Proofreading

Week 12 (12/24/2009)

Peiling Hsia

Contents:

Proofreading guideline Common errors of writing a paper Review of manuscript

Proofreading guideline

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/561/01/

A good research paper has - a clear statement of the problem the paper is addressing, - the proposed solution(s), - and results achieved.

It describes clearly what has been done before on the problem, and what is new.

A paper should focus on - describing the results in sufficient details to establish their validity - identifying the novel aspects of the results (what new knowledge is reported) - identifying the significance of the results (what improvements and impact do they suggest)

The goal of a paper is to describe novel technical results.

General Strategies

Take a break! Allow yourself some time between writing and proofing.

Leave yourself enough time. Always read through your writing slowly.

Get others involved. Let you get another perspective on your writing and a fresh reader will be able to help you catch mistakes that you might have overlooked.

Place a ruler under each line as you read it. This will give your eyes a manageable amount of text to read.

Correctness. Write correct English.

Role-play. While reading, put yourself in your audience's shoes.

Information flow. In each sentence, move your reader from familiar information to new information.

Emphasis. For material you want to carry weight or be remembered, use the end of a sentence.

Coherence. In a coherent passage, choose subjects that refer to a consistent set of related concepts.

1. Finding Common Errors

Proofreading can be much easier when you know what you are looking for. Although everyone will have different error patterns, the following are issues that come up for many writers. Always remember to make note of what errors you make frequently—this will help you proofread more efficiently in the future!

Proofread for one type of error at a time. If commas are your most frequent problem, go through the paper checking just that one problem.

2. Spelling Do NOT rely on your computer's spellcheck — it will not

get everything! Examine each word in the paper individually by reading c

arefully.

3. Left-out and doubled words Left-out and doubled words Reading the paper aloud (and slowly) can help you make

sure you haven't missed or repeated any words.

4. Fragment Sentences

Make sure each sentence has a subject. Make sure each sentence has a complete verb. See that each sentence has an independent clause.

5. Run-on Sentences Review each sentence to see whether it contains more than one

independent clause. If there is more than one independent clause, check to make sure

the clauses are separated by the appropriate punctuation.

Example run-on: I have to write a research paper for my class about extreme sports

all I know about the subject is that I'm interested in it.

Edited version: I have to write a research paper for my class about extreme sports,

and all I know about the subject is that I'm interested in it.

Another option: I have to write a research paper for my class about extreme sports.

All I know about the subject is that I'm interested in it.

6. Comma Splices Look at the sentences that have commas. Check to see if the

sentence contains two main clauses. If there are two main clauses, they should be connected with a

comma and a conjunction like and, but, for, or, so, yet. Another option is to take out the comma and insert a semicolon

instead.

Example: I would like to write my paper about basketball, it's a topic I can talk

about at length.

Edited version: I would like to write my paper about basketball, because it's a topic I

can talk about at length.

Edited version, using a semicolon: I would like to write my paper about basketball; it's a topic I can talk

about at length.

7. Subject/Verb Agreement

Find the subject of each sentence. Find the verb that goes with the subject.

Example: Students at the university level usually is very busy.

Edited version: Students at the university level usually are very busy.

8. Mixed construction

Read through your sentences carefully to make sure that they do not start with one sentence structure and shift to another.

A sentence that does this is called a mixed construction.

Example: Since I have a lot of work to do is why I can't go out

tonight.

Edited version: Since I have a lot of work to do, I can't go out tonight.

9. Parallelism

Look through your paper for series of items and make sure these items are in parallel form.

Order your text so your reader can easily see how related concepts are different and how they are similar.

Example: Being a good friend involves good listening skills, to be c

onsiderate, and that you know how to have fun.

Edited version: Being a good friend involves knowing how to listen, bein

g considerate, and having fun.

10. Pronoun Reference/Agreement

Skim your paper, stopping at each pronoun. Search for the noun that the pronoun replaces.

If you can find a noun, be sure it agrees in number and person with your pronoun.

Consistent names. Refer to each significant character (algorithm, concept, language) using the same word everywhere. Give a significant new character a proper name.

Pronouns always present a problem with shifts. People can also confuse the meaning of paragraph by making an unjustified shift in number.

Example:

Shift: Each electronics student was asked to bring in their old television set to repair.

Corrected: Each electronics student was asked to bring in his (or her) old television set to repair.

