the fact that you are actually producing manuscripts, and they will get published eventually (although I personally know how much it hurts to get a rejection). Good luck!
Writing is hard. My adviser and I once went through seven revisions. By the end of it, the paper was pure gibberish. This is when I realized the neither my adviser or me knew how to write. I hit the books and found two great resources that turned everything around. The next paper that I submitted received reviews saying, "This paper is perfectly written." I was all warm and fuzzy.
The books are:
Strunk and White, Elements of Style
and
Robert Day, How to Write and Publish a Scientific Report
Good luck!
Thanks JP. My public library actually has both books so I'll check them out and see if I should buy them.
SG. I wasn't too disappointed about the manuscript. I submitted it this week-end and heard monday that it didn't make the initial cut. They said it wasn't of national interest.
Hopefully I'll have better luck with a different journal.
I agree that the process of preparing a manuscript can be very frustrating. Here are a couple of suggestions:
I think one thing to keep in mind is that your PI might not be a good writer himself (many successful scientists aren't), and the "corrections" he makes to your manuscript don't necessarily mean that what you wrote was wrong. It wouldn't be out of line at all for you to ask for clarification on the reasons for his modifications.
Also, if you know someone who you think is a really good writer, you could ask that person for feedback on your writing.
Finally, a lot of writing has to do with personal style, which is very subjective. I like the "this is my manuscript" approach. You may not win all the arguments on that one, especially if your co-authors are more senior, but at least you get to stand up for your own writing. Good luck!
Post a Comment