One piece of Klingner’s advice that I will have to consider when revising my own study is the following: “Do not anthropomorphize (i.e., give human-like characteristics to a nonhuman form). Your study did not conclude anything—you did. The following section does not present anything; you the writer are doing the presenting.” For some reason unbeknownst to me I got into the habit of always giving credit to the work, the novel, the article, but rarely to the author. In my own research I chose to use psychological tools to test my hypothesis and I note the validity of said tests by quoting an extensive amount of other research. In my paper I am guilty of attributing my findings to the research itself.
Another point that Klingner makes is “Remember that not all readers will be as familiar with your area as you are.” This is important because after working on such an extensive project for 15 weeks I ended up forgetting that not everyone was familiar with certain terms and acronyms. For example, I quickly found out that the study of names was referred to as Onomastics and I would use the term when talking about my study. After such involvement I find myself almost too close to the paper I wrote as well as the field of study.
I agree with Lisa. In my opinion, the best piece of advice that Klingner et. al offered was to not anthropomorphize. I think this problem goes back to something we discussed in the beginning of the semester: the use of first-person. Specifically, I’m thinking about the personal narrative with no “I.” If students are told that their thoughts don’t matter, that they haven’t experienced enough life to make any conclusions of their own, I’m not surprised that people give human-like characteristics to inanimate objects. Their socially constructed knowledge has brought them to a place where studies conclude that x+y=z, not people.
Anthropomorphizing is probably a bigger problem in the sciences, but maybe not. Maybe it’s just as prevalent in the humanities. I know for a fact that I am guilty of it in the abstract of my wayfinding paper. But part of me still thinks that this phenomenon is probably much more prevalent in the sciences. My reasoning for this conclusion is how scientists report about their research. For example, a lab assistant didn’t drop 3 ozs of red liquid into a beaker filled with a blue liquid. Instead, 3 ozs of a red liquid were dropped into a blue liquid. In a report something has to happen (red liquid plus blue liquid magically turns into purple liquid), and if it can’t be another somebody that does the happening, the only option is to give credit to a something (i.e. the study).
I already listed one theory: anti-first-person sentiment, but I have another theory now, too. After googling “Why Do We Anthropomorphize,” I stumbled upon an article conveniently titled “Why Do We Anthropomorphize?” How lucky am I? In the article, the author, Dr. Rick Nauert, concludes that: “Thinking of a nonhuman entity in human ways renders it worthy of moral care and consideration.” Scholars invest so much time in their research that this conclusion doesn’t surprise me. Maybe it’s the same reasoning behind me naming my car; I spend a lot of time in my car. But I digress.
My final conclusion: When revising my article, give credit where credit is due—to the person.
Aimee: Thanks for not anthropomorphizing Nauert's article! I would say that it, of course, depends upon how the discourse community views it: some of the guidelines you might follow will say to put the research into the passive voice, erasing any sign of the author or researcher. APA and MLA both say to give the researcher the voice. I agree with this. In fact, I tell students starting in 103 to give their authors--and themselves--the power to speak. They speak through their research and their articles. On the other hand, we have examples where we allow things to speak to us; consider driving on a street: we know how to behave on the road because various yellow lines regulate how we drive. We don't depend upon someone out there to guide us.
I think the best advice from Klinger et al. is that we must find a way to situate our study in an ongoing debate in the field. On page 15 it says "However, it is important to be familiar with the wider body of work in your area before proceeding with your research and writing so as not to duplicate unwillingly or make unwise or uninformed claims." It is so important for us to be knowledgable in our field or study if we truly want to be published. By doing continuous research about our topics, we can make sure that we can feel confident in what we have written. We are placing our research into this ongoing conversation, and the last thing we want to do is sound out of the loop, or worse, be completely off base.
I agree with Aimee and Lisa that we need to avoid anthropomorphism in writing. Its use is something that I broke away from last year when I had a nitpicky teacher with specific rules, but I’ve noticed it’s starting to creep back into my writing. Research cannot “suggest,” nor can studies “prove.”
On a larger-scale note, Klinger et al. emphasize that in order to get published, I will have to look back and make sure that my research really makes a statement. Our research really is all about continuing on an academic conversation; we do this by incorporating recent works of others in a review and then showing how we have contributed to these works. I have to make sure that I demonstrate an understanding of my subject in my literature review. At the conclusion of my writing, I need to make sure I have successfully made connections to the rest of the literature that I have presented.
