Report R3.6 Academic Writing Seminar Leader: D. P. Dash, XIMB dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in [This was conducted as a workshop. A manuscript on "social capital," submitted for publication in an international journal of management, was reviewed independently by the participants. All the reviews were then discussed, highlighting the qualities of scholarly writing and the expectations from a manuscript reviewer.] Academic writing is an important skill for a researcher. It is cultivated over a period of time, and is a vital tool for the researcher to communicate observations and findings. Academic writing usually involves a review (or refereeing) process. Reviewing manuscripts submitted to academic journals can be a way of learning about academic writing. The experience of reviewing a manuscript provides the researcher an insight into the requirements of high-quality academic writing and might help in benchmarking personal standards. The researcher needs to be cautious on one account. There is a likelihood of being influenced by a peer, guide, or a particular reviewer whose style of writing and approach appeals to the researcher. It is desirable for the researcher to become aware of any such influence. One may of course make a conscious effort to develop a unique writing or reviewing style of one's own. Learning the correct usage of words, punctuations, and other formal aspects of writing are also important for academic writing. The purpose of manuscript review is to help the author improve the quality of the manuscript. The task of a reviewer is to notice any flaws in the text, help the author realise it, and make constructive suggestions for rectifying the flaws. It is vital for the author to be open to feedback and criticism. The reviewer ought to adopt a positive and constructive approach. Pointing out flaws with care and humility facilitates the process of learning on the part of the author. Reviewers vary in approach. Some reviewers like to insert questions and observations at relevant points within the manuscript. Some others narrate their observations and comments more elaborately. Another approach is to write a summary of the manuscript before raising questions. From this, the author gets a glimpse of how the manuscript has been understood. This can itself be a very useful feedback. A reviewer is expected to be specific in pointing out flaws, providing the necessary supporting arguments. When a review suggests alternative ways for addressing the flaws/questions in the manuscript, it helps the author. The work of a reviewer is not merely to judge, but also to help the author develop the manuscript to publishable standard. A reviewer may or may not be from the same discipline as the author. The contributions of a reviewer from the same discipline would focus more on the substance of the manuscript. Such a reviewer may suggest additional literature references, theoretical views, empirical evidence, etc. A reviewer from a different disciplinary background may give special attention to the nature of the arguments and examine whether the conclusion logically follows from the arguments. The reviewer also needs to check whether there is a common logical thread running through the article. The conclusion might make sense in isolation, but what matters is the soundness of the arguments and evidences used in arriving at that conclusion. In the end, the reviewer comes up with a list of recommendations that are useful for the author and the editor. The process of manuscript review is fruitful when there is a proper flow of thought between the reviewer and the author. The focus of the exercise can be to add value to all the parties concerned. Publication of the manuscript is a recognition of the author’s scholarly contribution to the subject. The author has to consciously relate to the academic debates in the subject. The work needs to be original and should add value to the existing body of knowledge. Targeting a specific audience is a good practice in academic writing. Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon, with inputs from D. P. Dash, Jacob D. Vakkayil, and C. D. Kuruvilla (30 August 2005). Copyleft Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home |