Practice:

1. Accountants should do ____ own calculations.2. Everyone wants _______ job to be exciting.3. Some of the bookkeepers brought ____ books to the

session.4. All of the equipment is in ____ last year of usefulness.5. None of the appreciation was relayed to ____ recipient.6. Half of the crop lost _____ leaves to worms. 7. All employees were instructed to give _____ permits at

the gate.8. Each of the waitresses picked up _____ orders for the

shift.

Revising for Cohesion

Begin sentences with short, simple words and phrases. Communicate information that appeared in previous sent

ences

Topics are crucial for readers because readers depend on topics to focus their attention on particular ideas toward the beginning of sentences.

Topics tell readers what a whole passage is "about." If readers feel that a sequence of topics is coherent, then they will feel they are moving through a paragraph from a cumulatively coherent point of view.

But if throughout the paragraph readers feel that its topics shift randomly, then they have to begin each sentence out of context, from no coherent point of view. When that happens, readers feel dislocated, disoriented, and out of focus.

1. Diagnosis

Underline the first few words of every sentence in a paragraph, ignoring short introductory phrases such as "In the beginning," or "For the most part.“

If you can, underline the first few words of every clause.

Read your underlined words. Is there a consistent series of related topics?

Will your reader see these connections among the topics?

Decide what you will focus on in each paragraph.

Imagine that the passage has a title. The words in the title should identify what should be the topics of most of the sentences.

2. Analysis

3. Revision

Put most of the subjects at the beginning of your sentences.

Avoid hiding your topic by opening sentences with long introductory clauses or phrases.

Questions to Ask Yourself as You Revise Sentences

Do your sentences "hang together?“

Does each sentence "cohere" with the one before and after it ?

Are sentences in a paragraph unified with each other ?

Does the sentence begin with information familiar to the reader?

Does the sentence end with interesting information the reader would not anticipate?

Will your reader be able to identify quickly the "topic" of each paragraph?

6 Steps for Revising Your Paper

revise your papers by reorganizing them to make your best points stand out:

Add needed information

Eliminate irrelevant information

Clarify sections or sentences

6 Steps for Revising Your Paper

1. Find your main point.

2. Evaluate your evidence.

3. Save only the good pieces.

4. Tighten and clean up your language.

5. Eliminate mistakes in grammar and usage.

6. Switch from Writer-Centered to Reader-Centered

1. Find your main point.

What are you trying to say in the paper? In other words, try to summarize your thesis, or main point, and the evidence you are using to support that point.

Try to imagine that this paper belongs to someone else. Does the paper have a clear thesis? Do you know what the paper is going to be about?

2. Evaluate your evidence.

Does the body of your paper support your thesis? Do you offer enough evidence to support your claim?

If you are using quotations from the text as evidence, did you cite them properly?

3. Save only the good pieces.

Do all of the ideas relate back to the thesis?

Is there anything that doesn't seem to fit? If so, you either need to change your thesis to reflect the idea or cut the idea.

4. Tighten and clean up your language.

Do all of the ideas in the paper make sense?

Are there unclear or confusing ideas or sentences?

Read your paper out loud and listen for awkward pauses and unclear ideas.

Cut out extra words, vagueness, and misused words.

5. Eliminate mistakes in grammar and usage.

Do you see any problems with grammar, punctuation, or spelling? If you think something is wrong, you should make a note of it, even if you don't know how to fix it. You can always talk to a Writing Lab tutor about how to correct errors.

6. Switch from Writer-Centered to Reader-Centered

Try to detach yourself from what you've written; pretend that you are reviewing someone else's work.

What would you say is the most successful part of your paper? Why? How could this part be made even better?

What would you say is the least successful part of your paper? Why? How could this part be improved?

Common errors

1) Hyphenated words—If the first word is used as an adjective, no hyphen is necessary (e.g., first generation).

If the first word is a noun, then you need to hyphenate (e.g., range-limited).

2) Normally, integers less than ten are spelled out. Thus o

ne will write “six cells” instead of “6 cells.” Integers larger than ten and fractional numbers are written in Arabic digits, i.e., 12, 5.6, etc.

Fractional numbers are considered plurals. Thus, we wil

l say “one meter,” but “0.5 meters.”

3) In technical papers, there are usually symbols, and the question arises as to which article to use in front of symbols. Should we say a M/M/1 queue or an M/M/1 queue?

