Sometimes when I’m revising my papers, I feel like I’m playing Jenga. I put out one crappy sentence and I feel like the whole paragraph, maybe even the whole section disintegrates.
A better analogy is painting restoration. The surface might be covered with debris, but when you remove the debris you see the damage left behind in the paintwork and fibers. The crappy sentence is sometimes that debris that was hiding problems that only now become visible.
Rereading my book manuscript, I’m struck by a general sense of panic at the question of whether I could write it again and have it turn out so good. But it helps to remember that so many of the nuggets that pushed it over the top entered the ms at different stages and… (1/2)
that iteratively rereading, editing, and polishing slowly improved it. It was kind of like a block of stone that I slowly chiseled into a statute. Even now, it’s not a smooth bust, but you can tell it’s a person and make out their features pretty well. (2/2)
I have a love-hate relationship with editing my work: on the one hand, super cringe-worthy to pick up a manuscript I’d not touched in two months only to immediately spot a sentence that needed work. On the other hand, also so satisfying to move it from 90% to 99%.
I’ve legit read something I’d published years before and had to look up some of the words and was like did I really write this? It definitely felt weird….
I’ve reached the slashing phase of revision.
Actual footage of my manuscript this week: [Carrie gif]
Wendy Belcher’s book has a list of common phrases you can edit down:
That’s from How to Write an Article in 15 Weeks. Paul Silvia’s How to Write a Lot also has some. This is my compilation of the phrases I most misuse.
I will say that I am personally affronted by the list of words to delete. Very, quite, basically, actually, virtually, … are some of my go-to words.
Has anyone used stone soup as a metaphor for knowledge production? Ex. I bring this variable to the table (turnip), you bring that variable (onion), they bring another variable (carrot),… the result is delicious and more than we get by focusing on our contribution alone.
Because this is an ongoing annoyance, here’s a thread for #AcademicTwitter on why self-interested, rational-acting academics should not plagiarize. That is, why plagiarism isn’t just morally wrong, but fucking stupid.
- Someone else has already done the hard work of going through the review process. Why make work for yourself by using someone else’s work unattributed to them instead of just quoting them? Attribution smooths the review process. Related to…
- If you get that person, or their close friend, as a reviewer, you are fucked.
- You can look good and get kudos for citing grad students and other junior scholars. It’s a missed opportunity to look benevolent. Plagiarizing them makes you an extra asshole, btw. This is related to…
- Plagiarizing your students/advisees is super fucked up. It’s also stupid bc citing your students where relevant is what good advisors do. It’s a missed opportunity to cite your own students to make yourself look like a good advisor.
- When people find out, they stop inviting you to fun, status-boosting events. Your close friends might still like you, but, as word gets out, people will not like you so much.
- Citing people means your published article will pop up in their google alerts because you cited them. Plagiarizing someone likely means one fewer reader.
- People who know the literature better than you do will figure it out and not cite you. They will cite the original. If you had only cited them, you could get cited for developing the original point.
- When the person you cite (instead of plagiarize from) writes a sequel paper to the original, they might include a citation to you. Yay, metrics go up! If you don’t cite them, they will very likely not cite you (this article or others) out of righteous spite.
P.S. If you accidentally missed an opportunity to cite someone (not word-for-word copy and paste, just used their idea unwittingly), send a nice email after apologizing and cite them better in the sequel paper.
P.P.S. Since college, it was a major fear that I’d accidentally write something word-for-word from the original because I’d read it so many times. I’m still worried I will do this accidentally. The cases I mean are so clearly not accidental and too numerous to be coincidental.
I’m a high self-citer and I’m not going to change. My work builds on a lot of my previous work and it’s important to show how, which requires cites. Given the salami slicing (and sometimes identical titles..) in our field, it is very important to provide this type of paper trail.
Ashley T. Rubin 