Skip to content

125-250 words, 15 minutes: Setting small writing goals to build an academic writing practice

I have been travelling non-stop since January 2018 even though I had promised myself I would not do this ever again. But my scholarly research takes me to a number of places, including San Francisco last week for the 2018 meeting of the International Studies Association (ISA) and this week to the 2018 meeting of the American Association of Geographers (AAG).

Reading and AcWri and highlighting related content

As I have indicated before, I use conferences to force me to write full papers that I then submit to journals, or book chapters for books in which I have committed to participate. The past week and this week I have also been incredibly ill, with a cold and flu that I got during Holy Week (Easter Weekend) and then happened to get worse during my stay in San Francisco. This week, I am in New Orleans and luckily, heavily medicated and healthy again (or at least on the tail end of this awful illness). But I had not written, consistently. And even in previous weeks, my written output had been pretty minimal.

The truth is that when I am not healthy, I don’t push myself at all. If I need to take time off from waking up at 4:00am and writing for two hours, I do it. I simply sleep in, and next day or the day after, I start again. But what I’ve found this year is that I have been able to write consistently and produce more than 34,000 new words (yes, that’s thirty four thousand words) by the end of March simply by setting small writing goals.

The truth is, I’ve managed to write that many words by writing in memorandums, and setting very small goals. 125 words, 250 words. 15 minutes of continuous writing. Anything that will make my work move forward, I’ll take it. That’s also why I champion a new metric of success: instead of fixating on words written, or hours spent we could focus on sentences and paragraphs crafted.

One of the reasons why I am a big fan of small goals for everything (reading, 1 article per day, do an AIC Content Extraction and then write a Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump (CSED) row entry, what I call the AIC-CSED reading combo, writing for 15-30 minutes, drafting 125 new words) is because it sustains what Joli Jensen calls “frequent, low-stakes contact with a writing project” (read my notes on Jensen’s Write No Matter What here).

Setting small writing goals (125 words, 15 minutes of writing) or reading (1 article per day, 1 AIC-CSED per day) allows us to stop berating ourselves for “not being productive enough”. That’s one reason why I love Tseen Kho’s article “Your Word Count Means Nothing to Me”. It’s important to remember that each person is different and that we all have different writing, reading, and researching practices. Hopefully this strategy will be helpful to others who, like me, experience fear when trying to tackle a daunting large research project.

Posted in academia, productivity, research, writing.

Tagged with , , .

6 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – April 13, 2018

From Dissertation to Book (William Germano) – my reading notes

I’ve been reading a lot of books on academic writing lately, not only because I’m writing my own, but also because they’re recommended to me, and I believe it is really important to situate your own work within the broader literature. So, I was thrilled to read William Germano’s “From Dissertation to Book” (you can read my entire Twitter thread about the book by clicking anywhere on the tweet shown below).

What I love about William Germano’s From Dissertation to Book is that he makes it very clear that a doctoral dissertation written as a book doesn’t necessarily translate immediately to being an actual book. It needs to be revised. Moreover, the length of a doctoral dissertation is not necessarily what you’ll be able to sell to a publisher, because books tend to be more brief.

You can obviously transform your PhD thesis into a book by revising it, or generate a new book based on new or old theory or new data with old theory, or old data with new theories, based on your dissertation research.

Now, there are major weaknesses of PhD-theses-being-converted-into-books which Germano explains clearly.

You need to budget enough time to revise the PhD dissertation into a book. Also, make sure it has a Throughline (a core intellectual thread that goes throughout the entire book).

Bottom line: as someone writing books and advising PhD students who may want to write books, I really enjoyed Germano’s book. Worth reading. Also, as always disclosure: I bought this book, as I have purchased every single other book I have written about.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , .

1 comment

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – April 11, 2018

Write No Matter What: Advice for Academics (Joli Jensen) – my reading notes

Slowly but surely I’ve been amassing a small library of academic writing books. Not because I love dispensing advice, but because a lot of people ask me to recommend books, and others suggest the ones that have worked for them. But first, a disclosure statement: I buy absolutely each and every single one of my books (except for the ones, of course, authors gift me or academic publishing houses send me in lieu of payment or as a token of appreciation).

