revise research paper example

How to Revise and Edit a Research Paper

• Your introduction engages the reader and clearly presents a thesis that responds to your assignment.
• The body of your paper supports the thesis with laser-like focus.
• Your conclusion convinces your readers of the importance of what you wrote.

Revision often requires changing the structure of your work to achieve a more logical presentation, one that is more descriptive, or one that ensures you have met the parameters of your assignment. More than anything else, it requires that you check all the facts and quotations you used and ensure that you have cited them properly and have not plagiarized a writer.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code, check each part of your research paper.

The first step in the revising and editing process is to start reading your draft from the beginning and make sure that each part—the introduction, body, and conclusion—does the job it’s supposed to do. For each part of your draft, ask yourself the questions on the following checklist. If your answer to any question is “no,” make the revisions necessary to change your answer to “yes.”

Check Your Introduction:

• Does your introduction capture your readers’ attention?
• Does your introduction contain a thesis statement that clearly states the main idea of your paper?

Check the Body of Your Paper:

• Does every paragraph in the body of your paper support your thesis statement?
• Does every paragraph state a main idea in a topic sentence?
• Does every sentence in each paragraph support the main idea of the paragraph?
• Have you taken out any information that is irrelevant, or beside the point?
• Do your paragraphs provide enough support for the main idea of your paper as it appears in your thesis statement?
• In every paragraph, do you provide enough support for the main idea expressed in its topic sentence?
• Do your paragraphs flow in a logical order?
• Do the sentences in each paragraph flow in a logical order?
• Have you used transitions?

Check Your Conclusion:

• Does your conclusion sum up the main points in your paper?
• Does your conclusion help readers answer the question, “So what?”

Your paper is really shaping up now. But a truly excellent research paper has to do even more than get a yes answer to every question in the preceding checklists. It needs to be well written. In other words, it has to sound good and be free of errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Spell Check

If you’re writing your paper on a computer, of course you can use the spell-checker function. That part of your word processing program picks up most spelling errors. But it doesn’t catch all of them. For example, if you’ve typed the word though incorrectly by leaving out the letter h at the beginning, the word comes out as tough. Your spell checker does not catch that as a mistake because tough is a word. So whether you work on a computer or not, be sure to read through your paper—word for word—to correct any spelling errors. If you aren’t sure how to spell a word, look it up.

Check Grammar and Punctuation

A good knowledge of the rules of language helps you make sure your paper is free of grammar and punctuation errors. You can use the following lists to help you avoid common errors. However, if you have specific questions about the rules of grammar, usage, and mechanics, your language arts textbook explains all of the rules and offers further examples.

Avoid Repetition

If you find that in your paper you have used the same word over and over, replace the repeated word with another one that has a similar meaning. Too much repetition makes writing sound boring. Another kind of repetition to avoid is using the same type of sentence too many times in a row. This can make writing sound boring, too. Varying your sentences makes your writing livelier and more interesting to readers.

Proofread Your Research Paper

After revising and editing your draft, put it away for a day or two—if you have time, of course. Then look at it again. Mistakes that you might have missed pop out at you after you and your paper have had a little vacation from each other. At this point, do your final fixes, making sure everything is as good as you can make it. If you’ve written your paper on a computer, print it out for proofreading. Often, writers see mistakes on paper that they miss on a computer screen. After you proofread, you can type in your corrections.

Another way to catch mistakes and to find areas that still need improvement is to read your work aloud to yourself. Hearing the words in your paper is a particularly good way to call attention to problems such as repetition, improper use of pronouns, and mistakes in subject-verb agreement.

Another good idea is to ask someone else to read your paper and give you feedback. A pair of eyes besides your own can pick up details that you may miss. Your reader, whether a classmate or an adult, should not change your paper. He or she should only suggest additional changes and improvements, which you can make yourself.

Avoiding Plagiarism

Plagiarism, in its most basic definition, means representing other people’s work and ideas as your own. Turning in a research paper that you borrowed, or stole from another student or downloaded from the Internet constitutes plagiarism. So does copying portions of text directly from your sources or from other texts you encountered in your research. It is a serious offense that, in school, can result in a range of penalties—from failing an assignment, earning a black mark on your academic record, to even being expelled. In the workplace, it can result in the loss of your professional reputation and the respect of your colleagues. It can affect your ability to earn promotions or find another job.

Plagiarism is not always deliberate. It can happen inadvertently when students do not understand how to properly present others’ work within their own papers. Even when you go to great lengths to write a paper, plagiarism can occur if you fail to properly cite the words and ideas of others. Plagiarism can happen if:

• You borrow short phrases from your research sources but fail to cite the source.
• You paraphrase an idea from your research using your own words but you fail to cite the original author.
• You represent another students’ work, even a short passage from it, as your own.
• You turn in a paper that you previously submitted as an assignment for another class. (Yes! It is possible to plagiarize yourself.)

More often than not, plagiarism results from a writer’s failure  to properly paraphrase or summarize another’s work or to correctly cite quoted material. Therefore, it is important to understand how to avoid plagiarism and to incorporate strategies for avoiding it in your writing routine. Plagiarism is easy to avoid if you have properly documented your research and if you follow the guidelines of an editorial style book, such as those published by the Modern Language Association (MLA) or the American Psychological Association (APA), to properly cite the research sources you documented.

Choosing a Documentation Style

“Style” refers to the way you present information and write what you have to say. Style guides prescribe conventions for writing and documenting your sources. Numerous styles abound.The three main styles are:

• MLA (Modern Language Association) style: used by the vast majority of high schools, colleges, and in literature, linguistics, and the humanities programs.
• APA (American Psychological Association) style: widely used in the scientific community. Most of example research papers on this site use APA style
• Chicago Manual of Style: typically used in books, magazines, corporate publications, and other popular outlets.

Styles aim to bring consistency to the way in which information is presented.They are designed to promote intellectual integrity and protect writers against plagiarism by specifying the ways in which information should be reported,quoted, paraphrased, and summarized.

In the vast majority of cases, students producing research papers will follow MLA style, although APA style is also used in the academic community.MLA style is widely used among high schools and in undergraduate courses at the college and university level. Straightforward and easy to master, MLA style was developed more than 50 years ago and is also widely used by collegiate presses and scholarly publications.

Upper-level and graduate-level science courses, and other disciplines that present findings in case studies, whitepapers, and reports, typically follow APA style. Your selection of style, however, should always be based upon what your teacher or professor assigns.

Learning the Basics

we review some of the basics of each style and provide a sample paper to illustrate basic MLA format.Students and serious researchers are advised to refer to the style guide of the association whose style they will follow.

Volumes have been published on the rules and recommendations of both styles. The MLA publishes the widely used  MLA Handbook for Writers of Research , as well as the  MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing  which offers more detailed guidance for graduate theses, dissertations, and papers to be published in journals. The APA offers a variety of style guides, including  Mastering APA Style and the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , as well as extensive information online, including a narrated tutorial, at  www.apastyle.org .

Numerous online writing labs (OWLs) sponsored by university writing programs, such as the ones below, also provide extensive resources to help you brainstorm, outline, and write papers, as well as avoid plagiarism:

• Purdue University:  https://owl.english.purdue.edu/
• University of Wisconsin:  http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Documentation.html
• University of North Carolina:  http://writingcenter.unc.edu/

Basic Formatting Guidelines

• Never submit a handwritten paper.
• Papers should be typewritten on plain white 8 1⁄2 x 11-inch paper.
• Use 1-inch margins on all sides.
• Double-space the paper.
• Text should be justified flush left, leaving the right-hand margin ragged.
• Create a header to run consecutively on all pages, flush right, one-half inch from the top of the page.
• Use quotation marks around the titles of articles and underline or italicize the titles of books and other long works.
• Avoid using all caps, underlining, or italics for emphasis.

Other formatting considerations are particular to the style you choose.

MLA Style Formatting Basics

• Include your name, your instructor’s name, the name of the course, and the date in the top left corner of the first page.
• Use a 12-point font that will be easy to read, such as Times New Roman or Arial.
• Use 1-inch margins for all sides of the paper—top and bottom, right and left.
• Create a header with your last name and the page number to appear in the upper right-hand corner of all other pages that follow the first page.
• Avoid separate title pages. Instead insert one blank line (no more) beneath the date and center the title.
• Never add blank lines or extra white space to the paper. Your teacher will suspect you are wasting space to fill a page requirement.
• Type the title in title case, capitalizing the initial letter of keywords.
• Center the title two lines under the header and just above the first line of text on the first page.
• Insert one blank line (no more) beneath the title and begin writing.Do not include extra white space above or below the title.
• Do not boldface or italicize the title and do not use special fonts.The title should be the same size and typeface as the rest of the paper.
• Justify your text flush left.
• Indent quoted excerpts by five spaces on the left and right-hand sides of the quoted text.
• Double space the entire essay including header information, your works cited page, and quoted excerpts.
• Be sure your works cited entries are formatted in the same style and size text as your paper.This is something you should especially watch if you used a citation generator; most produce the citation in their own fonts.
• Indent paragraphs five spaces, or 1⁄2 inch; do not add extra white space between paragraphs.
• Use one space after punctuation.

APA Style Formatting Basics

APA style was developed by social and behavioral scientists to govern the structure and presentation of scientific writing. Unlike MLA style, APA style calls for a separate title page and unique sections within the paper.The sections include:

• The title page
• An abstract summarizing the paper
• An introduction
• A description of the scientific methodology the researcher used
• A summary of the results
• A discussion of the issues

The references page is equivalent to the MLA’s works cited page. It is a list of the sources cited within the paper. As in MLA style, the referenced works should be alphabetized by author’s last name, listed separately, and formatted with hanging indents. Unlike MLA style, APA style makes liberal use of headings and uses five different levels of headings,each with unique formatting requirements. Check the APA Web site or style guide for details.When using APA style, remember to:

• Use a serif typeface, such as Times New Roman, for the text.
• Use a sans serif typeface, such as Arial, for headings.
• Create separate pages for the title page, abstract, the beginning of the text, references, and each appendix, figure, illustration, or table you use in the paper.
• Use captions with charts, tables, figures, illustrations, and other graphics.

Using Quotations/Citations

Any direct quotations or specific information you use from your sources must be attributed to your source, either by mentioning the author in the text or through an in-text citation. Quotation marks must appear around any words or phrases that appear exactly as they did in the original document. If you mention the author to introduce the quotation, you will need to follow it with a page citation to ensure that you avoid plagiarism, as shown in the example below:

Anne-Marie Minnow explained the importance of the Hadron supercollider as “an innovation that will advance scientific understanding by light-years.” (127)

If you do not include the author’s name in your text, you will need to incorporate the author’s last name in front of the page number in the citation, as shown in the example below:

The Hadron supercollider promises to be “an innovation that will advance scientific understanding by light-years.” (Minnow 127)

Note that the first example is a narrative reference in which the writer mentions the full name of the author in order to introduce, or set up, the quotation. In the second example, the citation follows the quotation to identify who the author is. In both cases, it is clear the words being quoted belong to Minnow and, in addition to using in-text citations like those shown above, you will need to cite the source on your works cited page.

Paraphrasing and Summarizing

Paraphrasing and summarizing are ways of discussing the work and ideas of others without quoting them directly. We summarize a discussion or reading to make it more succinct so that it can fit more neatly into our own discussion.We paraphrase a discussion in order to make it clearer or more relevant to our thesis and our audience. For all practical purposes, summary and paraphrase mean the same thing—using your own words to represent another’s ideas. It is equally as important to cite authors whose ideas you summarize or paraphrase as it is to cite those you quote.

Tips for Summarizing and Paraphrasing

• Whenever you summarize or paraphrase, write your understanding of the text you are summarizing. Avoid looking at the text as you do.This will help ensure that you do not inadvertently borrow the writer’s phrases. When you have finished, compare what you have written to the author’s words and correct any inaccuracies, again using your own words. If you used significant words or phrases from the original text, be sure to enclose them in quotation marks.
• As you incorporate your summaries and paraphrases into your paper, cite them as carefully as you cite quoted material.
• Be especially cautious when using word processing tools like Microsoft Word’s AutoSummarize. AutoSummarize shortens a page of text, highlighting key points and phrases that can be inserted into a research paper. Instructors are aware of these features, and many do not consider them legitimate. It is arguable, after all, whether this is you or the word processor doing the job. If you do use this feature, be sure that you edit the autosummary to quote the words and phrases that the word processor extracted from the original and be sure that you cite the source.
• Whenever you summarize or paraphrase, begin with a signal phrase to introduce the material. Be sure to cite the material as you would cite a quotation.

Now we came to the final part in writing.

Back to  How To Write A Research Paper .

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Steps for Revising Your Paper

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

When you have plenty of time to revise, use the time to work on your paper and to take breaks from writing. If you can forget about your draft for a day or two, you may return to it with a fresh outlook. During the revising process, put your writing aside at least twice—once during the first part of the process, when you are reorganizing your work, and once during the second part, when you are polishing and paying attention to details.

Use the following questions to evaluate your drafts. You can use your responses to revise your papers by reorganizing them to make your best points stand out, by adding needed information, by eliminating irrelevant information, and by clarifying sections or sentences.

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?

Identify your readers and your purpose.

What are you trying to do in the paper? In other words, are you trying to argue with the reading, to analyze the reading, to evaluate the reading, to apply the reading to another situation, or to accomplish another goal?

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?

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.

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.

Visit the Purdue OWL's vidcast on cutting during the revision phase for more help with this task.

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.

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?

Revising Drafts

Rewriting is the essence of writing well—where the game is won or lost. —William Zinsser

What this handout is about

This handout will motivate you to revise your drafts and give you strategies to revise effectively.

What does it mean to revise?

Revision literally means to “see again,” to look at something from a fresh, critical perspective. It is an ongoing process of rethinking the paper: reconsidering your arguments, reviewing your evidence, refining your purpose, reorganizing your presentation, reviving stale prose.

