1. Revising Your Paper Paul Lewis With thanks to Mark Weal

2. Today’s plan  Summary review recap  Your reviews  How to read reviews  Revising your paper  How we will mark your paper  What those marks will mean

3. Summary Reviews  Find a consensus from the reviews of the paper  It’s irrelevant whether you agree with the reviewers  Shouldn’t introduce new points  Avoid adding your own opinion where possible  Deal with clear conflicts from reviewers  Highlight important revisions for the author  Give a clear recommendation to the committee

4. Reviews  You should submit three reviews.  The reviews you do should be considered, insightful, constructive, and of a high standard.  When you get the reviews of your paper back, you should assume the same to be true.

5. How to read reviews  Your reviewers will have tried to be constructive  They want to help you  It’s not personal  Use them to your advantage

6. Interpreting reviews  Often comments will be unambiguous.  “you’ve not included reference (Millard, 01)”  Sometimes they won’t be quite so clear cut.  You may have to read between the lines.

7. What did they mean? “I don’t really understand what the problem is.”  Your introduction doesn’t set the scene properly  You try to cover too much too quickly  You’ve left out something important without realising it

8. What did they mean? “I didn’t understand why this diagram was here.”  Is it in an inappropriate place?  Do you explain in the text what the diagram is and why it is there?  Does it add anything to the argument? Could it easily be removed?

9. What did they mean? “I thought it was going to provide a comparison but then it just became a technical description of the technology”  Have you been clear to the reader about what the intentions of the paper are?  Does your argument change half way through the paper?  Have you focussed too much on the technical details at the expense of your argument?

10. Revising your paper  Read you paper critically  Write down your main argument (elevator test) on a piece of paper  For each section / paragraph  Does the reader need this information?  Does it directly address your argument?  Could it be removed and not affect the main argument of your paper?

11. Revising your paper  Look at the structure  Is it relevant to the topic?  Is the topic covered in depth?  Are the appropriate elements there?

12. Revising your paper  Assess the originality  Have you made interesting points?  Have you demonstrated creative thought?

13. Revising your paper  Do you construct a clear argument?  Have you presented your evidence well?  Does your argument develop logically through the paper.

14. Revising your paper  Check your sources?  Have you clearly acknowledged all of your sources?  Have you correctly cited all your sources in the body of the paper?  Have you provided full references for all your sources?  Are there citations with no matching reference, or references that aren’t cited?

15. Revising your paper  Thinking critically about your paper, what is the weakest part?  How can you make it better?  Would restructuring help?  Do you just need more content?

16. Revising your paper  Think critically about your style of writing?  Are you succinct?  Does the paper flow well?  Are your sentences grammatically correct and unambiguous?  Are all your figures and tables appropriate and correctly used and referred to?

17. Revising your paper  Get someone to proof read it for you  To check it is understandable.  To find spelling, grammar, punctuation problems.

18. How will we mark your paper  10% - Presentation (writing, paper structure, grammar, spelling, use of figures and tables, formatting)  20% - Literature (context, related work, references)  10% - Intellectual performance (originality, independence and creativity)  40% - Professionalism (technical content, research methodology, evaluation methods, contribution)  20% - Argument (logical structure, use of evidence, reflection and conclusions)

19. What your marks will mean Less than 40% - Fail (poorly written, barely understood topic…) 40% - 50% 3 rd (satisfactory paper, some background reading…) 50% - 60% 2.2 (average paper, adequate references, some understanding…) 60% - 70% 2.1 (well written, good understanding, clear argument…) 70% - 80% 1 st (very well written, clear originality, excellent understanding…) 80%+ prize worthy (excellent paper, could be submitted to a conference…)

20. Questions?