I'm in the process of repackaging a "damaged" manuscript for submission to a new journal. Which, in case you're not familiar with the publish-or-perish deal, means that the journal we originally opted for put the kibosh on our submission.
The most obvious problem (or rather "challenge", "issue" or even "learning opportunity") the manuscript suffered from was that it was too damn long, and structured more like a straight-up dissemination of data than a real story. Consequently, there were blocks of text with a significant degree of overlap.
Enter one of the co-authors. After having struggled a while with minor improvements, he (probably got fed up and) ixnayed the entire "Results" section, decided that the more immediately descriptive sections of the "Discussion" part should be stripped of interpretation and re-labeled as the new and improved "Results". He also marked every large paragraph with "Can this be condensed?".
I have to admit that I was quite hesitant and sceptical at first. Also, restructuring the manuscript in this manner took quite a lot of work.
However, the manuscript went from ~11 000 words to ~6 000 words! Plus; so far all indications from the co-authors who have read the new and improved version point to the manuscript being easier to read, with all of the relevant information and interpretations intact.
What teh hell was I doing when I wrote the first couple of drafts?
The most obvious problem (or rather "challenge", "issue" or even "learning opportunity") the manuscript suffered from was that it was too damn long, and structured more like a straight-up dissemination of data than a real story. Consequently, there were blocks of text with a significant degree of overlap.
Enter one of the co-authors. After having struggled a while with minor improvements, he (probably got fed up and) ixnayed the entire "Results" section, decided that the more immediately descriptive sections of the "Discussion" part should be stripped of interpretation and re-labeled as the new and improved "Results". He also marked every large paragraph with "Can this be condensed?".
I have to admit that I was quite hesitant and sceptical at first. Also, restructuring the manuscript in this manner took quite a lot of work.
However, the manuscript went from ~11 000 words to ~6 000 words! Plus; so far all indications from the co-authors who have read the new and improved version point to the manuscript being easier to read, with all of the relevant information and interpretations intact.
What teh hell was I doing when I wrote the first couple of drafts?
Posts
3 comments:
What teh hell was I doing when I wrote the first couple of drafts?
Typing. A lot.
It's always good to have a set of fresh eyes to read through stuff. I know I easly get too absorbed in the material, and sometimes have a hard time seeing where I need to go more into details and where I can shorten things.
Typing. A lot.
D'oh :-)
Post a Comment