But I thought revision was just fixing the commas and spelling

Nope. That’s called proofreading. It’s an important step before turning your paper in, but if your ideas are predictable, your thesis is weak, and your organization is a mess, then proofreading will just be putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. When you finish revising, that’s the time to proofread. For more information on the subject, see our handout on proofreading .

How about if I just reword things: look for better words, avoid repetition, etc.? Is that revision?

Well, that’s a part of revision called editing. It’s another important final step in polishing your work. But if you haven’t thought through your ideas, then rephrasing them won’t make any difference.

Why is revision important?

Writing is a process of discovery, and you don’t always produce your best stuff when you first get started. So revision is a chance for you to look critically at what you have written to see:

• if it’s really worth saying,
• if it says what you wanted to say, and
• if a reader will understand what you’re saying.

The process

What steps should i use when i begin to revise.

Here are several things to do. But don’t try them all at one time. Instead, focus on two or three main areas during each revision session:

• Wait awhile after you’ve finished a draft before looking at it again. The Roman poet Horace thought one should wait nine years, but that’s a bit much. A day—a few hours even—will work. When you do return to the draft, be honest with yourself, and don’t be lazy. Ask yourself what you really think about the paper.
• As The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers puts it, “THINK BIG, don’t tinker” (61). At this stage, you should be concerned with the large issues in the paper, not the commas.
• Check the focus of the paper: Is it appropriate to the assignment? Is the topic too big or too narrow? Do you stay on track through the entire paper?
• Think honestly about your thesis: Do you still agree with it? Should it be modified in light of something you discovered as you wrote the paper? Does it make a sophisticated, provocative point, or does it just say what anyone could say if given the same topic? Does your thesis generalize instead of taking a specific position? Should it be changed altogether? For more information visit our handout on thesis statements .
• Think about your purpose in writing: Does your introduction state clearly what you intend to do? Will your aims be clear to your readers?

What are some other steps I should consider in later stages of the revision process?

• Examine the balance within your paper: Are some parts out of proportion with others? Do you spend too much time on one trivial point and neglect a more important point? Do you give lots of detail early on and then let your points get thinner by the end?
• Check that you have kept your promises to your readers: Does your paper follow through on what the thesis promises? Do you support all the claims in your thesis? Are the tone and formality of the language appropriate for your audience?
• Check the organization: Does your paper follow a pattern that makes sense? Do the transitions move your readers smoothly from one point to the next? Do the topic sentences of each paragraph appropriately introduce what that paragraph is about? Would your paper work better if you moved some things around? For more information visit our handout on reorganizing drafts.
• Check your information: Are all your facts accurate? Are any of your statements misleading? Have you provided enough detail to satisfy readers’ curiosity? Have you cited all your information appropriately?
• Check your conclusion: Does the last paragraph tie the paper together smoothly and end on a stimulating note, or does the paper just die a slow, redundant, lame, or abrupt death?

Whoa! I thought I could just revise in a few minutes

Sorry. You may want to start working on your next paper early so that you have plenty of time for revising. That way you can give yourself some time to come back to look at what you’ve written with a fresh pair of eyes. It’s amazing how something that sounded brilliant the moment you wrote it can prove to be less-than-brilliant when you give it a chance to incubate.

But I don’t want to rewrite my whole paper!

Revision doesn’t necessarily mean rewriting the whole paper. Sometimes it means revising the thesis to match what you’ve discovered while writing. Sometimes it means coming up with stronger arguments to defend your position, or coming up with more vivid examples to illustrate your points. Sometimes it means shifting the order of your paper to help the reader follow your argument, or to change the emphasis of your points. Sometimes it means adding or deleting material for balance or emphasis. And then, sadly, sometimes revision does mean trashing your first draft and starting from scratch. Better that than having the teacher trash your final paper.

But I work so hard on what I write that I can’t afford to throw any of it away

If you want to be a polished writer, then you will eventually find out that you can’t afford NOT to throw stuff away. As writers, we often produce lots of material that needs to be tossed. The idea or metaphor or paragraph that I think is most wonderful and brilliant is often the very thing that confuses my reader or ruins the tone of my piece or interrupts the flow of my argument.Writers must be willing to sacrifice their favorite bits of writing for the good of the piece as a whole. In order to trim things down, though, you first have to have plenty of material on the page. One trick is not to hinder yourself while you are composing the first draft because the more you produce, the more you will have to work with when cutting time comes.

But sometimes I revise as I go

That’s OK. Since writing is a circular process, you don’t do everything in some specific order. Sometimes you write something and then tinker with it before moving on. But be warned: there are two potential problems with revising as you go. One is that if you revise only as you go along, you never get to think of the big picture. The key is still to give yourself enough time to look at the essay as a whole once you’ve finished. Another danger to revising as you go is that you may short-circuit your creativity. If you spend too much time tinkering with what is on the page, you may lose some of what hasn’t yet made it to the page. Here’s a tip: Don’t proofread as you go. You may waste time correcting the commas in a sentence that may end up being cut anyway.

How do I go about the process of revising? Any tips?

• Work from a printed copy; it’s easier on the eyes. Also, problems that seem invisible on the screen somehow tend to show up better on paper.
• Another tip is to read the paper out loud. That’s one way to see how well things flow.
• Remember all those questions listed above? Don’t try to tackle all of them in one draft. Pick a few “agendas” for each draft so that you won’t go mad trying to see, all at once, if you’ve done everything.
• Ask lots of questions and don’t flinch from answering them truthfully. For example, ask if there are opposing viewpoints that you haven’t considered yet.

Whenever I revise, I just make things worse. I do my best work without revising

That’s a common misconception that sometimes arises from fear, sometimes from laziness. The truth is, though, that except for those rare moments of inspiration or genius when the perfect ideas expressed in the perfect words in the perfect order flow gracefully and effortlessly from the mind, all experienced writers revise their work. I wrote six drafts of this handout. Hemingway rewrote the last page of A Farewell to Arms thirty-nine times. If you’re still not convinced, re-read some of your old papers. How do they sound now? What would you revise if you had a chance?

What can get in the way of good revision strategies?

Don’t fall in love with what you have written. If you do, you will be hesitant to change it even if you know it’s not great. Start out with a working thesis, and don’t act like you’re married to it. Instead, act like you’re dating it, seeing if you’re compatible, finding out what it’s like from day to day. If a better thesis comes along, let go of the old one. Also, don’t think of revision as just rewording. It is a chance to look at the entire paper, not just isolated words and sentences.

What happens if I find that I no longer agree with my own point?

If you take revision seriously, sometimes the process will lead you to questions you cannot answer, objections or exceptions to your thesis, cases that don’t fit, loose ends or contradictions that just won’t go away. If this happens (and it will if you think long enough), then you have several choices. You could choose to ignore the loose ends and hope your reader doesn’t notice them, but that’s risky. You could change your thesis completely to fit your new understanding of the issue, or you could adjust your thesis slightly to accommodate the new ideas. Or you could simply acknowledge the contradictions and show why your main point still holds up in spite of them. Most readers know there are no easy answers, so they may be annoyed if you give them a thesis and try to claim that it is always true with no exceptions no matter what.

How do I get really good at revising?

The same way you get really good at golf, piano, or a video game—do it often. Take revision seriously, be disciplined, and set high standards for yourself. Here are three more tips:

• The more you produce, the more you can cut.
• The more you can imagine yourself as a reader looking at this for the first time, the easier it will be to spot potential problems.
• The more you demand of yourself in terms of clarity and elegance, the more clear and elegant your writing will be.

How do I revise at the sentence level?

Read your paper out loud, sentence by sentence, and follow Peter Elbow’s advice: “Look for places where you stumble or get lost in the middle of a sentence. These are obvious awkwardness’s that need fixing. Look for places where you get distracted or even bored—where you cannot concentrate. These are places where you probably lost focus or concentration in your writing. Cut through the extra words or vagueness or digression; get back to the energy. Listen even for the tiniest jerk or stumble in your reading, the tiniest lessening of your energy or focus or concentration as you say the words . . . A sentence should be alive” (Writing with Power 135).

Practical advice for ensuring that your sentences are alive:

• Use forceful verbs—replace long verb phrases with a more specific verb. For example, replace “She argues for the importance of the idea” with “She defends the idea.”
• Look for places where you’ve used the same word or phrase twice or more in consecutive sentences and look for alternative ways to say the same thing OR for ways to combine the two sentences.
• Cut as many prepositional phrases as you can without losing your meaning. For instance, the following sentence, “There are several examples of the issue of integrity in Huck Finn,” would be much better this way, “Huck Finn repeatedly addresses the issue of integrity.”
• Check your sentence variety. If more than two sentences in a row start the same way (with a subject followed by a verb, for example), then try using a different sentence pattern.
• Aim for precision in word choice. Don’t settle for the best word you can think of at the moment—use a thesaurus (along with a dictionary) to search for the word that says exactly what you want to say.
• Look for sentences that start with “It is” or “There are” and see if you can revise them to be more active and engaging.
• For more information, please visit our handouts on word choice and style .

How can technology help?

Need some help revising? Take advantage of the revision and versioning features available in modern word processors.

Track your changes. Most word processors and writing tools include a feature that allows you to keep your changes visible until you’re ready to accept them. Using “Track Changes” mode in Word or “Suggesting” mode in Google Docs, for example, allows you to make changes without committing to them.

Compare drafts. Tools that allow you to compare multiple drafts give you the chance to visually track changes over time. Try “File History” or “Compare Documents” modes in Google Doc, Word, and Scrivener to retrieve old drafts, identify changes you’ve made over time, or help you keep a bigger picture in mind as you revise.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Elbow, Peter. 1998. Writing With Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process . New York: Oxford University Press.

Lanham, Richard A. 2006. Revising Prose , 5th ed. New York: Pearson Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Ruszkiewicz, John J., Christy Friend, Daniel Seward, and Maxine Hairston. 2010. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers , 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Zinsser, William. 2001. On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction , 6th ed. New York: Quill.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

How I revise my journal papers

Along with writing your first journal paper , doing a substantial revision to your manuscript upon receiving the reviewers’ comments is one often-cited painful moment of any doctoral process. This complex act of scientific communication involves balancing diplomacy with integrity, creativity and systematicity. In this post, I go over the concrete (and, sometimes, counter-intuitive) steps I follow to revise my journal papers upon receiving peer-review critiques, as well as some basic principles to increase your chances of success and avoid unnecessary suffering.

If you’ve been for some time into your PhD, probably you know the feeling: after what seemed like an eternity of writing, rewriting, getting feedback from your co-authors, rewriting again, dealing with the unexpectedly complicated formatting issues and a surprisingly medieval submission system, you finally submitted your paper to a good journal. Check. Hurray. Then, you just got on with your life: doing the next study, analyzing the next batch of data, reading and understanding a new corpus of literature that seems relevant… Several months later, when you had already forgotten about the paper, an email arrives: major revision. Or, even worse, reject and resubmit.

That big task you had so confidently checked (rather, that host of smaller tasks or milestones you had already passed), suddenly un-checks itself and bites back. You feel your heart sink. You question the whole idea of ever finishing this PhD.

I have experienced this myself many, many times 1 . Lately, I have been seeing most of the PhD students around me going through this experience for the first time, and how hard it is psychologically. This post is just a way of saying “it’s OK to feel like that – everybody does”… but also that “this too shall pass”, and that publication is actually closer than it was when you had just submitted (even if it does not feel so now). If the response was not an outright reject, probably the reviewers saw value in the proposal. Manuscript revision is an essential part of the research process, of making our ideas and our papers better. And it works. Especially if you follow some basic principles and procedures, and put some time into it. Now, take some time familiarize yourself with the peer review process, if nobody has ever explained it to you in detail 2 , and read on.

My process for revising journal papers

The experience of getting (often detailed and exhaustive) critiques for one’s work, and having to answer to them and make changes in a cherished artifact of ours, feels rather unnatural for most people. I know it was weird for me the first time. After doing it a few times, however, you get the hang of it. Below I describe, step-by-step, what I do these days once I get comments with major revisions (or rejections) from a journal. Naturally, the process and principles I mention are in a sense very similar to the ones I have for writing papers , just with this particular situation in mind 3 :