That out of the way, this is the sentence that got me hooked on Joli Jensen’s “Write No Matter What: Advice for Academics” (published by University of Chicago Press) is the following one (p. xi)

Writing productivity research and advice can be summarized in a single sentence: In order to be productive we need frequent, low stress contact with a writing project we enjoy.

Joli Jensen summarises what at the core, I believe is what helps ME move forward with my writing: I write every day, and I try to make it low stress by writing memorandums, analysing data and synthesising my thoughts in a conceptual map. I also write by hand in my Everything Notebook section for a specific project I am undertaking. These handwritten notes, these processes really help me think and develop my thoughts.

However, Jensen also zeroes in on a big problem in academia (p. xi)

Our problem is that academic life offers us the exact opposite: infrequent, high-stress contact with projects that come to feel like albatrosses

That’s why I don’t like to sit down and crank out a paper. I need to slowly and steadily think and process what I’m learning. And this is the reason why I write and read every day and I try to be in contact with my data regularly.

Joli Jensen Write No Matter What 001Jensen’s advice on writing at least 15 minutes a day resonates with what Jo Van Every suggests in her 15 Minutes Challenge. I know for a fact that if I sit down and scribble notes on a book, book chapter or journal article, I can write at least a few words. And a few words is better than NO WORDS. I really enjoyed Jensen’s honesty in attributing ideas to who originated them. She credits the idea of the 3 taming techniques to David Steinberg’s “How to Survive and Complete a Doctoral Dissertation“. I have to confess that I have not read Steinberg’s book, but I really enjoyed reading Joli Jensen’s account of what she learned from him and how those teachings became her three taming techniques. There’s also something extraordinarily refreshing about an author of an academic writing book who confesses to facing the same insecurities and anxieties that we all face.

As I said on Twitter, I write every day and I find myself stuck for MONTHS in a particular idea or without solving a specific set of analyses. Then BOOM, it all comes together.

I definitely would recommend Jensen’s book to students and professors alike. I really enjoyed reading it.

Posted in academia, writing.

Tagged with , , .

2 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – March 24, 2018

An updated description of my colour-coding scheme for highlighting and scribbling

In 2015, I believe, I first described the process I use to read and highlight. But that has been evolving through time. This blog post, like the one I did on an updated version of the Drafts Review Matrix, is intended to show how I read, highlight, and scribble on the margins of book chapters and journal articles. This colour-coding scheme is approximately the same that I use right now, though as I’ve mentioned before, sometimes I veer off.

There are a number of decisions that students and early career scholars ask me about. For example, how do I decide which articles I’m reading merit a memorandum, which ones merit a synthetic note, and which ones are simply a quick AIC/CSED row entry? Here’s one example of such decision. If after running an AIC Content Extraction I find that the paper is really heavy with marginalia and highlights, it would probably be wise to read it more deeply and in its entirety.

I often tweet about the fact that I match colours across. For example, if I highlight in pink, I scribble corresponding notes in pink, and I write on my Everything Notebook in the same hue.

As I mentioned on Twitter, this is more or less my colour coding scheme right now.

You can read the rest of the thread by clicking anywhere on the tweet below. Once you do, the Twitter thread will expand and you can scroll up and down to read it in its entirety. As I mention, I usually use Yellow for main-level, or key ideas. For example, each paragraph’s opening sentence (if the paper is written that way) would be highlighted with yellow. The problem I have with writers who lock their main idea in the middle of a paragraph is that you need to read an entire paragraph to “unlock it” and find THE key concept.

I normally use orange, pink, green and blue to second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-level ideas (hierarchically and sequentially organized).

This is an important component of the process. I don’t always summarize on the margins. I dialogue with the text’s author, with the literature and I also critique. I also give myself instructions on what to do with the text I’m highlight (e.g. “construct a table summarizing these insights” means I should find the most important concepts and build a table that summarizes these insights in a visual manner that is a lot more logically organized than the way in which the author is presenting these thoughts).

The side bars I use to “grab” an entire paragraph or a few sentences mean “these sentences have important ideas, and the paragraph is too long for me to try and grab only a few of them, so I’ll capture all of it”. They can also mean “this quotation looks very cool and should be sent to my Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump”.

Hopefully this post will help others create their own colour-coding scheme.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , , , .

