Category: Writing

Dealing with Writer’s Block

When I started this blog my goal was to post at least once a week (other than CFPs and news about publications). The last few weeks have been quiet, as I’ve had writer’s block with my book, which affected this blog. Thankfully, I’m in better writing and researching habits again.

I have no evidence, but I expect that all writers are blocked at times. For me, there are different levels of writer’s block. While writing my dissertation, sometimes I’d turn on my laptop, sit down, and suddenly several minutes would go by before I realized that I could not even focus on the screen. That type of block was more fatigue than anything, and I’d shut down my laptop and not write that day. The next day I’d try again and it would be fine.

Another type is just needing short breaks to process and think. At those times, I’ll write a little bit, take a short break, then write more, take a break, etc. Often, not writing but thinking about what to write helped sort my ideas into something more coherent, therefore easier to write about.

Then there’s the major writer’s block, which is what I just went through. It encompasses frustration, insecurity, lack of focus, wondering if I’m going in the right direction, and a whole host of mostly emotional obstructions that inhibit writing. I ask myself numerous questions: is this I topic I should address? will the details be helpful or too much? how do I make a dry topic interesting? will this information be outdated sooner rather than later?

What helped me move past this is talking out some very specific questions with the series editor. I can’t emphasize enough how immensely helpful it was to have a conversation where I voiced my concerns and talked through the depth and direction of specific topics and sections. As I wrote in an earlier post, it’s very easy to go down the research rabbit hole. I truly enjoy learning and reading about archives, but not everything I read about reference and access needs to go in the reference and access book. I’m getting better at deciding what needs to be addressed in-depth, and what can be mentioned and then suggest further resources.

I expect that in the next year while I write the book, I will continue to have bouts of writer’s block. Hopefully, it will happen less and less or not last long. Just know, that you are not alone when you struggle with writing and while there are many ways to handle it, one of the best is to talk it through with a friend, colleague, family, or whomever. It truly helps.

Forced Writing: On the Tenure-track

Most of us became archivists because we love history, organizing, libraries, and “old stuff.” Though we had to write during library school, many of us did not plan on writing more than finding aids. However, many academic librarians and archivists are expected to publish as one aspect of receiving tenure. It is stressful when your job is contingent on fulfilling this obligation.

If writing isn’t a passion, forced publishing is definitely a challenge. At my institution, obtaining tenure has requirements related to librarianship, publishing/creative works, and service. When I started, I was one year out of finishing my PhD. Obtaining that degree made me much better prepared for the publishing requirement and for that I am grateful. Library schools may emphasize writing, but it’s more of a requirement for that degree than to pursue publishing.

It is stressful for many tenure-track archivists to publish. As noted previously, I’ve had many discussions with people who wonder if they have anything to say (see here and here). There is a time requirement to go up for tenure, therefore a time requirement to publish articles or book chapters. On the one hand, it forces you to be proactive in deciding what to write about, as Eira Tansey wrote. On the other hand, it can be an incredible amount of pressure.

I’m not well-versed in tenure requirements across all academic institutions, but I will generalize that many require publishing peer-review articles. Having one or more articles evaluated by professional peers is much more rigorous, therefore has more weight, than publishing newsletter articles, blog posts, or other informal writings. Writing a book has merit as well, but as we have fewer book publishing options than other academic disciplines, that is harder to accomplish (plus it takes a lot longer).

Having gone through the tenure process and as a supervisor to library faculty, here’s what I can offer:

  • Pick a journal first. Find one that aligns with your interests and passions. Read a few of the recent articles, browse past issues to see topics, etc. Contact the editor to ask if your idea would be of interest. And read the information for authors. While we all may aspire to write for The American Archivist, it’s highly competitive and you might be better off starting with another journal.
  • Don’t want to write about archives practices? Depending on your institution’s requirements, consider publishing in non-archives journals. Try library or other academic disciplinary journals. Do archival research on a topic of interest. (Blatant self-promotion, I used the archival research I did for my dissertation to publish in Reception: Texts, Readers, Audiences, History)
  • Start with an idea. You don’t have to have an exact argument to start writing. Once you research and write out your thoughts, it will evolve and become focused. Interested in digital forensics? privacy and confidentiality? outreach? Have you read an article or book that you strongly disagree with or you think could be improved or reacted to? Read a few books and articles to see what’s been said, what you agree/disagree with, then write.
  • Find colleagues with similar interests to see about co-authorship.
  • Start with a library school paper or presentation and expand it.
  • Write about something that interests you. It’s hard to be disciplined about writing when you have little or no interest in the subject.
  • Write about a project you completed, an initiative you started, or your experience with any aspect of archives. While theory is important, many archivists are interested in others’ practices that they can implement or adapt.
  • Write, write, write.
  • Start earlier rather than later. It can take 1-2 years to publish an article, taking into account the writing, peer-review, editing, and final publication. There’s no guarantee of acceptance, and you may have to submit, resubmit, or rewrite more than one article or for more than one journal. (Yes, an article I wrote with colleagues was rejected)
  • Create goals, timelines, outlines, number of pages to write a day/week, place to write, music to listen to, number of diet cokes to drink, and so forth. When you accomplish your set goals (say, weekly), reward yourself.
  • Make writing a priority and be disciplined. Carve out time daily/weekly (whatever works for you) to keep momentum and progress.
  • Write, write, write.
  • Take it a little at a time. Thinking about the entire article can be overwhelming, so focus on a section. Before you know it, you’ll have the whole article written.
  • Find support, whether at your institution, other colleagues, a writing group, or friends. Talking to people about your ideas or having others read your writing can go a long way to stay motivated.
  • Write, write, write.
  • Allow yourself to gripe and complain. Then let it go and keep writing.
  • Don’t try to make an article perfect. Be coherent, concise, grammatically correct (or at least mostly), and cite your sources. But remember that editors and reviewers will always have feedback, suggestions, and grammatical corrections.
  • Write one article at a time.
  • Don’t be overambitious. For example, if you are interested in doing a survey but don’t have experience in qualitative/quantitative analysis, it could be difficult to take on such a project.
  • Write, write, write.

 

 

Call: SAA Research Forum

I have yet to attend SAA’s Research Forum, though I’m always intrigued by it. If you’ve presented or attended, please share your experience in the comments.

Here is the information: http://www2.archivists.org/proceedings/research-forum/2016/call.

They also share everything from past Forums, including posters, research reports, and peer-review research papers: http://archivists.org/proceedings/research-forum.

Learn Everything Pt. 2: Review a Journal or Article!

I’ve been thinking more about the challenges we all face in keeping up with scholarly literature. This came up on the SNAP Twitter chat and I wrote more about it a couple weeks ago. Eira Tansey has a great calendar she uses (which she graciously allowed me to add here).

We all know it’s overwhelming to know where to start. Do you start with the latest issue of American Archivist? Read that Archival Issues that’s been sitting on your desk for four years? Look at the plethora of online journals? Or find articles about a certain topic of interest?

As I thought about this, it emphasized a gap: there are few reviews of journals or articles, the focus is more on books, exhibits, software, or other tools. The American Archivist reviews portal has a review of the Provenance Advocacy issue, and I did a profile of VIEW. After I wrote that post, I intended to continue to feature journals (besides CFP or new issues/articles). But it’s a lot for one person to do.

So here’s my proposal: I’d like anyone interested to contribute to this blog by reviewing articles and/or journals. You can write as many as you want, as often as you want. You choose what you want to write about and I’ll post it. All along, I’ve wanted this blog to have multiple contributors and I’ve had a few guest posts (for which I’m grateful for). Think about it: it encourages you to read the literature AND gives you an opportunity to write!

I created a sign-up sheet to avoid overlap. Feel free to add anything. Know that it won’t be my intention to moderate what you write (though I’ll gladly offer feedback if you want it). For all the guest posts so far, I haven’t changed a word. I believe it’s important to have multiple voices and perspectives, so I see my role as only posting what you write.

I hope you like this idea and I especially hope to hear from you!

Guest Post: Developing a Research Agenda

thank you Eira Tansey for your contribution!

When I was on the academic archivist job market a few years ago, I interviewed at one institution where I was warned during lunch to have a very narrowly focused answer to the dean’s inevitable question about my research agenda. I was strongly advised to make it clear that I had a tightly-defined research agenda, that my research interests weren’t all over the place, and that I was aiming for high-profile titles in which to publish my work. The only problem was that at the time I was searching for my first professional position, and as a paraprofessional I had only just started dipping my toe into publishing — all I had in print with a chapter in Kate Theimer’s book on description. Furthermore, my graduate program did not heavily emphasize or acculturate students into pursuing publishing opportunities. I don’t recall how I answered the question during my meeting with the dean (however I do remember his bone-crushing handshake!), but the broader question of “What is my research agenda?” is a question where my answers are rapidly evolving.