• If you decide to go for a different journal, do not just resubmit the same original manuscript again! Still, consider the comments and make changes… chances are, the same reviewers can get the paper again (as there is a limited number of experts in your particular paper’s keywords), and they will not be happy to see that you ignored all the effort they put into giving you advice.
• If you decide to go ahead and resubmit the paper in the same journal, be sure to set aside several good chunks of time to work on this revision throughout the next weeks/months until the deadline you and your co-authors set 2 . Really, block the time in your calendar already . Revising is often time-consuming and we tend to underestimate the time it takes. Then, continue to step #2.
• Set yourself up for the revision . Read again the practical guidelines for revision that often come along with the journal’s response email you received (if that’s not the case, check the journal’s submission system, and see what format and options they allow for your resubmission). It should specify quite clearly how the response and the new manuscript should be formatted (e.g., whether they need a clean version of the new manuscript and another one highlighting the changes, etc.). Unless something else is said, the editors will expect from you a letter of response which details the changes done in the manuscript to address the reviewer comments (this letter is often forwarded directly to reviewers upon resubmission) 2 . Hence, start a new document for this letter with some boilerplate text, and copy after it, verbatim , the comments received from the reviewers, as well as the meta-reviews/comments from the editors themselves (you can find real examples from past papers of mine here and here , using either a narrative or tabular format for the reviewer comments). At this point, probably it is a good idea to label each comment clearly (e.g., “R1.1” for Reviewer 1’s first comment) for easier cross-reference. You can also include a prioritization tag, for internal use among you and your co-authors, stating whether each of the comments is voiced as a major criticism by the reviewers, or a mere suggestion for improvement (this will help you later to calibrate the effort and exhaustiveness you need in your responses and changes to each of them 4 , 2 ).
• Outline the response and changes strategy in the answers document 5 . The key word here is strategy . Do not (I repeat, do not ) start making changes right away in the manuscript. Take the answers letter/document you just created and, for every editor and reviewer comment, write down two bullet points: a) what would be the gist of your answer to them (e.g., “we agree”, or “we used the definition by …, which needs to be included”); and b) in general terms, what changes would be needed in the manuscript to address the comment (e.g., “add definition to introduction”). Don’t write a lot, but think a lot. Of course, as you go down the different comments, be attentive to synergies or contradictions between reviewer comments (can one same change address two of the comments? how can you address apparently contradictory comments?). Some authors suggest that, rather than going from top to bottom of the document, you may start with those comments you agree with the least, or those that are conflicting with another reviewer’s 4 . When devising these answers and changes, keep a clear, calm head, and focus on what can be the legitimate concern behind the comment (however hurting the form of saying it was). As one friend of mine often says, you need to look through the comments, not merely look at them 7 . How can you make your paper stronger or better, with that concern in mind? 2 Once you have gist-answer and gist-changes for each and every comment, send this “answer/change strategy” document and the original manuscript, to your co-authors for feedback : do they agree? have you misinterpreted a comment? are there simpler solutions to address the comment? are your proposed changes likely to be considered insufficient? Your team should be clear on what needs to be done, before the messy work of revision starts.
• Iterate on the answers/changes strategy . As you and your co-authors progressively agree on the general approach to address comments, start adding a bit more flesh to the responses (what do you understand the comment means? to what exactly will you agree?) and to the changes you propose to do in the manuscript (e.g., write snippets of the new text to be changed/added, especially for the more tricky parts of it; find and add new references needed, etc.). But do this fleshing out on the answers document, not the manuscript (yet) . There will probably be still interactions among comments, new ideas that that can come up as you read newer studies in relation to what was criticized, and it can be hard to keep track of all the changes in two documents at the same time. Needless to say, this step involves several back-and-forth exchanges with your co-authors , as they suggest specific strategies, phrasing or add details to what should go into the changes.
• Change the manuscript . Once the changes strategy (and maybe some particular snippets of new text) are clear and agreed, you can start doing changes in the manuscript itself . Sometimes, I do a first pass just locating the parts of the text that need changes, and I add just a comment there about what I need to do (e.g., “TODO: mention literature about X and improve argument line to highlight Y”). Then, I just go solving those comments by making changes in the text (remember to activate your word processor’s “track changes” or “suggesting” functionality!). Once you finish, if you have access to a professional proofreader (or someone more proficient in the English language than yourself), it is recommended that they give it a pass looking more at the flow and clarity of the text 5 .
• Finalize the answers document . Once you have resolved all the edits that were needed in the manuscript, come back to the answers document (which should be quite good already), and add the final layers of polish to it: check that the answers to reviewer comments are clear and polite (see the principles below), add concrete quotations from the manuscript to illustrate some of the changes done, add concrete locators and references so that the reviewers can find where the changes are located in the manuscript (e.g., “we have changed the arguments as per the reviewer suggestion, see section 2, 2nd paragraph/page 3”). You can see what I mean from the examples here and here . Then, of course, send both the manuscript and the answers document to your co-authors , for a final round of feedback.
• Final checks . Once everyone is happy with the new version of the paper, it is time to prepare the resubmission: check again the concrete guidelines for revision given by the journal, as well as the general formatting guidelines of the journal. Check out the journal’s online submission system, to see if you have all the files and information that you need for resubmission. At this point, it is common that the manuscript has grown to address the questions and comments from reviewers. If now the paper exceeds the expected length, include that fact in the letter to the editors, and be open to work on reducing it if the editors think that length is more important than what you think is fully addressing the reviewer concerns (that varies a lot from journal to journal). Any other critical issues or difficulties that you may have encountered while editing (e.g., addressing reviewer comments that go in opposite directions), you can also mention in that “letter” that opens the answers document. And then, just…

This process may seem a bit complicated, if you thought that revising a paper is just going to the document and making some changes. But, believe me, being systematic during the revision process is even more critical than when writing the paper. And that’s what research is all about, really. Being systematic.

Some principles to keep in mind while revising

In the same way that I gave my 10 Commandments of writing scientific papers , so that you know why the writing process is done the way it is (and to help you step out of the process and improvise with confidence, if necessary), here I also would like to give you a few basic principles to keep in mind while revising your journal papers:

• Be aware of your emotions . For a career in which one is supposed to put rationality and logic first, research is surprisingly emotional, as the effort we put into our work and ideas, makes us identify with them. Revising one’s own journal papers is maybe one of the most emotional parts of it. Hence, when reading the reviews and writing your responses, be aware of your emotions, and avoid situations that can trip you up 4 . If you are feeling enraged by the reviews (especially in the moment of their arrival), maybe it is a good idea to calm down, even wait for a few days, before re-assessing what was meant, what valid points may be hiding under those remarks, and going on with the revision 2 .
• How did I contribute to the problem? Related to the previous point, sometimes reviewers are wrong, sometimes they read in a hurry and overlook things that are actually written there. However, these “wrong remarks” also pose opportunities to make the paper better. Think about your future readers – chances are they will also be in a hurry, and they may also overlook what this reviewer passed over, or did not understand. Ask yourself if there are better ways to convey that idea, or to bring it to the forefront more (either through emphasizing, or repeating elsewhere, or using different, less ambiguous vocabulary). Since you cannot change their lack of attention, work on what you can control: the text.
• Do not be discouraged . One of the first emotions that usually pops up during this process of revision is dispair: you see a document in which a person (supposedly an expert in your field) is giving you a dozen reasons why your paper is bad 8 . It is normal to feel that your work is shit, and that you’re never going to finish this review, or publish this paper, or finish the PhD. But it’s not about you or your work – it’s just that researchers tend to be systematic people! (see #7 below). Reframe it as a learning, an improvement process 4 : you are making the paper better, more understandable for others, making your knowledge easier for fellow researchers to digest and build upon. If you got a “major revision”, cheer up! In my experience, those papers have a high chance of finally being accepted, if the authors put in the work (and follow these principles) 4 .
• Be polite and use evidence 9 . When you are answering to a reviewer, however lousy you think their review was, think about this: this is a real human being, fallible, but also generous enough to spend some time trying to understand and (hopefully) trying to help you make your paper better… and they are doing this for free , on top of an already busy schedule. Hence, treat them with respect, and think of them rather as consultants, not adversaries 4 . A brief “thank you” here and there will not hurt either 2 . If, in the end, you have to disagree with them, do it without being disagree able : just point to the evidence that supports your position, while acknowledging that the other person may have understood otherwise.
• Collaborate : use your co-author team extensively during the whole process, to double-check your interpretations and strategies. Chances are that they have done this process quite a few times already, and they may know better what works, or some other tricks of the trade… if you give them the opportunity to show you. You can also contact the editor, even before the resubmission, if there are problems that make a good, exhaustive revision unfeasible (e.g., reviewers having non-compatible views of what the paper should look like, etc.).
• Iterate, iterate, iterate… but do not touch the manuscript until later . This one is very unpopular, and a bit counter-intuitive. Why iterate? what one really desires is to finish this whole business, be done with it! However, as I do for writing the papers themselves , I firmly believe in the power of iteration while revising. We never get the approach, the idea, the argument, right on the first try. This is also why I advice to not touch the manuscript at the beginning: in this messy, iterative process, you are bound to put some things in the manuscript and forget to put them in the answers document, or vice versa. This initial strategizing will also help you detect and exploit synergies and commonalities between different reviewer comments. You may have the impression that the revision is stuck because you have not even touched the manuscript but, in my experience, you will spend less time overall if you wait and edit the manuscript once the answers and editing strategy are clear. For one, you will not need to delete stuff you wrote as often! (which is always painful)
• Be systematic, be exhaustive 4 . This capability to be systematic, to exhaustively look at every issue in your work, is one of the key researcher skills or attitudes, which we learn during the PhD. Once we address all the reviewer comments, we just need to show the editor and the reviewers all the work we’ve done 5 . This includes clearly labeling every comment, and cross-referencing them when needed, explaining what changes have been done in response to each comment, and where exactly to find them. This also involves looking for recent related literature that may have come out since the paper submission, and adding it where needed (some of it may actually help respond to the reviewers’ comments!). The only exception to this exhaustiveness may be the listing of every minute change that you probably had to do to make the whole paper flow and read well again, after all the changes; maybe just a couple of examples of this would suffice. The answers document need not be long just for length’s sake!
• Keep your integrity . By integrity, I don’t mean what is often found in the arts, the artist’s integrity that says “this is my work, and it should not be defiled by other people’s opinions!”. I mean the researcher’s integrity to find knowledge ethically and communicate it clearly. By following all the principles above, one can fall for the temptation to just stop all critical thinking and just do what the reviewers ask, word-by-word, even if it is clearly not the right thing to do. Rather, a researcher says “this is the evidence, this is the knowledge we got – let me explain it as best as we can, especially since people seem to misinterpret it in this or that way”. If you have to disagree with the reviewers, do so. Politely. Argue why you think it will not make the paper better (hopefully, using criteria other than just aesthetical taste), explain what is the intention you understood is behind their comment, and which way of addressing it you think is better than the one proposed by them.

Steps and principles I follow to revise journal papers

In the figure above you can see a summary of these steps and principles journal paper revision. If those are too many or too hard to remember, don’t worry. I hope at least you will take this away from the post: Revising is a learning process, but it is not about you personally – it’s the opportunity to craft a better vessel for your ideas.

Happy revising, and take care.

Do you also have tips or tricks about how to revise journal papers? What aspect of it you find most challenging? Let us know in the comments section below!

Header photo by nicmcphee .

I have never had a journal paper accepted without at least a round of major revisions, I think – and I have 14 of them as a first author (meaning, I was feeling the full emotional blow from those initial quasi-rejections). Plus, all the other papers I co-authored, which also were not fun to receive revisions about. ↩︎

LaPlaca, P., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2018). How to revise, and revise really well, for premier academic journals. Industrial Marketing Management , 72 , 174–180. ↩︎

Disclaimer: this process represents what I have found works for me, in my field of research (educational technology) and other adjacent fields that I have certain experience with (technology, education, psychology). Yet, I have found similar advice in the literature about this topic (see the footnotes). In any case, as they say, “your mileage may vary” . Take especial care to read the concrete instructions from the editors about how to handle/format the response to the reviews (those will take always precedence). Probably it is also a good idea to check with your supervisors/co-authors whether this kind of process would work for them. ↩︎

Provenzale, J. M. (2010). Revising a manuscript: Ten principles to guide success for publication. American Journal of Roentgenology , 195 (6), W382–W387. ↩︎

Pierson, C. A. (2016). The four R’s of revising and resubmitting a manuscript. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners , 28 (8), 408–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12399 ↩︎

Altman, Y., & Baruch, Y. (2008). Strategies for revising and resubmitting papers to refereed journals. British Journal of Management , 19 (1), 89–101. ↩︎

See Sharma, K., Alavi, H. S., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2017). Looking THROUGH versus looking AT: A strong concept in technology enhanced learning. European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning , 238–253. ↩︎

Or much more than a dozen. One study in a particular field found an average of 20 comments in each review they screened – see Law, R. (2008). Revising Publishable Journal Manuscripts. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism , 8 (4), 77–85. ↩︎

Williams, H. C. (2004). How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology , 51 (1), 79–83. ↩︎

• Communication

Luis P. Prieto

Luis P. is a Ramón y Cajal research fellow at the University of Valladolid (Spain), investigating learning technologies, especially learning analytics. He is also an avid learner about doctoral education and supervision, and he's the main author at the A Happy PhD blog.

Google Scholar profile

BibGuru Blog

Be more productive in school

• Citation Styles

Tips for revising a research paper

You’ve finished writing your research paper and you’re ready to revise, but where do you start? This post offers six tips for ensuring that your revision process goes smoothly.

1. Step away from your paper

It’s always best to take a break between writing your research paper and revising it. This enables you to approach your revision with fresh eyes. You’ll catch more errors when you’ve had time to step away from the paper.

2. Read your paper aloud

Reading your paper aloud, either to yourself or to someone else, is one of the best ways to check for major stylistic and structural issues. If you stumble over a sentence (or your audience looks confused), then you likely need to restructure or rephrase a sentence or paragraph.

3. Cut your paper up

To ensure that you’ve fully argued what you set out to prove in your thesis, try cutting your paper up into paragraphs or sections. Lay out the sections on a large table and then read through your paper, pausing to check that claims are backed up by adequate evidence and analysis and that you’ve signposted the various steps of your argument.

4. Ask a friend or classmate to read your paper

Many writing classes include peer review workshops during which you read another classmate’s paper. Even if you aren’t able to take part in a more formal peer review, you can ask a friend, classmate, or family member to read over your paper. Alternately, you can ask someone to read your paper aloud to you.

5. Know the difference between revising and proofreading

Revising and proofreading are not the same. Revision refers to substantive changes in the structure and argumentation of a research paper, while proofreading means checking a paper for surface-level mistakes in spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

It’s important to understand the difference between these two approaches. You will want to proofread your paper after you revise it and before you turn it in.

6. Check your citations

As part of the revision process, you should double-check your citations and bibliography. Have you remembered to cite all borrowed material ? Do your citations follow the correct style for the assignment?

If you haven’t compiled your final list of sources, you can use BibGuru's citation generator to create a bibliography, as well as in-text citations that you can copy to your document. Remember to consult your assignment guidelines, or your instructor, to find out what citation style is required for your research paper.

Frequently Asked Questions about revising a research paper

There are multiple methods that you can use to revise your research paper, including reading the paper aloud or asking a classmate to read it. No matter what method you decide on, make sure you take a break between writing and revision.

