The writing of scientific texts is often initiated by a junior scientist working out his findings in a draft version of a paper or thesis. Then, he discusses this draft version with his direct supervisor, professor, or co-author. As pointed out in the writing guide, this reviewing should be a bilateral iteration process. If these reviewers do their job properly, they provide the junior scientist with loads of suggestions, critical comments, and references.

The draft version, which was so carefully prepared by the junior, suddenly becomes a battlefield of red lines, crosses, and arrows. A look on the battlefield can be quite a shock and it might leave the impression on the junior that his work is nothing but a piece of crap. The question now rises how critique can be most effectively given, namely such that the junior does not become demotivated, but rather gets inspired to improve his text. I, as a junior, suggest juniors and seniors should keep the following guidelines in mind to smoothen the iteration process:

1. Comments do not necessarily have to be negative. The senior should also state the strong points of the text, since this makes it easier for the junior to accept negative comments. Positive critique is as valuable as negative critique.

2. The senior should explain why certain grammatical or structural constructs are not beneficial to the readability of the text, instead of just requiring changing them. In these cases, the senior should ask the junior explicitly whether he understands why certain language constructions degrade the scientific quality of the text.

3. Keep the discussion formal. The discussion should be focused on the text, not on the general character of the junior or senior. The junior should never perceive the comments as a direct attack on his ego. Every comment is a gift.

4. Be direct and honest. If something is not right, it is not right. No reason to be polite here, since it would only frustrate the iteration process later on.

5. The junior should either accept the comments when rewriting the text or explain why he ignored them. It is immoral to simply put comments aside without further notice.

6. The senior should acknowledge the junior when the text has improved dramatically after an iteration step.

7. The faster the iteration process, the better.

print •

E-mail    •

Share: