Peer Review Information I Received

Unknown’s Review – The blind peer review was the most helpful review. I had had previous reviewers mention correct formatting, but they pointed out specific examples on the reference page which needed to be corrected. I received the following feedback:

1. Great topic. Facebook is a hot topic.
2. Intro. is strong.
3. Watch in-text citation format.
4. Don’t start sentences with numbers.
5. Methods section is good.
6. You stated your results clearly and with graphs.

John’s Review – John gave me a lot of advice about referencing specific information I used in my paper. He also wanted me to provide more graphs, but I felt that data was very simple and didn’t need charts or graphs. Some specific feedback I received:

1. Good flow
2. Outstanding Lit. Review
3. Needs better formatting.
4. Needs appropriate citations.
5. Your results and the graph was excellent.
6. Discussion is excellent.

Sarah’s Review: Sarah gave me a lot of advice about stylizing my paper for a more general audience. Specific feedback I received includes:

1. Paper sounds professional.
2. Paper flowed well.
3. Need to look at citing again.
4. Need to re-do references

Heather’s Review: Heather gave me similar advice to Sarah about simplifying the paper to a more general audience. She also helped take my survey. Some of the feedback I received included:

1. Your information is varied and interesting.
2. I was not bored at all while reading.
3. Some of the vocab. was difficult to figure out.
4. Your methods section switches from past to present tense.
5. Your survey was well-written and thought-out.
6. You made valid points in your intro.

Peer Review Information I Gave

Heather – Heather’s paper was about orgasm and partner satisfaction. She had an excellent, well-researched methodology and showed a great passion in her work. There were very few problems with content and I mostly corrected for small grammatical issues.

Sarah – Sarah wrote a paper on the ability of resident assistants to assist sexual minority students. The paper also had very few problems with content. The methodology was especially strong, protecting the identity of the researcher at all times. I learned some very interesting things from this paper, as well. Most of the corrections I made were small, and usually related to grammatical issues.

John – John wrote a paper on attitudes towards women’s rights with an international perspective. Some of the order needed to be revised, such as stating the complete hypothesis earlier in the paper. There were a lot of grammatical / structural issues, but those are understandable for an international student. I tried to help him understand the reasoning behind the grammar. I liked how John used passionate arguments in his paper. It used quite a bit of allegory and poetic speech, which made the arguments very strong.

Unknown – The blind peer review was concerning a multimedia project, so this was a new perspective for me because the previous articles were all meant to be journal articles. The research was about friendship’s effects on musical collaboration. This paper had the opposite problem of the earlier ones. Its grammar and style were excellent, but its methodology was not very appropriate. There seemed to be design flaws at many of the stages and I couldn’t suggest correcting them since the project was already complete. I suggested expanding the literature review to compensate.

Publishing Research

There may be a paper somewhere in the garage of a mad scientist that provides for astounding scientific innovation and progress. However, this paper will never see the light of day because it was not published. Publishing is a key aspect of academic writing. Without publishing, others do not have the opportunity to review the information at hand and input their own ideas. However, it can be very difficult to be published, especially if someone hasn’t developed the skill set necessary to be included in the journal or if they did not revise their paper to an adequate level. However, there is hope. One of the most important things to remember when publishing is to keep a positive attitude and be persistent, much like a job search. Some other interesting tips about publishing research come from a presentation on the subject from a professor at the University of Dublin, Karl Whelan. There is no better advice than that which has come from the horse’s mouth. Some of the tips which are presented include:

• Be confident; Don’t be afraid to publish your paper under the premise of perceived imperfections
• Don’t be afraid to be rejected; you will be rejected. However, you can learn what you need to revise and improve your methodology in writing for the future.
• Peer reviewers may not read the entire paper and augment minor imperfections while ignoring larger ones.
• Perform background research on the journal which you are going to submit. It would be best to submit to a journal which has published work similar to your own.
• If you are rejected, don’t be afraid to resubmit work; be persistent.
• Do not fret about criticism on drafts.

(Whelan, 2007).

I have my paper ready for submission at this time, but one of the biggest mental blockages if it were not for the class requirements is the feeling that the paper is not “good enough”. Of course I have this apprehension, because I used a small sample size and a gender-distorted sample. However, I wish that like the document declares, it will be a learning experience. I currently subscribe to an information systems listserv which often includes requests for publications from around the world. In my future career, it may be beneficial to have this experience in submitting to a journal if I am assigned to do a research project in my job duties (which is very possible). Having to follow all of the requirements for submission has reinforced the importance of formatting and standards in publication. Therefore, I look forward to receiving feedback on my submission, whatever the result may be.

References

Whelan, Karl. (2007). Tips for Preparing and Publishing Research Papers. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from http://www.karlwhelan.com/Teaching/research_talk_tcd.pdf

Drafting and Revising

It is said that a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step, and this is quite true when it comes to the drafting process. One helpful document I used during the drafting and revision process is by the Center for Educational Partnerships at Berkeley University. The document notes that a first draft is by no means a final draft and that a writer should not be afraid to make mistakes. The first draft is primarily used to create structure (Berkeley, 2007). In future revisions, more vivid language can be used or previously unknown details can be added. In the revision process, there are three subjects which should receive improvement: focus, clarity and depth (Berkeley, 2007).

Conventions and proper styling should also be used in later drafts. Some of the tips which were presented in the document included:

• When possible, use a more simple word in place of an obscure word.
• Double-check word meanings if you are unsure
• Avoid empty words
• Use active verbs
• Avoid clichés and widely-used idioms

As far as proofreading, the source suggested leaving the paper aside for several days and then revising it again. Errors in the paper may be caught when in a fresh state of mind than when under fatigue. Additionally, try to read the paper backwards or in sections to catch sentence fragments or run-ons. One of the suggestions that is made that was also made in class is to have someone else read the paper. What makes sense to one person may not always make sense to another person.

Some of this advice I actively used in my own revision process, however my writing process is somewhat different, but effective. I generally followed guidelines on style and convention, using active verbs, engaging vocabulary, and using processes meant to catch errors. I had my paper proofread by others, to varying degrees of effectiveness. I also set my paper aside for several days to get a fresh state of mind. However, I did not always follow recommendations. I used what I thought was seemingly normal vocabulary in my paper, however many people found the vocabulary obscure or difficult to understand. However, when I tried to revise the vocabulary usage, the paper was not as effective and sounded elementary. It was my intention for this to be a paper read by sociologists and those interested in social media, an audience which is not accurate of peer reviewers. If I was writing a simplified version for readers of the USA today, I would have made the vocabulary much different. Another way I violated recommendations was that in my first draft, I typically did use more bombastic vocabulary and did not write the paper as a wireframe; I instead wrote it in sequential order, accounting for flow and transitions. However, I was told by all of the peer reviewers that the paper flowed well.

In conclusion, the drafting and revising process is a continuous cycle, but one must eventually decide that a work is finished, at least for that moment in time. If guidelines and recommendations are followed, it is much easier and faster to create a final document that is engaging, organized, and presented in a logical fashion.

Works Cited

Center for Educational Partnerships, University of Berkeley. (November 17, 2007). Drafting & Revising. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from http://students.berkeley.edu/apa/personalstatement/proofreading.html.