Revision is an essential step in the process of writing a research paper. It helps you correct mistakes in the overall structure and argumentation of your paper.

Revision often includes checking:

• the strength of your thesis (did you actually prove it?)
• overall organization (transitions, paragraph structure, etc.)
• evidence and analysis (do you have enough?)
• citations and bibliography

Revision refers to substantive changes in the structure and argumentation of a research paper, while proofreading means checking a paper for surface-level mistakes in spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Like other parts of the research and writing process, your revision skills will improve with practice. Make an effort to always include dedicated time for revision, no matter what you’re writing.

Make your life easier with our productivity and writing resources.

For students and teachers.

• Library Home
• Research Guides

Writing a Research Paper

• Revise, Review, Refine

Library Research Guide

• Choose Your Topic
• Evaluate Sources
• Organize Your Information
• Draft Your Paper

How Will This Help Me?

Revising, reviewing, and refining will help you:

• Meet assignment requirements
• Ensure the paper is coherent
• Avoid preventable errors

K-State Writing Center

Reflect on Levels of Revision

Every professor for whom you write a paper will have his or her own advice on revision. One helpful way of thinking about revision comes from A Community of Writers by Peter Elbow and Pat Belanoff.

They use these phrases to talk about three levels at which you can alter a piece of writing:

• Change the bones: Make very significant changes to content and ideas.
• Change the muscles: Rearrange, add ideas, or delete ideas that don't fit as well.
• Change the skin: Proofread and edit errors (misspellings, errors in grammar, etc.).

When you've finished your work, step away from it so you can come back with fresh eyes and consider whether you need to make any of these types of changes. 

Alyssa Hurzeler, "Revision," Expository Writing II , p 165-66.

Use Different Review Techniques

By reviewing your paper, you can determine whether you need to change the "muscles" or the "bones" of the paper, as described in the box above. Here are a few approaches:

• Re-read to the original assignment to be certain your paper addresses all of the requirements. Then read your paper section by section to make sure you're on target. If you're not, be prepared to add or delete large portions of text. 
• Use the power of peer-review: find a classmate, a friend, or a writing tutor to review the paper with you and look for weaknesses and errors. 
• If you finish in ample time, ask your professor if he or she is willing to give feedback in person during office hours. Ask about preferences: for example, many professors may want you to bring a hard copy instead of emailing a draft, and some require a certain number of days to review the paper before they'll meet with you. But it's bound to pay off. 

Proofread to Refine Your Paper

Finally, no paper is complete until you've given it a final proofread.

• Print your paper. Step away from the computer to edit it. You will notice things on the hard copy that you miss on the screen!
• Read it aloud, slowly. It might feel silly, but you will be surprised at how many misspellings or confusing phrases you can find this way! Even some professional writers use the "read it aloud" trick.
• Read your paper backwards to check for typos.
• Make sure you've cited all of your sources.
• Double-check that you are following the required style guide (MLA, APA, Chicago, or one of the many others). Again, the Purdue OWL website is a great resource for this step. 
• << Previous: Draft Your Paper
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 2:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.k-state.edu/writingresearchpaper

K-State Libraries

1117 Mid-Campus Drive North, Manhattan, KS 66506

785-532-3014 | [email protected]

• Statements and Disclosures
• Accessibility
• © Kansas State University

• Skip To Main Content
• Report an Accessibility Barrier
• Accessibility

Revision Strategies

Revision Strategies  

Why is Revising Important? What is Revision? 

Now what? You’ve done your research, written your paper, but the big question now is: what do you do next? Answer: Revise. Although it can be a daunting word, revision is the time during your writing when you can carefully go back over your paper to fix any mistakes that may confuse or trip up your reader. Revision is a time to smooth out the flow of your thoughts through transitioning between your paragraphs, to make sure that each of your paragraphs are balanced with supporting evidence and your own original thought, and to look at sentence level edits like grammar and sentence flow in the final stages. While most see this as a time to make sure commas are in the right place, revision is for looking at the big picture just as much as the fine details and below are some tips and tricks to get you started!      

How do I Go About it?   

One of the first steps in the revision process is making sure you set aside enough time to properly edit your paper. If you finish a paper twenty minutes before it’s due, then there is little you can do to revise it. Although sometimes it’s hard to find time to write and revise amidst your busy schedule, I promise it’s worth it!   

Writing a paper a few days before it is due will allow you to take a step back and edit the big and small details without the pressure of a looming deadline. This will also give you time to consult writing tutors, your classmates, or your teacher if you find you need help during the process. The ratio of planned writing time to revision is usually along the lines of 70/30 or 80/20 depending on the type of writing assignment you have.   

For example, if you are assigned an 8-page research paper, then you are more than likely going to spend 70% of your timing writing and 30% of your time revising since you will have more writing that needs revising before you turn it. This is versus if you are assigned a 1-page reflection essay that requires you to spend more time writing at 80% and only about 20% of your time revising since there is only so much writing that can fit onto one page.        

Let’s face it, many of us get bored while writing. Taking a brief moment to step back after writing your first draft to do other things will allow you to return to the assignment later with fresh eyes in order to spot any errors that you may have missed before.   

The Big Picture   

When thinking about revision, our minds often jump to making sentence-level edits first. However, revision is much more than that!   

The first step in any revision process is taking a step back to look at the big picture. Does your paper have an introduction with a thesis statement? Does it have complete and coherent body paragraphs? What about a conclusion that sums up the main focus of your paper for the reader one last time? For a better understanding of how a typical essay is organized, check out “How is it Organized?” on our Reading Strategies page. 

Keep in mind that the Big Picture also includes any rubrics or assignment guidelines that your teacher may have given you. It’s important to note requirements like word/paper length during writing and revision as you don’t want to have a complete paper only to realize at the end that you missed the word count or forgot to include three scholarly sources. For more tips on how to keep rubrics and requirements in mind click here to jump to our section on assignment guidelines . Link to rubrics and assignments guidelines sections below.      

Main Intent 

Start with the main intent of your paper which is found in the ‘thesis statement.’ The thesis statement is included in the introduction paragraph and is typically found at the conclusion of the paragraph. It tells what the text will focus on and how the writer plans to achieve this. Do you state clearly and concisely what your paper will achieve and why and/or how? Do your body paragraphs support your thesis statement? Does your conclusion paragraph match your thesis statement? If you make sure that every part of your paper can be brought back to your thesis statement, then your paper will be more well-rounded and fluent.  

Note the thesis statement that is highlighted in yellow from an analysis paper on the biblical prophetess Deborah below.  

This thesis statement tells what the body paragraphs will analyze: “these texts” (analysis being the how ). It also tells why : because “they are more important in setting an example for woman of all ages by displaying how God uses a female to undertake several predominantly male roles, as He resorts to His preferred method of using the unexpected, or, in this case, a woman, to conquer a problem.”  

The following paragraphs in the paper will analyze the biblical texts that mention Deborah in order to show the reader that God uses women in male roles, an aspect that the writer found while analyzing the texts. We can assume that certain body paragraphs will inform us of the texts and others will attempt to prove the writer’s reasoning with supporting evidence from other sources.  

Paragraphs 

When reviewing your body paragraphs, you may want to consider why you are writing your paper. Are you trying to argue, persuade, or analyze? Does the structure of your paper enable you to do so? For example, a research paper is different from a persuasive paper since a persuasive paper is trying to persuade t he reader to see a topic as the writer does while a research paper focuses on objectively analyzing available sources of a topic to come to a conclusion, without regards to the writer’s personal opinion. So , the persuasive paper will have paragraphs that inform the reader of a topic, but also paragraphs that attempt to prove to the reader why their stance is the best stance on the topic.    

Topic Sentences tell the intent and focus of a paragraph. Most of the time they are original thought or observation. They can sometimes be used to attract the reader’s attention to a certain issue or point by giving a preview of what the paragraph is about which propels them to keep reading. Topic sentences are typically found at the beginning and ending of a paragraph to introduce and then sum up the points mentioned within the paragraph.  

For example, if you were to write a topic sentence for a paragraph in the aforementioned Deborah essay stating that it is hard to properly analyze the biblical texts because women prophets, especially Deborah, are sadly not as studied as male prophets, a poor intro topic sentence for paragraph might be:  

“Many people find it difficult to study the texts with Deborah in them because there is little research done on female prophets.” 

While we are able to see that this paragraph will focus on the aspect of female prophets and that it is hard to study the texts with Deborah in them because there is little research on female prophets, there is no transition from the last paragraph to connect the thoughts of the paper nor is the sentence specific about who the “many people” are.    

Whereas a more defined topic sentence with proper transitioning between paragraphs and one that introduces the full intent of the paragraph might be:   

“Although the only apparent struggles in analyzing such texts could be seen through their aforementioned slight detailed differences, a majority of scholars find textual difficulties presented in the lack of focus on female prophets in general.”   

This topic sentence, which is the first sentence of the paragraph, transitions the reader from the paragraph before it by using a good transition phrase starting with the word “Although.” “Although” is generally used to compare and contrast ideas, and ere it is used to do just that.   

By acknowledging the intent of the paragraph before it as well as previous research in general, this makes the previous information relevant to this paragraph since the content of this paragraph will be slightly contrasting since the writer is stating that this is actually the biggest issue in analysis not the other ones previously stated even though they are important too.   

The second half of the sentence also serves to tell the intent of the paragraph. Here as the reader, we know that we are going to be presented with sources that support the idea that there is a lack of focus on female prophets in general which makes it hard to study them.   

Some questions to ask might be:  

•   Do your paragraphs have a clear topic sentence? Do your topic sentences tell the main intent of that specific paragraph? Is it one clear point? If not, you may want to pick the point that best describes the content in your paragraph.    
• Do your paragraphs transition smoothly? What draws your attention during reading? Is it to the things that you want to draw attention to?  

Examples/Evidence provide a foundation atop which you can build your paper on. Teachers will typically give a minimum or maximum number of sources that you can have in your paper within the rubric or assignment guidelines. Always remember to pick sources that will best support the main intent of your paper and the assignment’s requirements. However, try to keep an open mind when you’re choosing your sources. When you’re writing a paper, you want sources that will support your argument, but, if you’re struggling to find any, try reconsidering your initial idea . It’s okay to be wrong, and it’s okay to revise and change; that’s all part of the process of learning. What you want to avoid is pulling bits and pieces from sources that don’t agree with your argument. This is called ‘cherry-picking’, and it can actually make writing a paper harder, since you have to construct writing that fits your sources, instead of finding sources that fit your writing. Some questions to ask would be:  

• Do your paragraphs have enough examples, quotes, paraphrasing, and summary from other sources to provide support for the main topic of each paragraph? Do you have more quotes than paraphrasing or vice vera?  
• Sometimes it may work better to have a quote rather than summary; however, keep in mind that well-rounded papers typically have an even amount of all in order to keep the audience’s attention and show that you know what you are talking about.    
• Do you explain why you included that examples, quotes, paraphrasing, or summary with a follow-up sentence on how it supports your argument or research? Does your inclusion of this example lead into the idea of your next sentence?  
• Sometimes having too many sources can drown out your own thought, so be sure to keep an eye out to see if your paragraphs are balanced with original thought and other sources.    

One way to check if your paragraphs are complete is by putting them to the PREP test:  

P oint: Does your paragraph have an introduction topic sentence? What is this paragraph going to be about?   

R eason: Does your paragraph give reasoning for your topic sentence? Why do you think this way, or why is your point valid?   

E xample: Does your paragraph provide an example/ evidence from supporting sources that backup your reasoning. Do you provide quotes, and/or paraphrasing, and/or summary from other sources?  

P oint: Does your paragraph have a conclusion topic sentence? Does it sum up/(re)state the focus of the paragraph without being repetitive? Does it provide a smooth transition into your next paragraph?    

Structural Edits 

Structural Edits are just what the name hints at: they involve the overall structure, or layout, of your paper. When doing structural edits, you are looking at how your paragraphs are arranged and how the sentences within them are arranged.   

Are your paragraphs arranged in a way that promotes the best flow of thoughts and transitions between them? Are your sentences arranged in a way that enables the reader to follow your thoughts while reading? Or are your paragraphs choppy and jump from idea to idea without any rhyme or reason?    

Here are a few different ways of how to go about Structural Edits:    

The Outline Method  

As you reread your paper, create an outline as you go. Do not look at your original outline but follow the flow of your written paper.   

Note where your introduction and thesis are. What does your introduction introduce and how? Note where each of your paragraphs are, what the focus of each paragraph is, what supporting and/or challenging evidence does it provide, and where their topic sentences are. Finally, note where your conclusion is. Does it sum up everything in your paper well?   

Once you finish, you should have an outline that looks somewhat like this:  

(Access a downloadable copy of the  Outline Method here.)

Now pull your original outline back out. Does your current outline and original outline match in the same places? If not, look and see how and why. Are your paragraphs in reverse order? Do you have holes in your new outline where you haven’t supported a point in one of your paragraphs? Are your topic sentences in the middle of one of your paragraphs instead of at the beginning or end? Does this work for that particular paragraph (sometimes it can depending on the length and focus of the paragraph)?   

Please note that outlines are meant to be flexible, so if your current outline doesn’t 100% match the original outline THIS IS OKAY because some changes are good! As you write and revise, you are usually able to feel and see if it makes more sense to put one paragraph in a different place or to use one source but not the other. Most of the time you know when something doesn’t look or sound right as you’re writing or editing. Just make sure that your new outline matches the main points you are trying to focus on in the original outline. Trust your instincts and, if you are not sure, consult a writing tutor, your classmates, or your teacher for advice on how to revise your paper.    

One last thing to remember is the above outline is an outline for a basic essay. If you are doing scientific research or writing a business proposal, your outline is bound to look different. However, the same basic principles still apply. Read your writing, create an outline of your writing from your reading, and consult and compare your original and current outline to see if you need to change anything.         