I'm glad you brought up the point about the workd "prove". I tell all my students that it's hard to prove anything: "proving" assumes absolute findings across the board. The ionly thing you can do--and the only thing all of you can do in these articles--is demonstarte that in your own sample that your findings suggest something. They don't prove; they show that in this case of four samples or 100 samples or whatever, "this" finding suggests "that".
I found the article by Klingner et al. helpful as it gave me a good overview of the entire process of producing a scholarly article and getting it published in a scholarly journal. After reading this article I am more aware about the areas I need to focus on while revising my own research paper for a particular journal. I think my present article has more or less followed the guidelines that Klinger et al. have suggested with regards to having a clear scope and connecting it with the ongoing research in the field. For instance, I had conducted my study with a clear research question in mind, and I also conducted a detailed literature review to situate the study with the ongoing research on my topic.
I found the information about the different types of journals and their acceptance rates very helpful because while selecting a journal for my article, I will look into these issues and try and select a mid-tier journal that does not have a very high rejection rate. This way my chances of getting published will be higher. I will also keep in mind all the suggestions regarding stylistic considerations such as using active over passive voice, using effective transitions, eliminating wordy phrases and others that Klinger et al. have suggested.
I also found the information about the different decisions that an editor can make, such as “accept as it is”, “accept pending revision”, “revise and resubmit”, and “reject” interesting and helpful. It was interesting to know that most submissions are never accepted in its original form. It was also helpful to know the important facts to consider while re-submitting, such as detailing the revisions made in a letter to the editor.
Overall, I feel that the article provided a good overview of the process of getting published and it will guide me while I revise my study for publication in a specific journal.
Also consider the amount of time editors allow reviers to hold onto manuscripts. I submitted one in July--9 months ago--and still have yet to hear about anything. It;'s important to attempt to stay in contact with editors, but sometimes they might not be too responsive. I queried the editor of the journal I submitted to in July about the status of my article. I never herar back from her. A month later, I wrote her again. She wrote back saying that she had no word about the review of my paper. That was in January. So, I'm wondering if I write her to ask again, and if I get the same response, I might tell her that UI'll have to pull my paper and submit it elsewhere. There's a lot of politics involved.
One of the more important pieces of advice that I took from the Klinger et al. reading was to connect my research to the field. On page 15, they write, “It is important to be familiar with the wider body of work in your area before proceeding with your research and writing so as not to duplicate unwittingly or make unwise or uninformed claims.” I think this is important because we have all written about topics that interest us and we have all read a good number of other works related to our study, but what if we missed something? What if we didn’t go back far enough? It is necessary to make sure that we have covered the literature well enough to make a case that what we are arguing for or writing about is substantial to the field.
I also think that the section “Get Help” is going to prove invaluable to us as a class. We have to use each other and work together as a team to make sure that our papers are as good as they can be. Asking tough questions and helping each other engage with our texts, as well as doing the surface level edits we have all come to know and love this semester will make all of us better in the long run. Klinger et al. talk about utilizing groups to edit our manuscripts. I think that by listening to what my classmates say will make my writing better, not only for this project, but in the future as well.
Good advice for us all. For future grad classes, Ill suggest students start writing groups. Doing so encourages each other to keep writing, to be accountable to each other, and to constantly provide feedback.
I think that a piece of advice from Klinger that I can apply to my current project is the idea of not to forget about style. When writing my original piece for this project as well as other things that I have written this past school year, I found myself getting caught up into worrying about certain MLA citations. While I believe that it is important to cite sources when using them in an academic publication or research paper, I do not think that our voice needs to get lost. For example, Klinger suggests on page 17 to stay away from wordiness and jargon. I think this is useful advice because the audience that we might be considering for publication is probably educated about the literature that you are discussing. What the audience probably wants to know is: 1) what is my methodology and 2) what are my findings. If you are able to only define certain terms that you feel are specific to your study or that you think the audience might not be familiar with, then this will help get rid of some of the extra wordiness and jargon.
