How to write a good article?
No, this is not a recipe on how to do it - it is about my struggle. More or less how to balance all my thoughts and my data and ideally giving some interpretation but not speculation.
In other words: satisfying various types of reviewers.
Some want more of a review, some want less, some want an extensive interpretation leaning towards speculation, some prefer a short dry discussion with no speculation at all.
Not easy, not straight-forward, and the editors are often of no help either.
And it is - sadly - different for each journal, each manuscript.
I tried a mixture of review and own data which succeeded for my last paper, and it did not work well for the recent one - cut a lot and it worked. Whereas another manuscript needed even more review and speculation.
Cannot give a rule, I see no pattern in it. But I got a bit more immune to the replies and requests of revisions - experience makes it a routine and more of an "usual job".
Sounds, though, scary. More like "production", no paper being special any longer.
When is this threshold? After 5, 10, 20 papers?
How to reset it? Or is this a bad idea?
The less emotional it gets, the worse I think. One should have feelings about one's papers - makes one commited. If it becomes like administrative work - dull and routine - one should reconsider publishing. I am not going as far as saying every paper is like a child - that may apply for book projects or big reviews. But producing papers as journalists produce articles, well, sounds a bit frightening.
No, this is not a recipe on how to do it - it is about my struggle. More or less how to balance all my thoughts and my data and ideally giving some interpretation but not speculation.
In other words: satisfying various types of reviewers.
Some want more of a review, some want less, some want an extensive interpretation leaning towards speculation, some prefer a short dry discussion with no speculation at all.
Not easy, not straight-forward, and the editors are often of no help either.
And it is - sadly - different for each journal, each manuscript.
I tried a mixture of review and own data which succeeded for my last paper, and it did not work well for the recent one - cut a lot and it worked. Whereas another manuscript needed even more review and speculation.
Cannot give a rule, I see no pattern in it. But I got a bit more immune to the replies and requests of revisions - experience makes it a routine and more of an "usual job".
Sounds, though, scary. More like "production", no paper being special any longer.
When is this threshold? After 5, 10, 20 papers?
How to reset it? Or is this a bad idea?
The less emotional it gets, the worse I think. One should have feelings about one's papers - makes one commited. If it becomes like administrative work - dull and routine - one should reconsider publishing. I am not going as far as saying every paper is like a child - that may apply for book projects or big reviews. But producing papers as journalists produce articles, well, sounds a bit frightening.