The PowerPoint Method  

If you are a visual leaner, one way to help you visualize your paper is by copying and pasting your paragraphs onto PowerPoint slides. Put one paragraph on a slide from beginning to end (ex: Introduction is on the first slide and Conclusion is on the last slide). Now read your paper both in your head or out loud if that helps. Does your paper flow well in the order that it is in? Try moving some of the slides around. Does it read better if Paragraph 2 is in front of Paragraph 1? While you won’t always need to rearrange your paragraphs, if you are finding that your paper is a little hard to read or choppy, using the PowerPoint method can help you see if it is the layout that is affecting your paper’s flow.   

Sentences   

Note that you could also use the same method when looking at the sentences in one of your paragraphs if it harder to read. Create a PowerPoint and try putting one sentence on each slide. Now seeing if moving some slides around in a different order helps the paragraph to be read better or be understood more easily. Do you find that you need an example to backup up one of your own statements in the paragraph? Do sentences 4 and 5 need to be rearranged to make everything clearer? Do you need to delete a sentence in order for everything to be connected better?     

The Paragraph-Cutting Method 

If you’re a hands-on learner this might be just the thing for you!  

Paragraph cutting is much like the PowerPoint Method. If you’re not comfortable with PowerPoint or don’t have the time, print your paper out and lay it in front of you. With scissors, cut the paragraphs out and line them up top to bottom from introduction to conclusion and start reading.  

Just like the PowerPoint method, you can rearrange the paragraphs to see what layout best fits your paper and intent. You can also use this method on individual paragraphs by cutting up the sentences and rearranging them as noted above.  

During this time, you might realize that a sentence you have in Paragraph 1 might actually fit better in Paragraph 3, so you can physically cut it out and move it to the other paragraph. Once you are done take a picture of your finished structure just in case you forget your edits later, and then transfer your edits into your actual paper.        

The Highlighting Method 

The Highlighting Method is a simple way to check the structure of your paper and assess what you do or don’t have in your paper as well. With at least 4 different colored highlighters (or more depending on the type of paper you’re writing or what your rubric asks you to include) highlight the different elements of your paper. Maybe you want your thesis and topic sentences to be highlighted in blue and your supporting evidence to be highlighted in orange. The Highlighting Method gives you a chance to see the placement and type of sentences you have in each paragraph by color-coordinating. This not only helps you to assess your paragraphs but also how much or how little you have in each paragraph.        

   Note in the example of the Highlighter Method above:  

• Topic sentences (which are original thought or observation) are highlighted in yellow.   
• Quotes are highlighted in green.   
• Summary is highlighted in blue. 
• Paraphrasing is highlighted in gray.   
• Anything that is not highlighted is original thought from the writer.   

The end result: This method allows us to see that this paragraph is balanced with original thought as well as a variety of sources and ways in which the writer was able incorporate them into her paragraph.  

Rubrics and Assignment Guidelines  

Teachers typically give a rubric or assignment guideline when assigning a paper so make sure to consult it when you start the revision process to remind yourself what you need to include in your paper. They are extremely helpful in making sure that you have all the big bases covered in your writing since they include what the teacher expects to find when reading your paper, such as word length, formatting, number and type of sources, and how clear your points are.      

It might be helpful for you to print out a copy of the rubric or assignment guideline for yourself and check off if you meet each of paper’s requirements when revising. If you find that you have the box for word length checked off but don’t have enough sources to meet the minimum for the source requirement, this gives you a chance to find additional sources and incorporate them into your paper before the deadline.  

Rubrics and assignment guidelines can be your best friends when you’re revising! Don’t be afraid of using them to your advantage during the revision process!    

Sentence Level Edits   While it’s essential to make sure that there are no issues with the overall structure of your paper, you should also look at some of the smaller problems. You can go about tackling some of the sentence-level edits by proofreading your paper.   

Proofreading   Proofreading is usually the final step when it comes to revising. This is when you read over your paper specifically to look for any mistakes involving things such as spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Even though revising involves more than just checking your grammar, it’s still important to make sure that your paper is grammatically correct. Having grammatical errors in your paper can not only cause you to lose points on your assignment, but it can also cause your readers to become confused and misunderstand what you’re trying to say. Before you begin this process, you should doublecheck to make sure that you’ve handled any larger issues first, such as problems with the organization, style or formatting issues, etc. If everything’s correct, then you’re ready to take a look at the grammatical errors.  While proofreading may seem like a tedious process, there are a few strategies that may help you.  

Proofreading Strategies 

Set your work to the side for a little while.   After you’ve spent some time writing and revising a paper, you become very familiar with it. You know what it says, or what it’s supposed to say. However, this familiarity can actually be a hindrance when it comes to trying to proofread. So, after you’ve finished with your major revisions, consider setting your paper to the side for a bit, maybe overnight, or even just for a few hours if you’re short on time. That way, when you come back to it, you’ll have a fresh perspective to begin proofreading with.  

Don’t just use Spellcheck.   Spellcheck, or any program like it, is a very useful tool when it comes to proofreading. You should always make sure to use it before turning in an assignment, as it can catch errors that you might not have noticed. However, you should not rely on it. There are certain problems that it can’t catch, or that it may miss, so you should look back over your paper after using Spellcheck on it.  

Print out a hard copy.   Printing out a hard copy of your paper has some of the same benefits as setting it aside for a few days. By the time you’ve reached the proofreading stage of revision, you’ll have already become very familiar with your paper, and you’ll have become used to seeing it on a screen. When you print your paper out, you’ll be seeing it in a new format, which can make it easier to spot errors. Also, having a hard copy of your paper gives you the opportunity to mark-up a physical copy of your work.  

Read your work out loud.   Reading your work out loud can help you find grammatical errors, but it’s mainly useful for making sure that your sentences flow together and don’t sound awkward. Something that looks good on paper may actually end up sounding disjointed. This is a great way to ensure that your writing is cohesive. Reading aloud in front of a friend or family member can also be helpful for identifying these types of errors. They may be able to catch things that you may not notice.   

Look for one type of error at a time.   Proofreading may seem like a daunting task, as it encompasses so many things. A way to make it less intimidating can be that you only focus on looking for one type of error at a time. For example, on your first read-through, you look for any spelling errors. Then, on your second read-through, you look for any comma errors. This can help to make the proofreading process a little more manageable.  

Ask another person to review it.   Once you’re finished proofreading your paper, it can still be helpful to have another set of eyes look over it. Like with setting your work aside, or printing out a hard copy, having a fresh perspective look over the paper can be helpful. You can ask a friend or family member to read your work, or you can always make an appointment with a consultant at the Writing Center to go over your paper. If you’d like to set up an appointment with a consultant, click here .   

Many people have trouble knowing when and where to use a comma in their sentences. This can lead to confusion in their readers, because, depending on where a comma is placed, it can change the meaning of the sentence completely. Below are a few general rules that can help you check and make sure that your paper uses commas correctly.  

If you still need some help with this, click here for some more examples of proper comma use.  

Subject Verb Agreement 

Another common mistake that people make while writing a paper is that, in their sentences, their subjects and verbs don’t agree. Subjects and verbs agree when they are both singular or plural, and in the same “person” (first person, third person, etc.). An example of subject-verb agreement would be: “I am” or “he is”, while an example of subject-verb disagreement would be: “He am” or “I is”.    

Here are a few rules you should keep in mind to make sure that your subjects and verbs agree throughout your paper.   

If you still need some help with this, click here for some more examples of subject-verb agreement.  

Active and Passive Voice 

While you’re working on your paper, you should always make sure to keep your writing in the active voice, and not the passive voice. The difference between the two is that in the active voice, the subject of your sentence is performing the action, while in the passive voice, the subject is receiving the action. That may sound confusing, so here’s an example to show you what they both look like.  

Active Voice Example: The hero saved the day.   

Passive Voice Example: The day was saved by the hero.  

In the first example, the subject of the sentence, the hero, is performing the verb. He is actively saving the day. However, in the second example, the action already happened. It’s in the past; the day was saved.   

In your writing, you want to avoid phrases that sound like the second example. The active voice is typically clearer, which makes it easier for your readers to understand what it is that you’re trying to say.   

While you’re editing your writing, if you come across a sentence that includes a “by the…” phrase, that sentence is probably written in the passive voice. You can fix it by rearranging some of your words.   

For example: The knight was kidnapped by the dragon .  

You see we have a “by the” phrase. That means that this sentence is written in the passive voice, so, what we need to do is reorganize. Who is actually doing something in this sentence? The dragon, he is actively kidnapping the knight. The knight is being useless and doing nothing, so why should he be the star of the sentence? He shouldn’t be; the dragon should be the subject instead. So, he and the knight switch places. If the dragon is the new subject, then we need to update our verb as well.  

So, our new sentence would be: The dragon kidnapped the knight.  

This sentence is written in the active voice, because the subject of the sentence, the dragon, is the one who is doing something.   

If you still need some help with this, click here for some more examples of how to change passive voice sentences into active voice.   

Questions to Keep You on Track   

As you’re revising your paper, feel free to use the questions below to help you through the revision process.   

Print out your own checklist here.

References  

Academic Guides. (n.d.). Writing a Paper: Proofreading .  https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/writingprocess/proofreading .   

Hobart and William Smith Colleges. (n.d.). Academics: Revision Strategies . https://www.hws.edu/academics/ctl/writes_revision.aspx .  

Lumen. (n.d.). Guide to Writing . https://courses.lumenlearning.com/styleguide/chapter/subject-verb-agreement/ .   

Purdue Writing Lab. (n.d.). Changing Passive to Active Voice // Purdue Writing Lab . Purdue Writing Lab. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/active_and_passive_voice/changing_passive_to_active_voice.html .  

Student Success. (n.d.). Commas (Eight Basic Uses) . https://www.iue.edu/student-success/coursework/commas.html .  

The Writing Center. (n.d.). Subject-Verb Agreement .  https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/guides/subject-verb-agreement .  

The Writing Process

Making expository writing less stressful, more efficient, and more enlightening

Step 4: Revise

“Rewriting is the essence of writing well: it’s where the game is won or lost.” —William Zinsser, On Writing Well

What does it really mean to revise, and why is a it a separate step from editing? Look at the parts of the word revise : The prefix re- means again or anew , and – vise comes from the same root as vision —i.e., to see. Thus revising is “re-seeing” your paper in a new way. That is why revising here refers to improving the global structure and content of your paper, its organization and ideas , not grammar, spelling, and punctuation. That comes last.

Logically, we also revise before we edit because revising will most certainly mean adding and deleting and rewriting sentences and often entire paragraphs . And there is no sense in editing text that you are going to cut or editing and then adding material and having to edit again.

Revising is also part of the learning and discovery process discussed earlier. As you reread your paper, you may see weaknesses in your argument that need strengthening, and you may thus have to do a little more thinking and research . Or you may have to restructure your paper somewhat to make the argument more logical. Keep your mind open to the possibility of learning in this stage.

You also do not have to revise alone. Not only will your professor look at your paper, but your classmates, colleagues and friends are great resources for getting a fresh, outside look at your work. Be sure to ask them what does work—we all need encouragement, especially as writers—as well as what doesn’t.

Continue to step-by-step instructions for revising .

• Discoveries
• Right Journal
• Journal Metrics
• Journal Fit
• Abbreviation
• In-Text Citations
• Bibliographies
• Writing an Article
• Peer Review Types
• Acknowledgements
• Withdrawing a Paper
• Form Letter
• ISO, ANSI, CFR
• Google Scholar
• Journal Manuscript Editing
• Research Manuscript Editing

Book Editing

• Manuscript Editing Services

Medical Editing

• Bioscience Editing
• Physical Science Editing
• PhD Thesis Editing Services
• PhD Editing
• Master’s Proofreading
• Bachelor’s Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading Services
• Best Dissertation Proofreaders
• Masters Dissertation Proofreading
• PhD Proofreaders
• Proofreading PhD Thesis Price
• Journal Article Editing
• Book Editing Service
• Editing and Proofreading Services
• Research Paper Editing
• Medical Manuscript Editing
• Academic Editing
• Social Sciences Editing
• Academic Proofreading
• PhD Theses Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading
• Proofreading Rates UK
• Medical Proofreading
• PhD Proofreading Services UK
• Academic Proofreading Services UK

Medical Editing Services

• Life Science Editing
• Biomedical Editing
• Environmental Science Editing
• Pharmaceutical Science Editing
• Economics Editing
• Psychology Editing
• Sociology Editing
• Archaeology Editing
• History Paper Editing
• Anthropology Editing
• Law Paper Editing
• Engineering Paper Editing
• Technical Paper Editing
• Philosophy Editing
• PhD Dissertation Proofreading
• Lektorat Englisch
• Akademisches Lektorat
• Lektorat Englisch Preise
• Wissenschaftliches Lektorat
• Lektorat Doktorarbeit

PhD Thesis Editing

• Thesis Proofreading Services
• PhD Thesis Proofreading
• Proofreading Thesis Cost
• Proofreading Thesis
• Thesis Editing Services
• Professional Thesis Editing
• Thesis Editing Cost
• Proofreading Dissertation
• Dissertation Proofreading Cost
• Dissertation Proofreader
• Correção de Artigos Científicos
• Correção de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Correção de Inglês
• Correção de Dissertação
• Correção de Textos Precos
• 定額 ネイティブチェック
• Copy Editing
• FREE Courses
• Revision en Ingles
• Revision de Textos en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis
• Revision Medica en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis Precio
• Revisão de Artigos Científicos
• Revisão de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Revisão de Inglês
• Revisão de Dissertação
• Revisão de Textos Precos
• Corrección de Textos en Ingles
• Corrección de Tesis
• Corrección de Tesis Precio
• Corrección Medica en Ingles
• Corrector ingles

Select Page

Sample Responses to Letters from Journal Editors

Table of Contents (Guide To Publication)

Appendix: sample responses to letters from academic and scientific editors.