I lucked out and ended up at an institution that is a far better fit than the previously-mentioned one for a multitude of reasons. At my institution, librarians have faculty status and we have multiple paths to tenure (see our criteria: http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/libraryfaculty/docs/criteria2005.pdf). Some library faculty choose to build their tenure case (and preceding reappointment and promotion applications) around publications, others choose different routes. Since I started two years ago, I have prioritized building up my record around “publishing or creative works.” Unlike some institutions that clearly articulate how many articles are required for a successful tenure bid, or specifications on journal rankings, our criteria is very open-ended. There are pros and cons to this. On the one hand, it allows generous flexibility in choosing experimental publishing outlets (new interdisciplinary open-access title with funky journal design layouts? sure, why not!). On the other hand, because we don’t have clear guidelines, there are fewer objective benchmarks to be evaluated against.

I should pause here to describe what I mean when I say a “research agenda.” I don’t believe you have to have faculty status, professional status, or even a full-time job working in archives to have a research agenda. You don’t have to know statistical methods or have grant funding (although obviously the more you have of both, the more you can do!). But you do have to have an idea worth exploring, more than some superficial things to say about it, and the ability to eventually sit down, tune out distractions, and write. As far as I can discern, a “research agenda” is a broad scope of work in various stages across one’s career that has interconnecting intellectual tissue underneath what might look like many unrelated interests. When I think of well-known archivists and imagine their research agendas, I think of how certain archivists are associated with certain areas of archival theory and practice (e.g., Rand Jimerson on archives and social justice, Terry Cook and Helen Samuels with appraisal, Mark Greene with processing and collection development, etc).

When I first started getting serious about committing to professional writing, I chafed against the idea of a research agenda. It seemed so restrictive, and I have so many boundless interests, why not move from topic to topic, even if they’re completely unrelated? But as I’ve accrued some publications on my CV, I’m beginning to see the wisdom of targeting my focus towards a certain direction for the foreseeable future. To contribute something worth publishing, one should be familiar with the literature written on that subject. Depending on the topic, this could mean a lot of writing — and then you have to figure out where your contribution fits into that landscape. It is a lot of work to review literature on an existing subject (https://archivespublishing.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/how-do-i-learn-everything/), and I’m beginning to see one of the greatest arguments for having a focused research agenda: you don’t have to reacquaint yourself with a whole new body of knowledge every time you begin a new project.

I should note here that I think this process of writing about a bunch of different topics, and then finding one’s calling towards a specific area is fairly common. Certainly, it echoes the many college students who have undeclared majors for a long time, or how many young professionals switch career fields. For fun, I looked at the CVs of some well-known archivists, and you can certainly see how over time, their output begins to coalesce around a few main topics (for example, Mark Greene http://www.uwyo.edu/ahc/_files/vitas/m-greene-vita.pdf).

Right now I’m feeling the call to explore the intersection of archives, the environment, and climate change. I feel compelled to build a research agenda around this in a way I haven’t felt about other topics. This is occurring while my other “scattered focus” writing projects are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I have a whole range of issues I still care about (privacy! erasure and marginalization of archival labor! everything ever to do with appraisal! public records laws!), and every day I think things like “What we really need is a comparative study of unionization among archivists! WHY ISN’T ANYONE WRITING ABOUT THIS? I WANT TO READ ABOUT IT! Should I work on this?!?!?!” so I’m at a juncture where I feel a little twinge of sadness at the idea of not trying to write about everything unexplored. It doesn’t help that I have a “future ideas to pursue” list of dozens of half-baked ideas I add to on a semi-regular basis. Mostly I just try to be vocal about the topics I think are unexplored within archives-land and trust that someone, at some point, will feel inspired to write all the articles I know I could never manage on my own, but that I so desperately want to read.

How have you decided what to write about? Do you “write what you want to read”? Do you enter the conversation like a game of double dutch (credit for this to Jarrett Drake: https://snaproundtable.wordpress.com/2015/12/17/on-the-job-training-publishing/)? Has your research focus shifted as you grow as a writer?

How Do I Learn Everything?

As I noted in a previous post, a challenge potential authors face when writing is “others know more than I do” or “I don’t know enough about a topic.” We read tons in grad school, but who remembers everything? How do the “experts” become experts? There’s so much out there, it’s impossible to read it all.