1 comment

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – March 18, 2018

Two methods for writing a paper outline: Answering questions and listing topic sentences

Since I usually write blog posts by request, unless there’s a pressing thought that I really want to get out and get off my chest, I normally make a list of what I’m supposed to be blogging about. A topic that I saw people insisting upon was the question of how to write an outline for a paper. The process can be escalated to a book, or a doctoral dissertation, a Masters thesis, or an undergraduate honors major paper.

AcWri at my campus office

I use a couple of methods, and in this post, I discuss two methods I use. Both are inquiry-focused, but in one I set up questions, whereas in the other I basically throw words or sentences and then list and group them to see if they make a coherent argument when assembled. There are, as I mention in my Twitter thread (which you can open by clicking anywhere on the tweet below) other methods, such as IMRAD, Introduction – Body – Conclusion, etc. Mine are just two methods, and hopefully they may be of use to others who are interested in writing outlines for their papers, books and dissertations.

My Twitter thread began here (you can click anywhere on the tweet, and the thread will expand and open in a new window – scroll down all the way to the end to read the entire thread and people’s responses):

1. ASKING QUESTIONS

I tend to dialogue with myself, and I use writing as a form of conversation, where I am the interlocutor and the speaker too. In the example I posted, where I shared the outline for my ethnographic methods in public policy analysis chapter, I asked questions that can become sections of the paper.

When I ask questions to myself, I usually add anything that can help me create sentences and paragraphs. For example, in the tweet below, I have used those questions as prompts to force me out of a writing rut.

2. WORD SALAD + LIST OF TOPIC SENTENCES + FEEDBACK

This method works really well for me, as I ask for feedback from fellow academics very early in the process. What I did with my paper on the global governance of plastics was that I wrote a list of ideas I had, a list of topic sentences from where I could create entire paragraphs, I gave it some coherence, and asked for feedback from Dr. Robin Nagle and Dr. Kate O’Neill, both experts on waste.

I am a big fan of conceptual maps (also known as mind maps). I usually draw them in different colours and I use them to connect ideas, concepts and authors. For example here, I more or less have drawn the connections between local, national and international environmental regulation of plastics, thanks to the feedback Robin and Kate offered.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a conversation with oneself on paper, especially when we are at the early stages of composition. I try to always write topic sentences that can have one idea, and then flesh out that idea by assembling additional written sentences until they form an entire paragraph.

The “Listing Topic Sentences” method works very well for me when I know the literature so well that I can use it to write topic sentences that I can then flesh out. For example, in this case I link my own work with that of Dr. Malini Ranganathan and Dr. Colin McFarlane. We all three have written about informal sanitation mechanisms.

Topic sentences work wonderfully for my writing because they act as prompts or anchors from where I can spin off the thread that will compose my entire argument.

This is another example that is a variation from the Listing Topic Sentences, which is Listing Key Ideas.

Do note how in the previous case, each concept is one sentence, whereas in the case below, I have a more well thought out idea of what I want to say.

I always keep going back-and-forth between my paper, my Everything Notebook and my handwritten conceptual maps. Doing this allows me to maintain control over my ideas and grasp what I’m trying to understand more clearly.

The pair of tweets below clearly summarize my approach.

One final thought: research is social, contrary to what you hear. When you write, you put ideas down that (if you submit them to a peer reviewed journal) somebody else needs to read and understand. Therefore, the earlier you can share your drafts with fellow scholars, the better developed your argument.

Hopefully my method will be useful to students, early career scholars and other fellow academics and writers.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , .

1 comment

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – March 17, 2018

The mid-March-to-mid-April 2018 Reading Challenge #AICCSED

One of the biggest challenges we face in academic life on a daily basis is juggling multiple tasks within a constrained period of time. We are always pressed for time and wish we could read more, or even just make time to read. I’ve encouraged folks to test and see if my AIC Content Extraction/Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump (AIC/CSED) combination of methods could help them stay on top of the literature.

Working and writing everywhere

Several fellow professors have taken up this idea on their own…

One of the things that has been helping me lately is using collaborative groups where we support each other to achieve goals (writing, reading, submitting journal articles). I do this online with #GetYourManuscriptOut, which we (Steve Shaw, Mireya Marquez and I, with the help of Academic Batgirl) founded in order to encourage people to submit papers that were sitting dormant in people’s computers.