Another piece of advice that I need to consider for this project is making sure that my transitions are succinct. Transitions are usually hard for me to write because I do not like to repeat transitions (i.e. first, second…). These are just a few examples that pertain to what I want to focus on during this second project. As a whole, this article seems very helpful. I will probably read it again and find some more helpful tips that I did not include in this response.
Your discussion about audience makes me think about the various audience that we might not realize we're writing for. Consider yourselves one of those indirect audiences. As less experienced students in the field of Rhetoric and Writing Studies, it may be difficult for you to undertsnad all of the jargon and ideas that you're being introduced to. I think advanced scholars forget that; we're writing not just for each other but for future scholars as well.
I haven’t chosen the journal I’ll revise my text for yet; in fact, I haven’t even completely committed to which piece I’m going to revise. As Klingner, Scanlon, and Pressley discuss, there are many differences between journals in the types of articles they publish (short, long, original research, reviews, etc…), in how high their standards are, and in how prestigious within the field they are. Thanks to the many years I spent working with monkeys, for primatology, animal behavior, and comparative psychology it’s easy for me to pick out the flagship or first tier journals, second tier journals, and so on down to journals I really wouldn’t want to appear in. But I think it’ll be challenging to pick an appropriate journal in a field I’m less familiar with. Furthermore, one of the papers I’m considering revising is on communicating with the public about climate change. For this paper, it’s not just a matter of picking the journal; first I’ll have to pick the field! The topic could be at home in a journal dealing with psychology, environmental studies, public policy, or “green” issues. I think Klingner et al. are right that it’s important to pick the journal (and field) quite early on in the process, and in my case this decision may influence not only the format I use for my citations, but also how I frame my topic. Klingner et al. give good advice on how to find and evaluate possible target journals, although I might add that the articles cited in one's own lit review are probably also a good source for journals that publish on that topic.
If you do go with your communicating-about-climate-change article, many journals in Rhetoric and Writing Studies would be appropriate. Technical and scientific journals, in particular. Consider going to comppile.org and search for keywors that are important to your own paper, find articles that might deal with similar subjects and scout out their journals. (I might be preaching to the choir . . .).
When looking for the right journal for my article, one of the elements of Klingner et al. article that I would consider would be the scope. Just how much is “too much” when sharing information and trying to get effectively get my point across. I believe that too much information could water down the strength of an argument, having the same effect as having too little information in support of my findings. So the key here is finding a balance that fits the journal that I intend to publish my article. In my case the scope of my research could not stand alone in theory and according to Klingner et al. additional research needs to be done in order to strengthen my argument. The scope of my research is something that I had not thought about a great deal when drafting my original research paper. I had dedicated a large portion of my time on making sure that I had all the elements that were needed in order to formulate a good research paper.
This article also emphasizes the importance of appropriateness when selecting a specific journal. For example, Klingner et al. point out that some journals publish critical reviews, while others only publish single-study-submissions. I wouldn’t want to invest a great deal of time into writing an article or manuscript only to severely annoy an editor with my submission which has nothing to do with the publication. From reading this article it is clear that selecting the right journal is important and one of the first things to consider when revising my article.
You bring up a good point: your original article was written for a class, which hs its own constraints: you must research and write it within a given period of time, and your instructor (like I do) probably gives you allowances that a journal editor wouldn't. Your discussion here prompts a question: What do students have to consider when turning an assignment into a professional piece? I hope we're getting to those issues.
I agree with Stephen that "Get Help" really stuck out to me in this article. One of the best and most helpful aspects of the last project was peer review. Having someone that is in the same field of interest as you is extremely valuable for collaboration and editing. We are really fortunate to be in a department that is so helpful and knowledgeable! There is always someone, faculty or peer, that is willing to take a look at your work.
I also appreciated the reminders in the text (avoid passive voice, jargon, etc) as well as the importance of a "good impression." If the article isn't formatted for the publication, that really gives them no reason to look at it, much less publish it. Taking the initiative to properly go through and tailor the document specifically to the outlet will certainly give us an edge. It was helpful to take a look at the reviewing process as well, I feel like I am more prepared in knowing what to expect.