Of course, graduate school is the first introduction to scholarship. However, it’s easier to focus on getting through the semester and forgetting what you when starting classes the next semester. Students have to read so much that it’s overwhelming to try to think of the resources post-grad school. I know I remember very little about what I read in library school. After graduation, who wants to spend their free time reading archives books and journals? It’s good to take a break. But it’s hard to get back into reading a full issue of a journal, pick up a book, etc.

So how does one start? It depends on what your ultimate goals are. One way is to read material that relates directly to your job. When I had my first processing position, I read about hidden collections and other articles about processing. Reading about what you do helps the knowledge stick because you can apply it. You could also read about what you aspire to do. Building a core knowledge may help in an interview.

Writing and reading book reviews are also a good way. Some journals put out a call, but if you’re interested directly contact reviews editors to let them know of your interest. You may not always get your first choice, but reading anything is helpful. Alexandra Orchard wrote a post here recently explaining the American Archivist reviews portal. Remember, reviews need not be solely for books. The SNAP issue of Provenance has great reviews about conferences and other resources. If you come across any resource, ask a reviews editor if you can review it.

One way I learned about various resources was through teaching graduate classes. It prompted me to look at a wide variety of books and journals to find appropriate and informative reading for the students. Not everyone has an opportunity to create a syllabus, but you could use that idea. For example, if you weren’t able to take a class on digital forensics, start searching and skimming articles to build your own reading list. Or, look for syllabi online. Use Google to search for syllabi and limit to site:.edu. I frequently used that strategy to find sources for classes I taught.

It’s daunting to think about reading books and articles to keep up. One could spend hours every day reading and still not keep up. However, reading reviews, scanning tables of contents, reading abstracts, or just skimming the first few pages can be a good introduction. Then, you might remember the source and read it in full later if you need/want to. It can give you a breadth of knowledge, or at least an awareness of what is out there.

This is also a good strategy when embarking on a research and writing project. Trying to read every word written on a topic would be either impossible or take too long. Start with a few sources and use the footnotes to read a few other related items. Look at a book index or TOC to read about specific topics of interest. Then write about it. Even if your goal isn’t publication, writing out your thoughts can help. Don’t try to remember everything. Instead, focus on synthesizing ideas, practices, and theories.

Also, don’t limit yourself to scholarly sources. There are so many blogs, presentations, and other online writing that possibly synthesized the information for you. SAA provides access to some past conference recordings. More Podcast, Less Process provides interviews where archivists share their experiences. Read reports and other publications from organizations such as OCLC and CLIR.

There is so much out there and it’s hard to know where to start. Becoming an “expert” takes time. And, truly, few people know everything about all aspects of archives. So start slow, pick one or two topics you want to learn about, and dig in. Over time, through reading, attending conferences, work experience, and talking with colleagues, you will build great knowledge.

And if you have other tips please share in the comments!

SNAP Twitter Chat about Publishing

Last week I participated in a SNAP Twitter chat (#snaprt, @SNAP_Roundtable). I’ve participated before, but it’s been a while. SNAP does a great job of hosting the chats and having prepared questions. There aren’t many opportunities for such interaction to discuss publishing and I appreciate that this topic comes up every so often for discussion. Most of the conversations I have are one-on-one and occasionally speaking to groups. I’m always happy to participate in these discussions, as are others involved in publishing. From my perspective, I don’t always know who wants these conversations (beyond SNAP) so I encourage others to just ask! I’ve worked hard to make myself accessible, but I know that other editors, authors, or others involved in publishing will also participate. So don’t be afraid to ask.

There’s always so much that comes up during these chats. I won’t be able to recap everything, but I want to touch on a few of the topics. I suspect many people outside of SNAP have the same questions so I hope you find this helpful.