Each letter to an editor is unique, so the following letters are only examples, but they will provide you with ideas about how to format and word your own replies to academic and scientific editors. The letters are completely fictional, with invented names and situations. The complete addresses may not be necessary if you’re communicating with an editor via email, as is so often the case these days, but I’ve included them to show the layout of a formal letter. For your own mailing address, it would be best to use university or department letterhead if available and provide your personal name, phone number and email address beneath the letterhead.

The first letter (A.1) posits that the editor is interested in the article and thinks it appropriate for the journal, but has pointed out a number of problems with the formatting, structure and referencing style of the paper as the reason for not accepting it. Whether or not the paper will be reconsidered or accepted if the necessary revisions are done remains uncertain, so the letter aims to confirm that the paper will be seriously reconsidered and ideally accepted if the necessary changes are made. It does this by thanking the editor for his helpful advice, indicating that the author understands the problems and is in the process of correcting them, and asking whether the editor would like to reconsider the paper for publication.

Assuming that the first letter received a positive response, the second letter (A.2) is designed to accompany the revised paper once all the necessary changes to formatting, structure and referencing have been made. It explains exactly what’s been done to correct the problems, addressing all of the concerns about the format, structure and references raised by the editor. It also explains one change that may prove problematic and offers an alternative solution. Finally, it verifies that a professional proofreader has checked the article and indicates a willingness on the part of the author to make any further changes that may be necessary to facilitate successful publication.

Download Word Version of Letter A1

Letter a.1: earning or confirming serious reconsideration or conditional acceptance.

Dr Sandra Jones Department of Social Sciences University of the Pacific Coast P.O. Box 101 Salmon Cove, British Columbia V2K 3L4 Canada (609) 741-8955 [email protected]

Mr Reginald Smith, Editor Journal of Changing Weather P.O. Box 707 River Rapids, Oregon 76545 USA (972) 861-9805 [email protected]

March 3, 2020

Dear Mr Smith,

Thank you for your letter regarding my manuscript entitled “Effect of Changing Weather Patterns on Home Insurance Policies: Clients Left Out in the Cold?” I’m delighted that you’re interested in the paper and think it might be appropriate for the Journal of Changing Weather .

I very much appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into your comments. Your advice about the formatting, structure and referencing style of my paper is most helpful. I’ve looked over the Journal of Changing Weather author guidelines again and see exactly where I’ve gone wrong and what changes need to be made. Once I’ve made the necessary revisions, I plan to have the paper professionally proofread to ensure that I’ve met all the requirements consistently.

However, I remain unsure about whether you’re willing to reconsider the article once the necessary changes have been made, so I’m hoping you can confirm that you’d like me to send you the revised paper for reconsideration or publication. I’ve begun working on the revisions already and will be able to return the article to you within a couple of weeks.

With thanks for your time and assistance,

[sign here for a formal letter]

Sandra Jones

Download Word Version of Letter A2

Letter a.2: resubmitting a paper after necessary revisions have been made.

March 15, 2020

Further to our correspondence a couple of weeks ago, I’m attaching the revised version of my article entitled “Effect of Changing Weather Patterns on Home Insurance Policies: Clients Left Out in the Cold?” I have now completed all of the changes you requested:

• The numerical style of in-text referencing has been changed to author-date referencing in APA style.
• The list of references has been arranged alphabetically by the last names of authors instead of numerically, and other changes to conform to APA style have been made to the references.
• The article has been restructured to include separate Limitations and Conclusions sections.
• All headings and subheadings have been adjusted to conform to the requirements indicated in the Journal of Changing Weather author guidelines, including the removal of numbers.
• All nonstandard abbreviations and acronyms used in the paper have been defined on first use and used consistently thereafter.
• Abbreviations used in each table have been defined in a note at the bottom of the table.
• The vertical rules/lines have been removed from all three tables.
• The tables are now attached as a separate file instead of embedded in the paper.

I should mention, however, that Table 3 seems a little crowded without the vertical lines separating the information in the columns, and I’m concerned that the presentation may not be as clear as it was with the lines. I see that the guidelines indicate that tables should be on a vertical/portrait page, but I also notice that a few articles in the printed version of the Journal of Changing Weather feature tables on a horizontal/landscape page, so perhaps that would be a good layout for increasing the clarity of Table 3. I’m certainly open to any suggestions you have for this table.

I’m also attaching a certificate from Proof-Reading-Service.com verifying that the article has been professionally proofread with special attention to meeting the Journal of Changing Weather author guidelines for formatting, structure and referencing.

I hope that the changes I’ve made resolve all your concerns about the article. I’m more than happy to make any further changes that will improve the paper and/or facilitate successful publication.

Thank you once again for your time and interest. I look forward to hearing from you.

This article is part of a book called Guide to Academic and Scientific Publication: How To Get Your Writing Published in Scholarly Journals . It provides practical advice on planning, preparing and submitting articles for publication in scholarly journals.

Whether you are looking for information on designing an academic or scientific article, constructing a scholarly argument, targeting the right journal, following journal guidelines with precision, providing accurate and complete references, writing correct and elegant scholarly English, communicating with journal editors or revising your paper in light of that communication, you will find guidance, tips and examples in this manual.

This book is focusing on sound scholarly principles and practices as well as the expectations and requirements of academic and scientific journals, this guide is suitable for use in a wide variety of disciplines, including Economics, Engineering, the Humanities, Law, Management, Mathematics, Medicine and the Social, Physical and Biological Sciences .

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Journal editing.

Journal article editing services

PhD thesis editing services

Scientific Editing

Manuscript editing.

Manuscript editing services

Expert Editing

Expert editing for all papers

Research Editing

Research paper editing services

Professional book editing services

Welcome to the new OASIS website! We have academic skills, library skills, math and statistics support, and writing resources all together in one new home.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Writing a Paper: Revising

Although sometimes revising and proofreading seem interchangeable, they are, in fact, different. Revision means to see (vision) again (re). Revision is more than proofreading. It is looking back at whole ideas to make sure that everything fits the purpose of the document. It may be looking back at the type of or amount of evidence provided to support the ideas, or it may be looking back at the organization of paragraphs and their relation to one another.

In U.S. academic English, the process of writing is emphasized. In other words, it is expected that a document go through multiple drafts instead of being written once. In fact, experienced writers often say that the majority of their time is spent rewriting, reorganizing, and rewording their first draft.

Writing is also often very personal. Once something is placed on the page, it can be difficult to decide to delete it. True revision, however, may require deletion. It may be necessary to delete entire paragraphs (or entire pages). It might also be necessary to move ideas from one part of the text to another. Do not be afraid of the bigger changes—this is part of the process.

Writers may tend to be more linear or more recursive. A linear writer may have clearly defined steps in the writing process. This type of writer might begin with brainstorming, then produce an outline, then write the draft, then revise the draft, and then proofread the draft. A recursive writer often has a less clearly defined approach. The outline of the document may not be clear until after the first draft is written. The writing and the revision may happen throughout the production of the document. There is no one correct approach to writing, but understanding what type of writer you tend to be may help you to understand the process of writing and where revision occurs in your process.

Revising Strategies

Please read the following pages for some revising strategies.

• Revising in General
• Revising Based on Feedback
• Revising for Focused Ideas
• Revising for Stronger Evidence
• Revising for Effective Organization
• Revising for Scholarly Voice
• Revising for Grammar
• Reflecting & Improving

Also check out our blog posts on revising . We add new posts continually, so check back often.

Our Paper Review Service

Our Paper Review Service is another beneficial way to enhance your revision skills. In addition to the revision strategies listed above, we also encourage you to set up a paper review appointment with our writing instructors to receive individualized feedback on your project. We, at the Writing Center, look forward to partnering with you in your journey to academic writing and revision success!

Applying Feedback in Your Paper Video Playlist

Note that these videos were created while APA 6 was the style guide edition in use. There may be some examples of writing that have not been updated to APA 7 guidelines.

• Applying Feedback in Your Paper: Applying Feedback Principles (video transcript)
• Applying Feedback in Your Paper: Thesis Statement Feedback (video transcript)
• Applying Feedback in Your Paper: Transition Feedback (video transcript)
• Applying Feedback in Your Paper: Paragraph Feedback (video transcript)
• Applying Feedback in Your Paper: Grammar Feedback (video transcript)
• Applying Feedback to Your Paper: APA Feedback (video transcript)
• Applying Feedback to Your Paper: Word Choice Feedback (video transcript)

Related Webinar

• Previous Page: Responding to Counterarguments
• Next Page: Revising in General
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 23, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

• They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

• Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
• Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

12.2 Developing a Final Draft of a Research Paper

Learning objectives.

• Revise your paper to improve organization and cohesion.
• Determine an appropriate style and tone for your paper.
• Revise to ensure that your tone is consistent.
• Edit your paper to ensure that language, citations, and formatting are correct.

Given all the time and effort you have put into your research project, you will want to make sure that your final draft represents your best work. This requires taking the time to revise and edit your paper carefully.

You may feel like you need a break from your paper before you revise and edit it. That is understandable—but leave yourself with enough time to complete this important stage of the writing process. In this section, you will learn the following specific strategies that are useful for revising and editing a research paper:

• How to evaluate and improve the overall organization and cohesion
• How to maintain an appropriate style and tone
• How to use checklists to identify and correct any errors in language, citations, and formatting

Revising Your Paper: Organization and Cohesion

When writing a research paper, it is easy to become overly focused on editorial details, such as the proper format for bibliographical entries. These details do matter. However, before you begin to address them, it is important to spend time reviewing and revising the content of the paper.

A good research paper is both organized and cohesive. Organization means that your argument flows logically from one point to the next. Cohesion means that the elements of your paper work together smoothly and naturally. In a cohesive research paper, information from research is seamlessly integrated with the writer’s ideas.

Revise to Improve Organization

When you revise to improve organization, you look at the flow of ideas throughout the essay as a whole and within individual paragraphs. You check to see that your essay moves logically from the introduction to the body paragraphs to the conclusion, and that each section reinforces your thesis. Use Checklist 12.1 to help you.

Checklist 12.1

Revision: Organization

At the essay level

• Does my introduction proceed clearly from the opening to the thesis?
• Does each body paragraph have a clear main idea that relates to the thesis?
• Do the main ideas in the body paragraphs flow in a logical order? Is each paragraph connected to the one before it?
• Do I need to add or revise topic sentences or transitions to make the overall flow of ideas clearer?
• Does my conclusion summarize my main ideas and revisit my thesis?

At the paragraph level

• Does the topic sentence clearly state the main idea?
• Do the details in the paragraph relate to the main idea?
• Do I need to recast any sentences or add transitions to improve the flow of sentences?

Jorge reread his draft paragraph by paragraph. As he read, he highlighted the main idea of each paragraph so he could see whether his ideas proceeded in a logical order. For the most part, the flow of ideas was clear. However, he did notice that one paragraph did not have a clear main idea. It interrupted the flow of the writing. During revision, Jorge added a topic sentence that clearly connected the paragraph to the one that had preceded it. He also added transitions to improve the flow of ideas from sentence to sentence.

Read the following paragraphs twice, the first time without Jorge’s changes, and the second time with them.

Follow these steps to begin revising your paper’s overall organization.

• Print out a hard copy of your paper.
• Read your paper paragraph by paragraph. Highlight your thesis and the topic sentence of each paragraph.
• Using the thesis and topic sentences as starting points, outline the ideas you presented—just as you would do if you were outlining a chapter in a textbook. Do not look at the outline you created during prewriting. You may write in the margins of your draft or create a formal outline on a separate sheet of paper.
• Next, reread your paper more slowly, looking for how ideas flow from sentence to sentence. Identify places where adding a transition or recasting a sentence would make the ideas flow more logically.
• Review the topics on your outline. Is there a logical flow of ideas? Identify any places where you may need to reorganize ideas.
• Begin to revise your paper to improve organization. Start with any major issues, such as needing to move an entire paragraph. Then proceed to minor revisions, such as adding a transitional phrase or tweaking a topic sentence so it connects ideas more clearly.

Collaboration

Please share your paper with a classmate. Repeat the six steps and take notes on a separate piece of paper. Share and compare notes.

Writers choose transitions carefully to show the relationships between ideas—for instance, to make a comparison or elaborate on a point with examples. Make sure your transitions suit your purpose and avoid overusing the same ones. For an extensive list of transitions, see Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” , Section 8.4 “Revising and Editing” .

Revise to Improve Cohesion

When you revise to improve cohesion, you analyze how the parts of your paper work together. You look for anything that seems awkward or out of place. Revision may involve deleting unnecessary material or rewriting parts of the paper so that the out-of-place material fits in smoothly.

In a research paper, problems with cohesion usually occur when a writer has trouble integrating source material. If facts or quotations have been awkwardly dropped into a paragraph, they distract or confuse the reader instead of working to support the writer’s point. Overusing paraphrased and quoted material has the same effect. Use Checklist 12.2 to review your essay for cohesion.

Checklist 12.2

Revision: Cohesion

• Does the opening of the paper clearly connect to the broader topic and thesis? Make sure entertaining quotes or anecdotes serve a purpose.
• Have I included support from research for each main point in the body of my paper?
• Have I included introductory material before any quotations? Quotations should never stand alone in a paragraph.
• Does paraphrased and quoted material clearly serve to develop my own points?
• Do I need to add to or revise parts of the paper to help the reader understand how certain information from a source is relevant?
• Are there any places where I have overused material from sources?
• Does my conclusion make sense based on the rest of the paper? Make sure any new questions or suggestions in the conclusion are clearly linked to earlier material.

As Jorge reread his draft, he looked to see how the different pieces fit together to prove his thesis. He realized that some of his supporting information needed to be integrated more carefully and decided to omit some details entirely. Read the following paragraph, first without Jorge’s revisions and then with them.