The rule is the same as in regular writing without symbols, i.e., if the word starts with a vowel, namely, the letters a, e, i, o, u, you will use the article “an”; otherwise, you will use “a.”

However, we need to determine how the symbol is pronounced. In the case of M/M/1, we pronounce it “em-em-one,” i.e., it starts with a vowel.

Compare this with a B-ISDN network. In this case, the B

in B-ISDN is pronounced like “bee,” i.e., not a vowel.

4) The first time a symbol is used, explain what it means, usually with the symbol in brackets, e.g., one will write “Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN).” Subsequently, use the symbol only. This is in keeping with the concept of conciseness.

5) Try avoiding negative words like “not,” “un,” “non,” etc., as well as double negatives such as “not invalid,” “not uninteresting” as much as possible.

For example, use “invalid” instead of “not valid,” use “violating” instead of “not satisfying.”

7) Say “greatly improves” rather than “highly improves” or “largely improves.”

8) The words “work” and “research” are already in plural form. Thus we do not say “Existing works in this area ” or “Prior researches ”

9) Avoid using multiple superlatives. Use “best” rather than “very best,” “optimal” rather than “most optimal.”

10) Do not start a sentence with “also.” Use words such as “Besides,” “Moreover,” “In addition” instead.

11) The words “figure,” “table,” “theorem,” “lemma,” etc.

may be used as proper or common nouns. Proper nouns must be capitalized.

They are proper nouns when a number or some other attribute follows them. For example, we say, “Fig. 1 illustrates ” and “In this figure, we illustrate… ”

12) Semi-colons can be used to break up groups of objects. For example, “Set A comprises numbers 1, 2, 3; Set B comprises 4, 5, 6; Set C comprises 7, 8.”

13) Avoid repeated usage. (o) “ the storage required in the first case is greater than that in the second case.” (X) “ the storage required in the first case is greater than

the storage required in the second case.”

14) English and American spelling is sometimes different, i.e.,

“colour” versus “color.” Try to be consistent throughout the text.

Rejection

If you submit technical papers, you will experience rejection. In some cases, rejection indicates that you should move on and begin a different line of research. In most cases, the reviews offer an opportunity to improve the work.

There is noise in the refereeing system, and even small flaws or omissions in an otherwise good paper may lead to rejection. Referees are generally people of good will, but different referees at a conference may have different standards, so the luck of the draw in referees is a factor in acceptance.

When readers misunderstand the paper that is always at least partly the author's fault! Even if you think the referees have missed the point, you will learn how your work can be misinterpreted, and eliminating those ambiguities will improve the paper.

The wrong lesson to learn from rejection is discouragement or a sense of personal failure. Many papers — even papers that later win awards — are rejected at least once, and as you return to your work, your results will improve.

Should you submit an imperfect paper? On the plus side,

getting feedback on your paper will help you to improve it. On the other hand, you don't want to get a reputation for submitting half-baked work. If you know the flaws that will make the referees reject your paper, or the valid criticisms that they will raise, then don't waste everyone's time and energy by submitting the paper. Only submit to obtain new information, and reviews do often indicate concerns you did not predict ahead of time.

Review of manuscriptPeer review is an essential step in the publication process, and therefore in research. It helps to ensure that published articles describe experiments that focus on important issues and that the research is well designed and executed.

In addition, it serves to promote the presentation of methods in sufficient detail to permit replication, data that are unambiguous and properly analyzed, and conclusions that are supported by the data.

Finally, it promotes the proper citation of prior literature. In these ways peer review serves as a safeguard for both the authors and the readers.

http://www.journals.asm.org/misc/reviewguide.shtml GUIDELINES  FOR  REVIEWERS for ASM Journals (American Society for Microbiology)

Getting published is rarely a one-step process. Very few articles are accepted by peer-reviewed journals without revisions.

Given this, it is important that you correctly interpret reviewer comments and clearly communicate the changes in your response to reviewer comments and resubmit a cover letter to the journal editor(s).

The Reviewer

Adopt a positive, impartial, but critical attitude toward the manuscript under review, with the aim of promoting effective, accurate, and relevant scientific communication.

