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 the 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 s. 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.