Jorge decided that his comment about pizza and birthday cake came across as subjective and was not necessary to make his point, so he deleted it. He also realized that the quotation at the end of the paragraph was awkward and ineffective. How would his readers know who Kwon was or why her opinion should be taken seriously? Adding an introductory phrase helped Jorge integrate this quotation smoothly and establish the credibility of his source.

Follow these steps to begin revising your paper to improve cohesion.

• Print out a hard copy of your paper, or work with your printout from Note 12.33 “Exercise 1” .
• Read the body paragraphs of your paper first. Each time you come to a place that cites information from sources, ask yourself what purpose this information serves. Check that it helps support a point and that it is clearly related to the other sentences in the paragraph.
• Identify unnecessary information from sources that you can delete.
• Identify places where you need to revise your writing so that readers understand the significance of the details cited from sources.
• Skim the body paragraphs once more, looking for any paragraphs that seem packed with citations. Review these paragraphs carefully for cohesion.
• Review your introduction and conclusion. Make sure the information presented works with ideas in the body of the paper.
• Revise the places you identified in your paper to improve cohesion.

Please exchange papers with a classmate. Complete step four. On a separate piece of paper, note any areas that would benefit from clarification. Return and compare notes.

Writing at Work

Understanding cohesion can also benefit you in the workplace, especially when you have to write and deliver a presentation. Speakers sometimes rely on cute graphics or funny quotations to hold their audience’s attention. If you choose to use these elements, make sure they work well with the substantive content of your presentation. For example, if you are asked to give a financial presentation, and the financial report shows that the company lost money, funny illustrations would not be relevant or appropriate for the presentation.

Using a Consistent Style and Tone

Once you are certain that the content of your paper fulfills your purpose, you can begin revising to improve style and tone . Together, your style and tone create the voice of your paper, or how you come across to readers. Style refers to the way you use language as a writer—the sentence structures you use and the word choices you make. Tone is the attitude toward your subject and audience that you convey through your word choice.

Determining an Appropriate Style and Tone

Although accepted writing styles will vary within different disciplines, the underlying goal is the same—to come across to your readers as a knowledgeable, authoritative guide. Writing about research is like being a tour guide who walks readers through a topic. A stuffy, overly formal tour guide can make readers feel put off or intimidated. Too much informality or humor can make readers wonder whether the tour guide really knows what he or she is talking about. Extreme or emotionally charged language comes across as unbalanced.

To help prevent being overly formal or informal, determine an appropriate style and tone at the beginning of the research process. Consider your topic and audience because these can help dictate style and tone. For example, a paper on new breakthroughs in cancer research should be more formal than a paper on ways to get a good night’s sleep.

A strong research paper comes across as straightforward, appropriately academic, and serious. It is generally best to avoid writing in the first person, as this can make your paper seem overly subjective and opinion based. Use Checklist 12.3 on style to review your paper for other issues that affect style and tone. You can check for consistency at the end of the writing process. Checking for consistency is discussed later in this section.

Checklist 12.3

• My paper avoids excessive wordiness.
• My sentences are varied in length and structure.
• I have avoided using first-person pronouns such as I and we .
• I have used the active voice whenever possible.
• I have defined specialized terms that might be unfamiliar to readers.
• I have used clear, straightforward language whenever possible and avoided unnecessary jargon.
• My paper states my point of view using a balanced tone—neither too indecisive nor too forceful.

Word Choice

Note that word choice is an especially important aspect of style. In addition to checking the points noted on Checklist 12.3, review your paper to make sure your language is precise, conveys no unintended connotations, and is free of biases. Here are some of the points to check for:

• Vague or imprecise terms
• Repetition of the same phrases (“Smith states…, Jones states…”) to introduce quoted and paraphrased material (For a full list of strong verbs to use with in-text citations, see Chapter 13 “APA and MLA Documentation and Formatting” .)
• Exclusive use of masculine pronouns or awkward use of he or she
• Use of language with negative connotations, such as haughty or ridiculous
• Use of outdated or offensive terms to refer to specific ethnic, racial, or religious groups

Using plural nouns and pronouns or recasting a sentence can help you keep your language gender neutral while avoiding awkwardness. Consider the following examples.

• Gender-biased: When a writer cites a source in the body of his paper, he must list it on his references page.
• Awkward: When a writer cites a source in the body of his or her paper, he or she must list it on his or her references page.
• Improved: Writers must list any sources cited in the body of a paper on the references page.

Keeping Your Style Consistent

As you revise your paper, make sure your style is consistent throughout. Look for instances where a word, phrase, or sentence just does not seem to fit with the rest of the writing. It is best to reread for style after you have completed the other revisions so that you are not distracted by any larger content issues. Revising strategies you can use include the following:

• Read your paper aloud. Sometimes your ears catch inconsistencies that your eyes miss.
• Share your paper with another reader whom you trust to give you honest feedback. It is often difficult to evaluate one’s own style objectively—especially in the final phase of a challenging writing project. Another reader may be more likely to notice instances of wordiness, confusing language, or other issues that affect style and tone.
• Line-edit your paper slowly, sentence by sentence. You may even wish to use a sheet of paper to cover everything on the page except the paragraph you are editing—that forces you to read slowly and carefully. Mark any areas where you notice problems in style or tone, and then take time to rework those sections.

On reviewing his paper, Jorge found that he had generally used an appropriately academic style and tone. However, he noticed one glaring exception—his first paragraph. He realized there were places where his overly informal writing could come across as unserious or, worse, disparaging. Revising his word choice and omitting a humorous aside helped Jorge maintain a consistent tone. Read his revisions.

Using Checklist 12.3, line-edit your paper. You may use either of these techniques:

• Print out a hard copy of your paper, or work with your printout from Note 12.33 “Exercise 1” . Read it line by line. Check for the issues noted on Checklist 12.3, as well as any other aspects of your writing style you have previously identified as areas for improvement. Mark any areas where you notice problems in style or tone, and then take time to rework those sections.
• If you prefer to work with an electronic document, use the menu options in your word-processing program to enlarge the text to 150 or 200 percent of the original size. Make sure the type is large enough that you can focus on only one paragraph at a time. Read the paper line by line as described in step 1. Highlight any areas where you notice problems in style or tone, and then take time to rework those sections.

Please exchange papers with a classmate. On a separate piece of paper, note places where the essay does not seem to flow or you have questions about what was written. Return the essay and compare notes.

Editing Your Paper

After revising your paper to address problems in content or style, you will complete one final editorial review. Perhaps you already have caught and corrected minor mistakes during previous revisions. Nevertheless, give your draft a final edit to make sure it is error-free. Your final edit should focus on two broad areas:

• Errors in grammar, mechanics, usage, and spelling
• Errors in citing and formatting sources

For in-depth information on these two topics, see Chapter 2 “Writing Basics: What Makes a Good Sentence?” and Chapter 13 “APA and MLA Documentation and Formatting” .

Correcting Errors

Given how much work you have put into your research paper, you will want to check for any errors that could distract or confuse your readers. Using the spell-checking feature in your word-processing program can be helpful—but this should not replace a full, careful review of your document. Be sure to check for any errors that may have come up frequently for you in the past. Use Checklist 12.4 to help you as you edit:

Checklist 12.4

Grammar, Mechanics, Punctuation, Usage, and Spelling

• My paper is free of grammatical errors, such as errors in subject-verb agreement and sentence fragments. (For additional guidance on grammar, see Chapter 2 “Writing Basics: What Makes a Good Sentence?” .)
• My paper is free of errors in punctuation and mechanics, such as misplaced commas or incorrectly formatted source titles. (For additional guidance on punctuation and mechanics, see Chapter 3 “Punctuation” .)
• My paper is free of common usage errors, such as alot and alright . (For additional guidance on correct usage, see Chapter 4 “Working with Words: Which Word Is Right?” .)
• My paper is free of spelling errors. I have proofread my paper for spelling in addition to using the spell-checking feature in my word-processing program.
• I have checked my paper for any editing errors that I know I tend to make frequently.

Checking Citations and Formatting

When editing a research paper, it is also important to check that you have cited sources properly and formatted your document according to the specified guidelines. There are two reasons for this. First and foremost, citing sources correctly ensures that you have given proper credit to other people for ideas and information that helped you in your work. Second, using correct formatting establishes your paper as one student’s contribution to the work developed by and for a larger academic community. Increasingly, American Psychological Association (APA) style guidelines are the standard for many academic fields. Modern Language Association (MLA) is also a standard style in many fields. Use Checklist 12.5 to help you check citations and formatting.

Checklist 12.5

Citations and Formatting

• Within the body of my paper, each fact or idea taken from a source is credited to the correct source.
• Each in-text citation includes the source author’s name (or, where applicable, the organization name or source title) and year of publication. I have used the correct format of in-text and parenthetical citations.
• Each source cited in the body of my paper has a corresponding entry in the references section of my paper.
• My references section includes a heading and double-spaced, alphabetized entries.
• Each entry in my references section is indented on the second line and all subsequent lines.
• Each entry in my references section includes all the necessary information for that source type, in the correct sequence and format.
• My paper includes a title page.
• My paper includes a running head.
• The margins of my paper are set at one inch. Text is double spaced and set in a standard 12-point font.

For detailed guidelines on APA and MLA citation and formatting, see Chapter 13 “APA and MLA Documentation and Formatting” .

Following APA or MLA citation and formatting guidelines may require time and effort. However, it is good practice for learning how to follow accepted conventions in any professional field. Many large corporations create a style manual with guidelines for editing and formatting documents produced by that corporation. Employees follow the style manual when creating internal documents and documents for publication.

During the process of revising and editing, Jorge made changes in the content and style of his paper. He also gave the paper a final review to check for overall correctness and, particularly, correct APA or MLA citations and formatting. Read the final draft of his paper.

Key Takeaways

• Organization in a research paper means that the argument proceeds logically from the introduction to the body to the conclusion. It flows logically from one point to the next. When revising a research paper, evaluate the organization of the paper as a whole and the organization of individual paragraphs.
• In a cohesive research paper, the elements of the paper work together smoothly and naturally. When revising a research paper, evaluate its cohesion. In particular, check that information from research is smoothly integrated with your ideas.
• An effective research paper uses a style and tone that are appropriately academic and serious. When revising a research paper, check that the style and tone are consistent throughout.
• Editing a research paper involves checking for errors in grammar, mechanics, punctuation, usage, spelling, citations, and formatting.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Article links:

“Introduction to Polishing Your Research Paper” provided by Lumen Learning

“Revising and Editing” provided by Lumen Learning

Chapter Preview

• Identify major areas of concern in the draft essay during revising and editing.
• Use peer reviews and editing checklists to assist revising and editing.
• Revise and edit the first draft of your essay and produce a final draft.

Introduction to Polishing Your Research Paper

provided by Lumen Learning

Now that you have completed the draft of your research paper, you will revise and polish it. Keep in mind that writing is a process from the pre-writing phase to drafting to revising your essay. In this final unit, we will review techniques for revising and improving your writing. In revising your paper, you will consider the use of diction, sentence-level issues (e.g., transitional phrases, grammar, tone, etc.), paragraph-level problems (e.g., cohesion, relating the paragraph back to your thesis), and incorporating proper format for MLA style.

Revising and Editing

Revising and editing are the two tasks you undertake to significantly improve your essay. Both are very important elements of the writing process. You may think that a completed first draft means little improvement is needed. However, even experienced writers need to improve their drafts and rely on peers during revising and editing. You may know that athletes miss catches, fumble balls, or overshoot goals. Dancers forget steps, turn too slowly, or miss beats. For both athletes and dancers, the more they practice, the stronger their performance will become. Web designers seek better images, a more clever design, or a more appealing background for their web pages. Writing has the same capacity to profit from improvement and revision.

Understanding the Purpose of Revising and Editing

Revising and editing allow you to examine two important aspects of your writing separately, so that you can give each task your undivided attention.

• When you  revise , you take a second look at your ideas. You might add, cut, move, or change information in order to make your ideas clearer, more accurate, more interesting, or more convincing.
• When you  edit , you take a second look at how you expressed your ideas. You add or change words. You fix any problems in grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure. You improve your writing style. You make your essay into a polished, mature piece of writing, the end product of your best efforts.

How do you get the best out of your revisions and editing? Here are some strategies that writers have developed to look at their first drafts from a fresh perspective. Try them throughout this course; then keep using the ones that bring results.

• Take a break. You are proud of what you wrote, but you might be too close to it to make changes. Set aside your writing for a few hours or even a day until you can look at it objectively.
• Ask someone you trust for feedback and constructive criticism.
• Pretend you are one of your readers. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied? Why?
• Use the resources that your college provides. Find out where your school’s writing lab is located and ask about the assistance they provide online and in person.

Many people hear the words  critic ,  critical , and  criticism  and pick up only negative vibes that provoke feelings that make them blush, grumble, or shout. However, as a writer and a thinker, you need to learn to be critical of yourself in a positive way and have high expectations for your work. You also need to train your eye and trust your ability to fix what needs fixing. For this, you need to teach yourself where to look.

Creating Unity and Coherence

Following your outline closely offers you a reasonable guarantee that your writing will stay on purpose and not drift away from the controlling idea. However, when writers are rushed, are tired, or cannot find the right words, their writing may become less than they want it to be. Their writing may no longer be clear and concise, and they may be adding information that is not needed to develop the main idea.

When a piece of writing has  unity , all the ideas in each paragraph and in the entire essay clearly belong and are arranged in an order that makes logical sense. When the writing has  coherence , the ideas flow smoothly. The wording clearly indicates how one idea leads to another within a paragraph and from paragraph to paragraph.

Reading your writing aloud will often help you find problems with unity and coherence. Listen for the clarity and flow of your ideas. Identify places where you find yourself confused, and write a note to yourself about possible fixes.

Creating Unity

Sometimes writers get caught up in the moment and cannot resist a good digression. Even though you might enjoy such detours when you chat with friends, unplanned digressions usually harm a piece of writing.