This time, I wanted to do a reading challenge. It’s a simpler proposal than “READ A FULL ARTICLE PER DAY”. This is challenging for everyone, given that closely reading (and actively reading, with highlighting and scribbling on the margins) is very time consuming. So I proposed on Twitter to do a one-month trial of AIC-CSED combo: not necessarily reading THE ENTIRE PAPER, but at least getting the gist of it using AIC and then storing what we learned in a CSED.

The challenge is simple: choose an article you need to read (or at least, skim!) and run an AIC (Abstract-Introduction-Conclusion) Content Extraction process to find the most relevant information in the paper. Then, drop your marginalia and/or highlights in a row in your Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump. Then tweet about it using the hashtag #AICCSED. Hopefully seeing others taking up the challenge may be motivating.

Participating in this challenge (or not doing so) is not intended to shame anyone, this is just a process that (fingers crossed) should help organize our schedules in order to carve some time to read. At the end of the challenge, I am hoping we’ll all feel good about knowing that we’ve at least skimmed 20 more papers, and we have an idea of what they’re about. I’m obviously excluding weekends because we all need to take some time off, but if you feel like you want to read on the weekend, by all means!

I’d love to see screenshots of your CSED or AIC scribbles/highlights.

Posted in academia, reading strategies.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – March 12, 2018

On the economic geography of industrial decline in Mexico

When I tell people that I’m both a political scientist and a human geographer, they tend to be somewhat shocked. After all, I am in a public administration department, I publish in interdisciplinary journals, and attend conferences ranging from area-specific (International Association for the Study of the Commons, IASC) to discipline-specific (Midwest Political Science Association). But I also consider myself a human geographer, because I was trained as one. And my doctoral dissertation was an examination of industrial restructuring of the leather and footwear clusters in the Mexican cities of Leon (Guanajuato) and Guadalajara (Jalisco). The funny thing is that I started studying the economic geography of industrial decline by accident, not by a well-though-out decision-making process. I wanted to explain why in this blog post.

Since I was a child, I have been interested in cooperation. I considered myself “a good friend”, someone who was always able to cooperate and collaborate with everyone. My interest in cooperation has remained at the core of my personal and professional lives. My undergraduate thesis was a mathematical model of the kinetics of biodegradation of chemical compounds in leather tanning wastewater. Activated sludge bioreactors’ bacteria are able to degrade much of the biochemical and chemical oxygen demand by cooperating. My Masters’ thesis was a game-theoretic model of collaboration between two unlikely collaborators: small biotechnology firms, and large pharmaceuticals. This is a game under moral hazard and asymmetric information, and I created a methodology to enable strategic alliances across biotechnology firms and pharmaceutical companies.

Museo de Arte e Historia de Guanajuato (Forum Cultural Guanajuato)

A model of a leather tanning drum. Exhibit in the Museum of Art and History of Guanajuato.

For my doctoral dissertation, I was originally interested originally in studying voluntary programs for pollution reduction in North America. However, as time went by, and as I took courses in economic history, economic geography, urban geography, and ethnography, I realized that there was a topic that I found even more interesting than environmental regulation: the economic geography of industrial decline in Mexico. In fact, I’m interested in the topic beyond Mexico. If you do a Google Scholar search for the topic, you’ll see that much of the scholarship on the topic comes from the United Kingdom, particularly examining the transition away from steel manufacturing in Sheffield and Manchester. Many scholars in the United States point to the transformation of Pittsburgh, and the decline of the steel industry, as examples of industrial decline.

Why study industrial decline, and more specifically the economic geography of plant closure? There are a number of reasons, but one of the most powerful, for me, was the excessive focus that scholars paid to entrepreneurship and the emergence of new firms. The strategic management literature (a body of scholarship I know very well because I studied it during my Masters in Economics of Technical Change and Technology Management) is overflowing with studies of how new firms are created, and the positive impacts that they bring along to regions and societies. But there’s a paucity of studies on why plants close. What drives companies to shut down operations and how can we prevent this from happening?

