Technical Writing An Editors Perspective Michael K Lindell

Technical Writing: An Editor’s Perspective Michael K. Lindell Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center Texas A&M University

Personal Experience • I have had experience with many different journals in a variety of disciplines – Social/behavioral science, research methods, environmental science, engineering, planning/policy, and public health – I have reviewed manuscripts for 35 different journals – I have published articles in 37 different journals. – I am currently the editor of the International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters • I have found some variety but, more important, significant consistencies across journals.

Basic Requirements for the Your Paper • There are four basic sections to any empirical paper – – Problem Statement/Introduction Method Results Discussion • Inconsistencies among the different sections are the most common deficiencies in papers submitted to journals.

Basic Requirements for the Problem Statement/Introduction • State clearly theoretical or practical problem you are addressing. • Identify the previous research literature relevant to that problem. • State one or more research hypotheses or research questions that address your problem statement. – Be sure to clearly define the variables in each research hypothesis/question. – Clearly state the rationale for that hypothesis/question.

Basic Requirements for the Method Section • Describe how your data were collected (e. g. , your sampling strategy). – Describe how the sample corresponds to the population from which it was drawn. • Describe how you measured each of the variables in the research hypothesis/question. – Fully describe the measurement of all the variables in the research hypotheses/questions. • Provide an overview of the analytic methods.

Basic Requirements for the Results Section • Present the results of your analyses in the order the research hypotheses/questions were presented in the Introduction. – If there are many research hypotheses/questions remind the reader what each was before presenting the results for that hypothesis/question. – Clearly indicate the degree of support for any hypotheses (fully supported, partially supported, not supported, contradicted).

Basic Requirements for the Discussion Section • Remind the reader what each hypothesis/question was before presenting the discussion for that hypothesis/question. • Discuss whether the results clearly answered the research questions or supported the research hypotheses. • Discuss the study’s theoretical implications by referring to literature addressed in the introduction. • Discuss the practical implications of your study. • Discuss the methodological limitations of your study. • Provide suggestions for future research.

How to Needlessly Annoy Reviewers and Editors • Fail to ensure all citations in the text appear in the reference section. • Fail to ensure your references are all in the same format. • Fail to ensure that all figures and tables are – Legible and understandable, – Located at the end of the document, and – Correctly numbered. • Use lots of footnotes/endnotes instead of incorporating the material into the text.

What Should You Expect From the Reviewers? • You should expect comments that are – – Thoughtful, Fair, Specific, and Constructive. • You will sometimes receive comments that are none of the above. – Respond as best you can to vague comments. – Try to ignore any nasty comments.

What Should You Expect from the Editor? • You should expect an action letter that – Is timely, – Informs you which reviewer comments are most important for you to address, – Provides additional comments on issues that might have been missed by the reviewers. • You will sometimes receive action letters that meet none of these criteria. – Sometimes it is better to send the paper directly to another journal.

How Should You Respond to the Reviews? • Revise and resubmit – Write a letter pointing out what idiots the reviewers are and then throw it away (sometimes this makes you feel better). – Identify each comment made by the reviewers and editor and then decide whether to respond to it in the manuscript or the cover letter. – Revise the paper to address the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. – Write the cover letter listing each comment and explaining how you addressed it in the paper or why you didn’t address it (be sure you have a very convincing argument for dismissing these comments). – Wait a week and re-read everything before resubmitting.

Writing Criteria • Purpose – What problem are you trying to solve? • Focus – How does each section/paragraph/sentence accomplish your purpose? • Comprehensiveness – Have you explained everything your reader needs to know? • Clarity – Can you express each section/paragraph/sentence more clearly? • Economy – Can you express each section/paragraph/sentence in fewer words?

Writing Activities • All technical writing requires outlining, composing, and editing. • People use different sequences – Sequence A: Outline Compose Edit Repeat – Sequence B: Compose Outline Edit Repeat • Use the style that works for you, but be sure to – Compare your composition to the outline – Minimize your editing while you are composing • Write approximately what you mean, • Then move on to the next idea; • Return later to refine the draft)

Learning to Write • Ask your professors who in your field has a reputation for good writing. • Read those authors’ articles to examine their style, not just the content. • Practice good writing, even in your emails. • Ask for feedback from peers.

Last Thoughts • Writing is a skill – Like other skills, it can improve with practice. – For most people, skillful writing (clearer writing produced more rapidly) requires hundreds of pages of practice. • Writing is hard work – It is easy to delude yourself that you need to do something else first. – Start long before the deadline and write every day. – A “gifted” writer is someone who is fortunate enough to be endowed with perseverance.