Mariah stayed close to her outline when she drafted the three body paragraphs of her essay she tentatively titled “Digital Technology: The Newest and the Best at What Price?” But a recent shopping trip for an HDTV upset her enough that she digressed from the main topic of her third paragraph and included comments about the sales staff at the electronics store she visited. When she revised her essay, she deleted the off-topic sentences that affected the unity of the paragraph.

Read the following paragraph twice, the first time without Mariah’s changes, and the second time with them.

When you reread your writing to find revisions to make, look for each type of problem in a separate sweep. Read it straight through once to locate any problems with unity. Read it straight through a second time to find problems with coherence. You may follow this same practice during many stages of the writing process.

Writing at Work

Many companies hire copyeditors and proofreaders to help them produce the cleanest possible final drafts of large writing projects. Copyeditors are responsible for suggesting revisions and style changes; proofreaders check documents for any errors in capitalization, spelling, and punctuation that have crept in. Many times, these tasks are done on a freelance basis, with one freelancer working for a variety of clients.

Creating Coherence

Careful writers use  transitions  to clarify how the ideas in their sentences and paragraphs are related. These words and phrases help the writing flow smoothly. Adding transitions is not the only way to improve coherence, but they are often useful and give a mature feel to your essays. Table 7.3 “Common Transitional Words and Phrases” groups many common transitions according to their purpose.

Table 7.3  Common Transitional Words and Phrases

After Maria revised for unity, she next examined her paragraph about televisions to check for coherence. She looked for places where she needed to add a transition or perhaps reword the text to make the flow of ideas clear. In the version that follows, she has already deleted the sentences that were off topic.

Many writers make their revisions on a printed copy and then transfer them to the version on-screen. They conventionally use a small arrow called a caret (^) to show where to insert an addition or correction.

Being Clear and Concise

Some writers are very methodical and painstaking when they write a first draft. Other writers unleash a lot of words in order to get out all that they feel they need to say. Do either of these composing styles match your style? Or is your composing style somewhere in between? No matter which description best fits you, the first draft of almost every piece of writing, no matter its author, can be made clearer and more concise.

If you have a tendency to write too much, you will need to look for unnecessary words. If you have a tendency to be vague or imprecise in your wording, you will need to find specific words to replace any overly general language.

Identifying Wordiness

Sometimes writers use too many words when fewer words will appeal more to their audience and better fit their purpose. Here are some common examples of wordiness to look for in your draft. Eliminating wordiness helps all readers, because it makes your ideas clear, direct, and straightforward.

• Sentences that begin with There is or There are Wordy:  There are two major experiments that the Biology Department sponsors. Revised:  The Biology Department sponsors two major experiments.
• Sentences with unnecessary modifiers. Wordy:  Two extremely famous and well-known consumer advocates spoke eloquently in favor of the proposed important legislation. Revised:  Two well-known consumer advocates spoke in favor of the proposed legislation.
• Sentences with deadwood phrases that add little to the meaning.  Be judicious when you use phrases such as  in terms of ,  with a mind to ,  on the subject of ,  as to whether or not ,  more or less ,  as far as…is concerned , and similar expressions. You can usually find a more straightforward way to state your point. Wordy:  As a world leader in the field of green technology, the company plans to focus its efforts in the area of geothermal energy.A report as to whether or not to use geysers as an energy source is in the process of preparation. Revised:  As a world leader in green technology, the company plans to focus on geothermal energy.A report about using geysers as an energy source is in preparation.
• Sentences in the passive voice or with forms of the verb  to be .  Sentences with passive-voice verbs often create confusion, because the subject of the sentence does not perform an action. Sentences are clearer when the subject of the sentence performs the action and is followed by a strong verb. Use strong active-voice verbs in place of forms of  to be , which can lead to wordiness. Avoid passive voice when you can. Wordy:  It might perhaps be said that using a GPS device is something that is a benefit to drivers who have a poor sense of direction. Revised:  Using a GPS device benefits drivers who have a poor sense of direction.
• Sentences with constructions that can be shortened. Wordy:  The e-book reader, which is a recent invention, may become as commonplace as the cell phone.My over-sixty uncle bought an e-book reader, and his wife bought an e-book reader, too. Revised: The e-book reader, a recent invention, may become as commonplace as the cell phone.My over-sixty uncle and his wife both bought e-book readers.

Choosing Specific, Appropriate Words

Most college essays should be written in formal English suitable for an academic situation. Follow these principles to be sure that your word choice is appropriate.

• Avoid slang.  Find alternatives to  bummer ,  kewl , and  rad .
• Avoid language that is overly casual.  Write about “men and women” rather than “girls and guys” unless you are trying to create a specific effect. A formal tone calls for formal language.
• Avoid contractions.  Use  do not  in place of  don’t ,  I am  in place of  I’m ,  have not  in place of  haven’t , and so on. Contractions are considered casual speech.
• Avoid clichés.  Overused expressions such as  green with envy ,  face the music ,  better late than never , and similar expressions are empty of meaning and may not appeal to your audience.
• Be careful when you use words that sound alike but have different meanings.  Some examples are  allusion/illusion ,  complement/compliment ,  council/counsel ,  concurrent/consecutive ,  founder/flounder , and  historic/historical . When in doubt, check a dictionary.
• Choose words with the connotations you want.  Choosing a word for its connotations is as important in formal essay writing as it is in all kinds of writing. Compare the positive connotations of the word  proud  and the negative connotations of  arrogant  and  conceited .
• Use specific words rather than overly general words.  Find synonyms for  thing ,  people ,  nice ,  good ,  bad ,  interesting , and other vague words. Or use specific details to make your exact meaning clear.

Now read the revisions Mariah made to make her third paragraph clearer and more concise. She has already incorporated the changes she made to improve unity and coherence.

Completing a Peer Review

After working so closely with a piece of writing, writers often need to step back and ask for a more objective reader. What writers most need is feedback from readers who can respond only to the words on the page. When they are ready, writers show their drafts to someone they respect and who can give an honest response about its strengths and weaknesses.

You, too, can ask a peer to read your draft when it is ready. After evaluating the feedback and assessing what is most helpful, the reader’s feedback will help you when you revise your draft. This process is called  peer review .

You can work with a partner in your class and identify specific ways to strengthen each other’s essays. Although you may be uncomfortable sharing your writing at first , remember that each writer is working toward the same goal: a final draft that fits the audience and the purpose. Maintaining a positive attitude when providing feedback will put you and your partner at ease. The box that follows provides a useful framework for the peer review session.

Questions for Peer Review

Title of essay: ____________________________________________

Date: ____________________________________________

Writer’s name: ____________________________________________

Peer reviewer’s name: _________________________________________

• This essay is about____________________________________________.
• Your main points in this essay are____________________________________________.
• What I most liked about this essay is____________________________________________.
• Point: ____________________________________________Why: ____________________________________________
• Where: ____________________________________________Needs improvement because__________________________________________
• Where: ____________________________________________Needs improvement because ____________________________________________
• The one additional change you could make that would improve this essay significantly is ____________________________________________.

One of the reasons why word-processing programs build in a reviewing feature is that workgroups have become a common feature in many businesses. Writing is often collaborative, and the members of a workgroup and their supervisors often critique group members’ work and offer feedback that will lead to a better final product.

Using Feedback Objectively

The purpose of peer feedback is to receive constructive criticism of your essay. Your peer reviewer is your first real audience, and you have the opportunity to learn what confuses and delights a reader so that you can improve your work before sharing the final draft with a wider audience (or your intended audience).

It may not be necessary to incorporate every recommendation your peer reviewer makes. However, if you start to observe a pattern in the responses you receive from peer reviewers, you might want to take that feedback into consideration in future assignments. For example, if you read consistent comments about a need for more research, then you may want to consider including more research in future assignments.

Using Feedback from Multiple Sources

You might get feedback from more than one reader as you share different stages of your revised draft. In this situation, you may receive feedback from readers who do not understand the assignment or who lack your involvement with and enthusiasm for it.

You need to evaluate the responses you receive according to two important criteria:

• Determine if the feedback supports the purpose of the assignment.
• Determine if the suggested revisions are appropriate to the audience.

Then, using these standards, accept or reject revision feedback.

Editing Your Draft

If you have been incorporating each set of revisions as Mariah has, you have produced multiple drafts of your writing. So far, all your changes have been content changes. Perhaps with the help of peer feedback, you have made sure that you sufficiently supported your ideas. You have checked for problems with unity and coherence. You have examined your essay for word choice, revising to cut unnecessary words and to replace weak wording with specific and appropriate wording.

The next step after revising the content is editing. When you edit, you examine the surface features of your text. You examine your spelling, grammar, usage, and punctuation. You also make sure you use the proper format when creating your finished assignment.

Editing often takes time. Budgeting time into the writing process allows you to complete additional edits after revising. Editing and proofreading your writing helps you create a finished work that represents your best efforts. Here are a few more tips to remember about your readers:

• Readers do not notice correct spelling, but they  do  notice misspellings.
• Readers look past your sentences to get to your ideas—unless the sentences are awkward, poorly constructed, and frustrating to read.
• Readers notice when every sentence has the same rhythm as every other sentence, with no variety.
• Readers do not cheer when you use  there ,  their , and  they’re  correctly, but they notice when you do not.
• Readers will notice the care with which you handled your assignment and your attention to detail in the delivery of an error-free document.

The last section of this book offers a useful review of grammar, mechanics, and usage. Use it to help you eliminate major errors in your writing and refine your understanding of the conventions of language. Do not hesitate to ask for help, too, from peer tutors in your academic department or in the college’s writing lab. In the meantime, use the checklist to help you edit your writing.

Editing Your Writing

• Are some sentences actually sentence fragments?
• Are some sentences run-on sentences? How can I correct them?
• Do some sentences need conjunctions between independent clauses?
• Does every verb agree with its subject?
• Is every verb in the correct tense?
• Are tense forms, especially for irregular verbs, written correctly?
• Have I used subject, object, and possessive personal pronouns correctly?
• Have I used  who  and  whom  correctly?
• Is the antecedent of every pronoun clear?
• Do all personal pronouns agree with their antecedents?
• Have I used the correct comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs?
• Is it clear which word a participial phrase modifies, or is it a dangling modifier?

Sentence Structure

• Are all my sentences simple sentences, or do I vary my sentence structure?
• Have I chosen the best coordinating or subordinating conjunctions to join clauses?
• Have I created long, overpacked sentences that should be shortened for clarity?
• Do I see any mistakes in parallel structure?

Punctuation

• Does every sentence end with the correct end punctuation?
• Can I justify the use of every exclamation point?
• Have I used apostrophes correctly to write all singular and plural possessive forms?
• Have I used quotation marks correctly?

Mechanics and Usage

• Can I find any spelling errors? How can I correct them?
• Have I used capital letters where they are needed?
• Have I written abbreviations, where allowed, correctly?
• Can I find any errors in the use of commonly confused words, such as  to / too / two ?

Be careful about relying too much on spelling checkers and grammar checkers. A spelling checker cannot recognize that you meant to write  principle  but wrote  principal  instead. A grammar checker often queries constructions that are perfectly correct. The program does not understand your meaning; it makes its check against a general set of formulas that might not apply in each instance. If you use a grammar checker, accept the suggestions that make sense, but consider why the suggestions came up.

Proofreading requires patience; it is very easy to read past a mistake. Set your paper aside for at least a few hours, if not a day or more, so your mind will rest. Some professional proofreaders read a text backward so they can concentrate on spelling and punctuation. Another helpful technique is to slowly read a paper aloud, paying attention to every word, letter, and punctuation mark.

If you need additional proofreading help, ask a reliable friend, a classmate, or a peer tutor to make a final pass on your paper to look for anything you missed.

Remember to use proper format when creating your finished assignment. Sometimes an instructor, a department, or a college will require students to follow specific instructions on titles, margins, page numbers, or the location of the writer’s name. These requirements may be more detailed and rigid for research projects and term papers, which often observe the American Psychological Association (APA) or Modern Language Association (MLA) style guides, especially when citations of sources are included.

To ensure the format is correct and follows any specific instructions, make a final check before you submit an assignment.

• Revising and editing are the stages of the writing process in which you improve your work before producing a final draft.
• During revising, you add, cut, move, or change information in order to improve content.
• During editing, you take a second look at the words and sentences you used to express your ideas and fix any problems in grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.
• Unity in writing means that all the ideas in each paragraph and in the entire essay clearly belong together and are arranged in an order that makes logical sense.
• Coherence in writing means that the writer’s wording clearly indicates how one idea leads to another within a paragraph and between paragraphs.
• Transitional words and phrases effectively make writing more coherent.
• Writing should be clear and concise, with no unnecessary words.
• Effective formal writing uses specific, appropriate words and avoids slang, contractions, clichés, and overly general words.
• Peer reviews, done properly, can give writers objective feedback about their writing. It is the writer’s responsibility to evaluate the results of peer reviews and incorporate only useful feedback.
• Remember to budget time for careful editing and proofreading. Use all available resources, including editing checklists, peer editing, and your institution’s writing lab, to improve your editing skills.

Important Concepts

in revising your paper, you will consider

Revising and editing

following your outline closely

copyeditors and proofreaders

transitions

eliminating wordiness

most college essays

although you may be uncomfortable sharing your writing at first

purpose of peer feedback

Licenses and Attributions

CC LICENSED CONTENT, ORIGINAL

Composing Ourselves and Our World,   Provided by: the authors. License:  Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

This chapter contains an adaptation of  English Composition 2 :  by Lumen Learning, and is used under an  Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)  license.

This chapter contains an adaptation of English Composition II: Rhetorical Methods–Based :  by Lumen Learning, and is used under an  Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)  license.

MULTIMEDIA CONTENT INCLUDED

• Video 1: License: Standard YouTube License. Attribution:  Revising and Editing   by  Amanda Benson .

Composing Ourselves and Our World Copyright © 2019 by Auburn University at Montgomery is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book