The irony of it all is that A LOT of companies shut down all over the world, and we continue to be obsessed with what drives entrepreneur to create new firms. The question that I believe deserves further examination is: why do companies take their sunk costs with them and shut down their firms? What are the drivers of industrial restructuring and how does this process of structural change modify the structure of cities? And this last question is precisely one of the main reasons why I am fascinated with this topic. Much as I consider myself a comparativist (across nations), I’ve also done many studies of sub-national, city governance processes and therefore I remain fascinated with cities, urban structure and industrial change.

Moreover, studying the economic geography of industrial decline of closely-allied industries like leather manufacturing and shoe-making allowed me to understand the formation of industrial districts (clusters). This literature is fascinating if you’re an economist and/or someone fascinated with cooperation. What drives companies to co-locate within the same region? Why do competitors perform better when they’re all close-by to each other? How can we better understand the dynamics of industrial location and geographical agglomeration? These questions can’t be solely answered with economic geography. While vital for our understanding, you need to know policy sciences, political science (urban politics), environmental regulation, economic history. This topic is tremendously interdisciplinary and it fascinates me.

Museo de Arte e Historia de Guanajuato (Forum Cultural Guanajuato)

A shoe exhibit at the Museum of Art and History of Guanajuato.

For me, seeing leather tanneries in the city of Leon shut down presented an extraordinarily interesting research puzzle. Why would an industry that was perceived as the heart of a city decide to close their tanneries and what factors drive these closures? Clearly, it wasn’t only strict environmental regulation. My research found that tanneries and shoe factories respond to a multiplicity of external pressures (including water scarcity, increased regulatory pressure, changes in land use and zoning regulations, technological change, consumer presferences) in different ways and therefore, their collaborative relationship can be strained.

So, at the core, my research was, and continues to be fundamentally about collaboration. Even as I am now leading a project on water conflicts, I’m still primarily focused on understanding how can we solve conflict and bring about cooperation across agents. This interest transcends my departmental affiliation (public administration) and disciplinary one (human geography and political science). I study cooperation for the benefit of society, not a specific discipline. I also live and breathe cooperation and collaboration.

That’s one of the main reasons why I find my research so tremendously rewarding. I research exactly what I love studying and I get paid to do it.

Posted in academia, cluster theory.

Tagged with .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – February 25, 2018

Can a soft path approach to water management fix Cape Town’s water crisis?

While I work on urban water governance issues, I’m not an expert on every city, and particularly, I am wary of offering any “silver bullet” kind of solutions to drought crises because cities are heterogeneous entities and therefore there is no single policy decision that will have the necessary impact. When I first started reading about Cape Town’s water crisis, my first thought was “why not apply a soft path approach?”

Fuentes Danzarinas (Parque Tres Centurias)

The soft path approach to water management is predicated on the premise that behavioural change can occur and water demand can be properly managed in a way that reduces stress on urban infrastructure and reduce challenges facing cities. I first heard about the soft path when I started working with one of my students on a paper, and when I first met Dr. David Brooks (with whom I share the privilege of being an editorial board member of Water International, the journal). Dr. Brooks has championed the notion of a soft path to water management.

The soft path to water management would seem like the logical trajectory to ensuring Cape Town would not run out of the vital liquid by the third week of April, as it is predicted. Though some analysts (like Dr. Anne Van Loon, University of Birmingham) appear to be confident that Cape Town could learn from other cities that have faced severe water shortages, like Sao Paulo, others (like Dr. Anthony Turton, a South African scholar of water governance) would seem to be less so, particularly given water utilities’ and local government behaviour in a context of widespread corruption.

Park City (Utah) and Silver Baron Lodge (Park City, UT)

My own view (given that many of the cities that I study are facing critical water stress) is that we probably need a mixture of soft path and hard path approaches, but since I know very little about the geo-hydrology of Cape Town and behaviour of South African water users, I’m very wary of wanting to propose a solution. But I do see that this will be a critical case for other cities to follow closely, because from the information I’ve been getting, the situation is quite critical. Not sure if a soft path management approach will be enough, to be quite honest, but I do look forward to seeing how the situation develops.

