Image by James Yang http: Todays post offers an alternative perspective; that of the journal article peer reviewer. Doing peer reviews provides important experience for those writing their own papers and may help writers consider what they should include based on what peer reviewers are looking for.
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Writing for Academic Journals Steven E.
Gump bio Rowena Murray. Writing for Academic Journals, 2nd ed. Are these the reasons why I continue to read—and review—books on writing for scholarly publication?
Regardless, I am often pleased by the offerings I find, and Murray's work has much to praise. Murray, a reader and associate dean at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotlandhas devoted much of her career to the facilitation and study of writing as a social act. This book represents a focused culmination of her research on writing and her experience as a coordinator of writing groups, workshops, and retreats.
Writing to both new and experienced academic writers, she appeals to the inherent curiosity of academics by mobilizing a scholarly approach. Sources and examples illuminate the rhetorical, psychosocial, cognitive, and behavioural dimensions of writing, and her well-defended scope addresses writers across all disciplines.
Even though 'writing for academic journals is widely perceived as one of the most discipline-specific activities' 8Murray emphasizes the ubiquity of certain necessities of effective academic writing: Indeed, these features are not limited to writing for scholarly journals; and, although her examples focus on such writing, many of the strategies Murray introduces would be equally effective for academics working on scholarly writing projects of any genre.
This reasonable view, suggesting that writing habits can evolve and that strategies can be combined to maximize efficiency and effectiveness, likely reflects the processes of the most productive scholarly writers.
Offering a pair of memorable metaphors from writing scholar Robert Boice, Murray suggests that a mix of 'snack' and 'binge' writing can be appropriate. She details unmediated writing strategies, which include free writing, generative writing, and writing to prompts.
She also describes mediated writing strategies, those involving consultation with writing partners, such as an activity described as a 'writing "sandwich"' —9.
A chapter titled 'Dialogue and Feedback' focuses on writing groups and writing retreats, with descriptions of their benefits and suggestions for getting them started.
Writers are encouraged to use reviewers' comments constructively and developmentally, finding time to take stock of what has been learned.
Throughout, Murray is persuasive without being prescriptive. Speaking to sceptics by 'building critique into' her presentationMurray advises with respect to several of her strategies, 'try it before you dismiss it' In a chapter devoted to selecting journal venues, Murray suggests that aspiring authors become 'scholars' of their target journals.
From an editor's perspective, the quickest and easiest manuscript rejections are often of submissions that make no effort to fit the scope, orientation, or rhetorical or editorial styles of a journal.
Researching the journal—by looking through current and past issues, analysing content, reading editorial notes, and understanding and ultimately following the instructions for authors, for example—is not a new idea; but conceptualizing it as a scholarly activity may encourage some academics to give this important process greater attention.
Since rhetorical modes and forms are temporal features a point Murray brings up in a later chapterwriters must ensure that their works conform to the current standards or expectations of both their fields and their target journals. Murray's analyses of the content and language used in abstracts 54—60with three examples from higher-education-related articles, model the type of activity I frequently recommend to non-native speakers of English.
Murray knows that such activities can be of great use to everyone—especially academic writers who have not yet written If you would like to authenticate using a different subscribed institution that supports Shibboleth authentication or have your own login and password to Project MUSE, click 'Authenticate'.
You are not currently authenticated. View freely available titles:How to do a decent peer review for an academic journal is one that is part of the craft of being an academic. But, there is a gap in the literature and thus on guidance as to undertaking peer review.
There is a large literature on the effectiveness and usefulness of the peer review process – See. When writing an academic book review, start with a bibliographic citation of the book you are reviewing [e.g., author, title, publication information, length].
Adhere to a . scholarly journals; and, although her examples focus on such writing, many of the strategies Murray introduces would be equally effective for academics working on scholarly writing projects of any genre.
The Journal of English for Academic Purposes provides a forum for the dissemination of information and views which enables practitioners of and. In fact, like other genres of academic writing, such as journal articles and research proposals, academic book reviews tend to have a standard, even formulaic, structure.
Although of course this may vary slightly by discipline and/or publication venue, my advice is, if in doubt, to use the following framework, with one paragraph for each of the. Review of Politics without Principle, in Canadian Journal of Political Science, V ().
Reprinted by Look in almost any academic journal and you will find reviews. In fact, if you look at lists of faculty Reviews are a staple of academic writing, the means by which scholars comment on each other’s work and enter into conversation.