One piece of Klingner’s advice that I will have to consider when revising my own study is the following: “Do not anthropomorphize (i.e., give human-like characteristics to a nonhuman form). Your study did not conclude anything—you did. The following section does not present anything; you the writer are doing the presenting.” For some reason unbeknownst to me I got into the habit of always giving credit to the work, the novel, the article, but rarely to the author. In my own research I chose to use psychological tools to test my hypothesis and I note the validity of said tests by quoting an extensive amount of other research. In my paper I am guilty of attributing my findings to the research itself.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that Klingner makes is “Remember that not all readers will be as familiar with your area as you are.” This is important because after working on such an extensive project for 15 weeks I ended up forgetting that not everyone was familiar with certain terms and acronyms. For example, I quickly found out that the study of names was referred to as Onomastics and I would use the term when talking about my study. After such involvement I find myself almost too close to the paper I wrote as well as the field of study.
I agree with Lisa. In my opinion, the best piece of advice that Klingner et. al offered was to not anthropomorphize. I think this problem goes back to something we discussed in the beginning of the semester: the use of first-person. Specifically, I’m thinking about the personal narrative with no “I.” If students are told that their thoughts don’t matter, that they haven’t experienced enough life to make any conclusions of their own, I’m not surprised that people give human-like characteristics to inanimate objects. Their socially constructed knowledge has brought them to a place where studies conclude that x+y=z, not people.
DeleteAnthropomorphizing is probably a bigger problem in the sciences, but maybe not. Maybe it’s just as prevalent in the humanities. I know for a fact that I am guilty of it in the abstract of my wayfinding paper. But part of me still thinks that this phenomenon is probably much more prevalent in the sciences. My reasoning for this conclusion is how scientists report about their research. For example, a lab assistant didn’t drop 3 ozs of red liquid into a beaker filled with a blue liquid. Instead, 3 ozs of a red liquid were dropped into a blue liquid. In a report something has to happen (red liquid plus blue liquid magically turns into purple liquid), and if it can’t be another somebody that does the happening, the only option is to give credit to a something (i.e. the study).
I already listed one theory: anti-first-person sentiment, but I have another theory now, too. After googling “Why Do We Anthropomorphize,” I stumbled upon an article conveniently titled “Why Do We Anthropomorphize?” How lucky am I? In the article, the author, Dr. Rick Nauert, concludes that: “Thinking of a nonhuman entity in human ways renders it worthy of moral care and consideration.” Scholars invest so much time in their research that this conclusion doesn’t surprise me. Maybe it’s the same reasoning behind me naming my car; I spend a lot of time in my car. But I digress.
My final conclusion: When revising my article, give credit where credit is due—to the person.
Aimee: Thanks for not anthropomorphizing Nauert's article! I would say that it, of course, depends upon how the discourse community views it: some of the guidelines you might follow will say to put the research into the passive voice, erasing any sign of the author or researcher. APA and MLA both say to give the researcher the voice. I agree with this. In fact, I tell students starting in 103 to give their authors--and themselves--the power to speak. They speak through their research and their articles. On the other hand, we have examples where we allow things to speak to us; consider driving on a street: we know how to behave on the road because various yellow lines regulate how we drive. We don't depend upon someone out there to guide us.
DeleteI think the best advice from Klinger et al. is that we must find a way to situate our study in an ongoing debate in the field. On page 15 it says "However, it is important to be familiar with the wider body of work in your area before proceeding with your research and writing so as not to duplicate unwillingly or make unwise or uninformed claims." It is so important for us to be knowledgable in our field or study if we truly want to be published. By doing continuous research about our topics, we can make sure that we can feel confident in what we have written. We are placing our research into this ongoing conversation, and the last thing we want to do is sound out of the loop, or worse, be completely off base.
ReplyDeleteRight. We have to balance our research between using sources that are helpful to us and those who others find valuable in the field.
DeleteI agree with Aimee and Lisa that we need to avoid anthropomorphism in writing. Its use is something that I broke away from last year when I had a nitpicky teacher with specific rules, but I’ve noticed it’s starting to creep back into my writing. Research cannot “suggest,” nor can studies “prove.”
ReplyDeleteOn a larger-scale note, Klinger et al. emphasize that in order to get published, I will have to look back and make sure that my research really makes a statement. Our research really is all about continuing on an academic conversation; we do this by incorporating recent works of others in a review and then showing how we have contributed to these works. I have to make sure that I demonstrate an understanding of my subject in my literature review. At the conclusion of my writing, I need to make sure I have successfully made connections to the rest of the literature that I have presented.
