I’ve only had one article in a peer-reviewed journal. It was accepted after resubmission when I took into consideration the reviewers’ comments. It is these comments that I’d like to speak about now.
They were wonderful! Both reviewers had taken the time to assess my work and to point out conceptual errors, technical mistakes and sometimes even pure stylistic points. I think that I learnt more from that experience than from any other writing tool. The final article was undoubtedly much better and more satisfying to me than the original submission. Perhaps this is why I mentioned the writing groups earlier that I currently have no access to.
This EdD forum system is fine for daily writing practice to some extent. My Mod 4 reflection essay was a discourse analysis using systemic functional linguistics to compare my writing at the beginning of Mod 1 with the last forum post of Mod 4. I’m glad to report that much progress had been made even though there were no instances of writing correction or help given to me during the year.
It would be useful for cohort members to have some kind of writing assistance (beyond the dreadful Grammarly) on this programme. I’m thinking of something like the kind of feedback I received from the blind reviewers. That would be excellent, and perhaps more productive than a week masterclass on writing.
In closing, I’d like to share a little article by Pierson (2004) that lists why submissions fail (for a medical journal). There is a veritable genre of ‘why’ literature around, and they serve as useful checklists when preparing a manuscript. Pierson offers a few ‘why’s and a useful discussion for each element.
Pierson, D. J. (2004). The Top 10 Reasons Why Manuscripts Are Not Accepted for Publication. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1246–1252. doi:10.2486/indhealth.46.144