How do I know what’s interesting to others?; it’s already been done. Understandably, when one is new to the profession it is hard to know what to write about and whether others will want to read it. It takes time to catch up on where scholarship is. I’ve encouraged people to write about their interests or where they see gaps. No one knows every article or book written, and that’s where a good editor comes in. Many submissions to Provenance cited scholarship I didn’t know about. However, often I and the peer-reviewers recommend additional articles if we believe it necessary. No matter if you are new or seasoned, there is the question whether others will find it interesting. So, talk to your peers, coworkers, friends, colleagues, and ask. Or email an editor and ask. Pick a topic, read a few articles, and think about it. Then write and submit. The only way you will know for sure is if you submit and accept the feedback. There’s been a bunch of new journal issues (just browse the most recent posts) so start there. Read more in a previous post.Others know so much more and I don’t want to BS. That sentiment is appreciated. The longer I was an editor, the easier it was to spot a graduate course paper submission. I don’t say that as a bad thing, because grad school is about generating and discussing ideas, learning about the profession, and engaging with scholarship. When I was writing my dissertation, I frequently felt what most grad students do – that I’ll look dumb if I forget that one book, that one article, where my committee would think “How could she not know about that?” But you know what, that seldom happens. If you do appropriate research, you become the expert and you’ll find the resources. Don’t try to read every word of everything; start by reading book reviews and abstracts. Chances are, you’ll miss something and a good editor will provide it for you. And absolutely don’t BS. As long as you can provide evidence for your argument, are clear and articulate, don’t use a lot of colloquialisms, and are logical, you’re more than halfway there. The best way to learn as much as others know is through writing and research. How do you think they became experts?

Turning a conference presentation into an article. Do it! As you prepare for a presentation, keep track of your sources, write an article alongside your presentation. But please, don’t submit only the text of your presentation. Remember, writing for publication is different from reading your ideas in front of an audience. Several times, I followed up with conference presenters and suggest they submit to Provenance. So think about it before you present and you can have a solid draft or full article for submission.

Revise and resubmit is hard. Yes, and honestly, it seldom gets easier. I did write a post about this a while ago. And this question reminded me that I meant to write more (hence the part 1 of many), so I will get back to that at some point. But if any of you want to share your experiences, whether good or bad, I welcome all perspectives and guest posts. And, as noted also below, a blog post is a great way to start writing.

Write to non-archivists. This part was particularly interesting to me. We are not limited to writing to each other. Yes, that strengthens our profession and engages each other. But what about librarians, users, historians, and others? Bringing non-archivists into our writing sphere will help us understand our users more as well as raise awareness of the archival profession. Do you collaborate with donors, faculty, users, or anyone else you can co-author with? What about asking researchers to write about their experience? When I taught classes, I always try to find non-archivist perspectives. One article I used multiple times was Joan Zenzen’s “Administrative Histories: Writing about Fort Stanwix National Monument” (sorry, I wish it was open access but is available through JSTOR or request through interlibrary loan). And a excellent book is Kate Eichhorn’s Archival Turn in Feminism. Can’t help but enjoy a book written by someone who reveres archivists. In other words, think outside the box. Also, you are not limited to archives publications. Write for disciplinary journals, library journals, digital humanities journals, government resources, or whatever falls within the scope of your interests.

Some general tips:

  • don’t let your profession define what you write
  • book reviews and blogs are a great place to start
  • write with a publication in mind instead of squeezing it into requirements
  • find a writing group

It was a great conversation and lots of great ideas came up, both about writing and topics of interest. I also keep thinking about what else we need to do to continue these conversations. Don’t forget, I welcome suggestions for topics. I thank all of you for reading this blog but I see it as only one way to share experiences. So let’s keep the conversations going in whatever ways we can!

Creating an Outline

As I mentioned last post, I am writing the third edition of AFS Reference and Access for Archives and Manuscripts. The first task was to create an outline. In general, I’ve always struggled with outlines. I like the idea – creating a coherent organization of content and research. In practice, it’s not my strength.

However, with this project it (so far) is working well. What helped tremendously is that I did not have to start from scratch. I began with the structure that Mary Jo Pugh used for the second edition. I knew I would not, nor should not, keep it exactly the same. My outline is definitely different, but using hers as a reference ensured that I did not miss any major topics.

Although I can’t share (sorry) the actual outline, it is organized into three major sections, chapters within each section, and topics within each chapter. When I reviewed it recently, I already see how I might reorganize a few parts, but I’m going to wait until I get to those chapters.

For the first time, I’m using an outline as guidance for writing. Especially, knowing exactly where to start when I sit down to write, as opposed to spending time thinking “hm, what should I write about today?” Granted, I’m not very far yet but psychologically, it gives me a good grounding. As I research and write, I have ideas not related to what I’m writing about. With the outline, it’s easy to look and identify where those ideas fit and make notes accordingly.