I'm glad you brought up the point about the workd "prove". I tell all my students that it's hard to prove anything: "proving" assumes absolute findings across the board. The ionly thing you can do--and the only thing all of you can do in these articles--is demonstarte that in your own sample that your findings suggest something. They don't prove; they show that in this case of four samples or 100 samples or whatever, "this" finding suggests "that".
DeleteI found the article by Klingner et al. helpful as it gave me a good overview of the entire process of producing a scholarly article and getting it published in a scholarly journal. After reading this article I am more aware about the areas I need to focus on while revising my own research paper for a particular journal. I think my present article has more or less followed the guidelines that Klinger et al. have suggested with regards to having a clear scope and connecting it with the ongoing research in the field. For instance, I had conducted my study with a clear research question in mind, and I also conducted a detailed literature review to situate the study with the ongoing research on my topic.
ReplyDeleteI found the information about the different types of journals and their acceptance rates very helpful because while selecting a journal for my article, I will look into these issues and try and select a mid-tier journal that does not have a very high rejection rate. This way my chances of getting published will be higher. I will also keep in mind all the suggestions regarding stylistic considerations such as using active over passive voice, using effective transitions, eliminating wordy phrases and others that Klinger et al. have suggested.
I also found the information about the different decisions that an editor can make, such as “accept as it is”, “accept pending revision”, “revise and resubmit”, and “reject” interesting and helpful. It was interesting to know that most submissions are never accepted in its original form. It was also helpful to know the important facts to consider while re-submitting, such as detailing the revisions made in a letter to the editor.
Overall, I feel that the article provided a good overview of the process of getting published and it will guide me while I revise my study for publication in a specific journal.
Also consider the amount of time editors allow reviers to hold onto manuscripts. I submitted one in July--9 months ago--and still have yet to hear about anything. It;'s important to attempt to stay in contact with editors, but sometimes they might not be too responsive. I queried the editor of the journal I submitted to in July about the status of my article. I never herar back from her. A month later, I wrote her again. She wrote back saying that she had no word about the review of my paper. That was in January. So, I'm wondering if I write her to ask again, and if I get the same response, I might tell her that UI'll have to pull my paper and submit it elsewhere. There's a lot of politics involved.
DeleteOne of the more important pieces of advice that I took from the Klinger et al. reading was to connect my research to the field. On page 15, they write, “It is important to be familiar with the wider body of work in your area before proceeding with your research and writing so as not to duplicate unwittingly or make unwise or uninformed claims.” I think this is important because we have all written about topics that interest us and we have all read a good number of other works related to our study, but what if we missed something? What if we didn’t go back far enough? It is necessary to make sure that we have covered the literature well enough to make a case that what we are arguing for or writing about is substantial to the field.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the section “Get Help” is going to prove invaluable to us as a class. We have to use each other and work together as a team to make sure that our papers are as good as they can be. Asking tough questions and helping each other engage with our texts, as well as doing the surface level edits we have all come to know and love this semester will make all of us better in the long run. Klinger et al. talk about utilizing groups to edit our manuscripts. I think that by listening to what my classmates say will make my writing better, not only for this project, but in the future as well.
Good advice for us all. For future grad classes, Ill suggest students start writing groups. Doing so encourages each other to keep writing, to be accountable to each other, and to constantly provide feedback.
DeleteI think that a piece of advice from Klinger that I can apply to my current project is the idea of not to forget about style. When writing my original piece for this project as well as other things that I have written this past school year, I found myself getting caught up into worrying about certain MLA citations. While I believe that it is important to cite sources when using them in an academic publication or research paper, I do not think that our voice needs to get lost. For example, Klinger suggests on page 17 to stay away from wordiness and jargon. I think this is useful advice because the audience that we might be considering for publication is probably educated about the literature that you are discussing. What the audience probably wants to know is: 1) what is my methodology and 2) what are my findings. If you are able to only define certain terms that you feel are specific to your study or that you think the audience might not be familiar with, then this will help get rid of some of the extra wordiness and jargon.