 Please consider the following aspects when reviewing a

manuscript:  Significance to the target scientific community Originality Appropriateness of the approach or experimental design Appropriateness of the statistical analyses

Adherence to correct scientific nomenclature

Appropriate literature citations Adequacy of experimental techniques Soundness of conclusions and interpretation Relevance of discussion Organization Adherence to the Instructions to Authors Adequacy of title and abstract Appropriateness of figures and tables Appropriateness of supplemental material intended for posting

(if applicable) Length Whether it describes misuse of microbial systems or the

information derived there from

Very few papers qualify for an immediate, unconditional acceptance.

There are many reasons to reject a paper.  In general, if there are serious flaws in experimental design, incorrect interpretation of data, extensive additional experiments required, or any organizational or English usage flaws that prevent critical review of the manuscript, then recommend that the manuscript be rejected.

If reviewers feel that the deficiencies can be corrected within a reasonable period of time (1 to 2 months), then recommend modification (e.g., modification; convert to

 

Reviewers are not required to correct deficiencies of style, syntax, or grammar, but any help you can give in clarifying meaning will be appreciated.  

In particular, point out the use of scientific jargon, misspellings of chemical names, use of outmoded terminology or incorrect genetic nomenclature, and use of misspelled, incorrect, or outdated scientific names of organisms.

Reviewers’ criticisms, arguments, and suggestions concerning the paper will be most useful to the editor and to the author if they are carefully documented.  Do not make dogmatic, dismissive statements, particularly about the novelty of the work.  Substantiate your statements. 

Reviewer's recommendations are gratefully received by the editor; however, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honor every recommendation.  You will be asked to suggest acceptability as noted on the specific review form (e.g., accept; accept with revision; reject; modify, re-review required; convert to Note). 

Some of the items for which reviewers should be alert include:  Plagiarism – Plagiarism is not limited to the Results and Discussion

sections; it can involve any part of the manuscript, including figures and tables, in which material is copied from another publication without attestation, reference, or permission. 

Note that wording does not have to be exact to be copyright infringement; use of very similar words in almost the same sequence can also be infringement. 

                                                                Missing or incomplete attestation - Authors must give appropriate

credit to ideas, concepts, and data that have been published previously.  This is accomplished by the inclusion of references.  Missing, incomplete, or incorrect references must be brought to the editor's attention.

Dual submission and/or publication - Be wary of attempts to submit/publish similar material more than once.  This is often difficult to detect "before the fact," but checking literature citations, as well as having a critical eye, is helpful.

Review of Manuscripts Guidelines Scientific Merit:

Does the manuscript have the potential to expand the fundamental knowledge in its specific area?

Is the manuscript scientifically sound? Is the investigator(s) cognizant of past work? Does the manuscript thoroughly evaluate all necessary a

venues of the study? Are the objectives clear and logical? Are the methodologies, designs, and analytical technique

s appropriate, adequate, and completely described? Are the conclusions objective, significant, and sound bas

ed on the findings of the investigator? Does the manuscript reflect originality and ingenuity in its

appropriate field?

Overall Quality and Content

Does the title depict the nature of the study? Have appropriate keywords been selected? Does the summary adequately describe the study in a clear,

concise manner? Is the manuscript well written and organized? Is the paper adequately referenced and the reference style

consistent? Are any tables, charts, figures, or other graphical

representations used necessary, correctly used and analyzed, and easily interpreted by the reader?

Can any part of the manuscript be shortened or omitted without loss of scientific content?

Please note any general strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript here, along with any other comments you might have.

Thank the reviewers for the close attention to your work, note that you are gratified by all the positive things that they say (and reiterate a couple of them to reinforce them) and address all of the substantive suggestions and note the way that you will incorporate these changes.

If you want to reject a suggestion, indicate why that is and suggest that another change that you might make in its stead.

If, for example, they suggested that you include some consideration of research method X and you don't see it as appropriate, indicate that you will clarify in the manuscript why research method X is not appropriate in the book.

Reminders:

Web links http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/thesis.html (How to Write

a PhD Thesis )

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/paper.html (Writing and publishing a scientific paper )

http://www.journals.asm.org/misc/reviewguide.shtml (GUIDELINES  FOR  REVIEWERS for ASM Journals)

http://www.cigr.org/InstructionsforReviewers.htm Instructions for Reviewers (CIGR –international Commission of Agricultural Engineering)

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/briefing/4010b1-12-%20EPA.htm (Example of “response to reviewers”)