Lastly, it was a great way to create a schedule and deadlines. I can’t guarantee that I’ll meet them all (but am motivated to try!). Knowing that, for example, I plan to take one month to write a certain chapter, if I’m 2 weeks from the deadline but only have a few pages, I then know I need to either write more or refocus how I’m writing.

I know the outline will change and evolve as the project develops. I’m glad that I started this way. That’s not to say that creating an outline is the best for everyone or every project, but I’m grateful it was a requirement for this one.

The Battle Between Active and Passive Voice

One challenge with scholarly writing is to not write like we speak. It’s easy to do, and sometimes, like this blog, it is acceptable. Passive voice it is one of the most frequent issues I come across with article submissions. I, too, have experienced being corrected by my professors about my use of passive voice. Or: I, too, experienced professors correcting my use of passive voice.

A question posted to the Chicago Manual Q&A points to Purdue OWL and Language Log posts. I find this post particularly amusing. UIUC has a nice brief and clear explanation of different tenses. And UNC also has a good description. As Chicago notes, it’s not an all-or-nothing and some use is acceptable. As many point out, it’s not a grammar but a stylistic issue. That said, it makes for much tighter and clearer writing to use it only when necessary.

Once you notice it, it can be fairly easy (albeit time-consuming) to fix passive voice. Look for uses of was, were, has, have, are, is, was being, is being, has been, have been, paired with a verb. We speak using those words and phrases all the time. In conversation, that’s acceptable. In scholarly writing, it should be limited. Often, you can delete “has” or “have” without losing the meaning: “I have worked at Boise State University” to “I worked at Boise State University.” Uses of “was” or “were” can be changed to the past-tense of the verb: “I was thinking about starting a blog” to “I thought about starting a blog.” It can be hard to decide whether or not to use passive voice. My approach is to take each sentence and think whether there is a different and more concise option.

This takes practice. The more you correct it, the less you will do it later. Once you notice it, you will see it everywhere. That said, don’t let it impede your writing practices. If that’s how you write a draft and doing so helps your flow of writing, don’t stop as it can be corrected later. If possible, correct it prior to submitting for publication. Editors will be appreciative.

Peer-Review, Part 1 of Many

One can’t talk about journal publishing without talking about peer-review. When heard, spoken, or read, that term elicits many negative emotions in authors. Fear of rejection, anger at reviewers, frustration with the process, insecurity in reading feedback, to name a few. There’s no way to alleviate that, but there are ways to cope. The Onion recently had an article that captured it well.

It’s not easy to read criticism, but the reviewer’s critique is meant to help an author improve his or her writing. If you read it less as critical and more as assistance to strengthen an article, it’s a little easier. What can be especially frustrating is not knowing how a submission will be evaluated. As each journal has different submission guidelines, each also has a different evaluation process. American Archivist provides their rubric for everyone to look at. In reviewing the information about Provenance, it motivated me to add our evaluation questions. Most journals provide some guidelines but few offer details on the evaluation process. I cannot speak for other editors, but I believe the process should be helpful, not a hindrance to authors. The more guidance provided to authors, the better the submissions will be.

Few people start as publishable writers; it takes years of practice. Right before I defended my dissertation, my chair showed me his latest manuscript which was covered in red markings and comments. At the time, he’d been a professor and writer for 15 years. As he told me, all writers need feedback. Going through the dissertation wringer helped me take feedback as intended: to improve my writing. Two years after I finished my dissertation, I had two peer review articles published, one in Archivaria and one based on my dissertation in Reception. For the latter, one reviewer pointed out that I tended to put my topic sentences at the end of paragraphs instead of the beginning. It was a moment of clarity and great advice that I continue to use in everything I write. My own writing has been much improved not just from the feedback from my own submissions, but through reading reviewers’ reports for Provenance.

Writing is tough, and revising based in feedback can be tougher. To start, an author should read through the reviews and take several days to think through the points before starting any revisions. Some are easy fixes, but some take a lot of work. Try to think objectively and not take anything personally. That’s challenging, as any author puts much effort into writing and it can take many, many hours of labor. The ability to take a step back to think objectively and not personally is a beneficial skill in any publishing process. After a brief time, go through point by point and start revising. It’s important to remember that you are not required to incorporate all the suggestions, but you should offer an explanation to the editor if you don’t. Always keep in mind the critique is for your benefit.

I plan to have several posts about peer-review, and I welcome questions or suggestions of points to address.