ReplyDeleteAnother piece of advice that I need to consider for this project is making sure that my transitions are succinct. Transitions are usually hard for me to write because I do not like to repeat transitions (i.e. first, second…). These are just a few examples that pertain to what I want to focus on during this second project. As a whole, this article seems very helpful. I will probably read it again and find some more helpful tips that I did not include in this response.
Your discussion about audience makes me think about the various audience that we might not realize we're writing for. Consider yourselves one of those indirect audiences. As less experienced students in the field of Rhetoric and Writing Studies, it may be difficult for you to undertsnad all of the jargon and ideas that you're being introduced to. I think advanced scholars forget that; we're writing not just for each other but for future scholars as well.
DeleteI haven’t chosen the journal I’ll revise my text for yet; in fact, I haven’t even completely committed to which piece I’m going to revise. As Klingner, Scanlon, and Pressley discuss, there are many differences between journals in the types of articles they publish (short, long, original research, reviews, etc…), in how high their standards are, and in how prestigious within the field they are. Thanks to the many years I spent working with monkeys, for primatology, animal behavior, and comparative psychology it’s easy for me to pick out the flagship or first tier journals, second tier journals, and so on down to journals I really wouldn’t want to appear in. But I think it’ll be challenging to pick an appropriate journal in a field I’m less familiar with. Furthermore, one of the papers I’m considering revising is on communicating with the public about climate change. For this paper, it’s not just a matter of picking the journal; first I’ll have to pick the field! The topic could be at home in a journal dealing with psychology, environmental studies, public policy, or “green” issues. I think Klingner et al. are right that it’s important to pick the journal (and field) quite early on in the process, and in my case this decision may influence not only the format I use for my citations, but also how I frame my topic. Klingner et al. give good advice on how to find and evaluate possible target journals, although I might add that the articles cited in one's own lit review are probably also a good source for journals that publish on that topic.
ReplyDeleteIf you do go with your communicating-about-climate-change article, many journals in Rhetoric and Writing Studies would be appropriate. Technical and scientific journals, in particular. Consider going to comppile.org and search for keywors that are important to your own paper, find articles that might deal with similar subjects and scout out their journals. (I might be preaching to the choir . . .).
DeleteWhen looking for the right journal for my article, one of the elements of Klingner et al. article that I would consider would be the scope. Just how much is “too much” when sharing information and trying to get effectively get my point across. I believe that too much information could water down the strength of an argument, having the same effect as having too little information in support of my findings. So the key here is finding a balance that fits the journal that I intend to publish my article. In my case the scope of my research could not stand alone in theory and according to Klingner et al. additional research needs to be done in order to strengthen my argument. The scope of my research is something that I had not thought about a great deal when drafting my original research paper. I had dedicated a large portion of my time on making sure that I had all the elements that were needed in order to formulate a good research paper.
ReplyDeleteThis article also emphasizes the importance of appropriateness when selecting a specific journal. For example, Klingner et al. point out that some journals publish critical reviews, while others only publish single-study-submissions. I wouldn’t want to invest a great deal of time into writing an article or manuscript only to severely annoy an editor with my submission which has nothing to do with the publication. From reading this article it is clear that selecting the right journal is important and one of the first things to consider when revising my article.
You bring up a good point: your original article was written for a class, which hs its own constraints: you must research and write it within a given period of time, and your instructor (like I do) probably gives you allowances that a journal editor wouldn't. Your discussion here prompts a question: What do students have to consider when turning an assignment into a professional piece? I hope we're getting to those issues.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stephen that "Get Help" really stuck out to me in this article. One of the best and most helpful aspects of the last project was peer review. Having someone that is in the same field of interest as you is extremely valuable for collaboration and editing. We are really fortunate to be in a department that is so helpful and knowledgeable! There is always someone, faculty or peer, that is willing to take a look at your work.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciated the reminders in the text (avoid passive voice, jargon, etc) as well as the importance of a "good impression." If the article isn't formatted for the publication, that really gives them no reason to look at it, much less publish it. Taking the initiative to properly go through and tailor the document specifically to the outlet will certainly give us an edge. It was helpful to take a look at the reviewing process as well, I feel like I am more prepared in knowing what to expect.
Yes, the peer review process is important, so we'll spend the last two weeks of this project looking at most of the class's papers.
ReplyDelete