What worries me is that even though the concept of water recycling and the value of wastewater treatment is now en vogue (thanks to the World Water Assessment Programme’s 2018 report on wastewater as an untapped resource), I have been calling for a reconsideration of wastewater as a resource since 2004 and it’s 2018 and we are still not treating 100% of our wastewater, and we’re not recirculating it to our water systems, and we continue building houses and expanding cities, and covering areas where recharge could occur. Human behaviour in the face of a water crisis continues to be incredibly stupid, and I don’t know whether we will be able to change it in the near future, or fast enough to solve looming crises like Capetown’s.

You can read some more stuff on the soft path management approach here, and here, and here, here and here.

Posted in academia, water governance, water insecurity, water policy, water stress.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – February 4, 2018

Forward citation tracing and backwards citation tracing in literature reviews

One of the skills I teach my students and research assistants on a regular basis is a method to find new citations across the literature. That’s what I (and others) call citation tracing.

The examples I use here come from a Google Scholar search, but you can extend the method to Web of Science, WebMD, and other databases.

Forward citation tracing:

Refers to the process of finding the newest articles, books or book chapters that cite a particular paper, book, or book chapter. I call it “forward citation tracing” because you are going forward from the date when the reference you’re alluding was published. So, for example, a forward citation tracing on my 2015 Review of Policy Research paper on transnational environmental activism will give me 7 citations, which I can then look through in order to see

forward citation tracing 1

Doing a forward citation tracing exercise can allow us to stay in touch with the most relevant research that is following a specific topic.

Backward citation tracing:

For me, backward citation tracing is key because it allows me to see if an author has omitted any crucial citations, or whether I can learn more from the texts they cited. This is an important exercise for my students and research assistants as well because they can see why a particular article they’re reading has gaps.

Another way to call forward and backward citation tracing is “Ascendancy Searches” and “Descendency” – which is basically searching up and down for citations.

Posted in academia, research, writing.

Tagged with , .

1 comment

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – February 3, 2018

An improved version of the Drafts Review Matrix – responding to reviewers and editors’ comments

This 2018 I promised myself I would do things better and take time to reflect on how my processes have evolved and therefore, I wanted to share a couple of improvements I made to the Drafts Review Matrix I discussed in previous years. This time, I’ll share also a couple of things I do with regards to the process of responding to reviewers and editors’ comments and dealing with Revise-and-Resubmits (or rejections that I then resubmit to a different journal).

Workflow: Finishing a paper

First, a comment on process, which I believe was lost in previous discussions: when I am dealing with comments from book editors, or reviewer comments, I create a Drafts Review Matrix, which I often print out, and fill out by hand, but I now generally work online off the printed version of the comments. Also, I ONLY work at my desk with the materials associated with the R&R or edited chapters: the printed version of my paper, and a grid paper notepad (a graph notepad).

AcWri setup

You may ask yourselves, why don’t I work the edits off my Everything Notebook? The answer is this: I use this graph notepad to jot down ideas on how I’m going to deal with specific comments, or to note which references I need to search, and then I use those comments to fill the Drafts Review Matrix. Since those quick scribbles are an intermediate step to actually revising the manuscript, I don’t want them to fill up valuable (and scarce!) pages off my Everything Notebook.

The new Drafts Review Matrix looks something like I show below.

drafts review matrix for Tosun Howlett

This particular one is for a book chapter I’m writing for a book on national policy styles edited by Mike Howlett and Jale Tosun. As you can notice, I put the title of the book editors at the top, but you can do this for journal article manuscripts that you are revising (substitute Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2 or Reviewer 3 at the top).

Note that my Drafts Review Matrix now has both a “Page” AND a “Reference Paragraph” column. This allows me to be even more precise than I used to be with the Comment Location column. I then follow with the “Reviewer/Editor Suggestions“. I also included a “Deadline” column to force me to commit myself to finish particular sets of revisions by a certain deadline. Moreover, I now use a “Check” column to confirm that I’ve completed the revisions suggested. And finally I’ve added a column of “Comments” because sometimes I need to do things sequentially, and this column allows me to explain to myself what I’m doing. For example, in some cases, I’ve already moved text around, and I need to make sure that I avoid duplication of efforts.

Hopefully my new version of the Drafts Review Matrix will help if you’re editing a paper (or a book or thesis!).

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , , , .

2 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – February 3, 2018