The Writing Place

The author continually uses the term ‘literary’ to describe the value texts hold within the academy. However, this term is never clearly defined or situated within other scholarly discourse(s) on this term/topic.

CLARIFICATION & ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS (OF NOVEL DATA).

The most obvious thing the reviewer is looking for is a definition. However, his/her suggestion that such a definition would need to be derived from those of other scholars suggests that a bit more discussion of those who have used similar terminology will also be necessary. Nonetheless, this isn’t additional analysis that should take you more than an afternoon. Look to encyclopedias and anthologies in your field to find out how key terms/keywords are defined and relate your own definition to them (in this example, Raymond Williams’ Keywords would be an ideal source).

The description of the study sample groups is confusing. When you state that group one consists of children 1-2 years old and group two consists of children 2-3 years old, it isn’t clear which group the 2-year-olds would belong to.

CLARIFICATION.

This asks for a simple clarification of who belonged in which sample group. Stating clearly that group one consisted of children between 1-2 years of age and group two consisted of children between 2-3 years of age clears this up in less than a minute.

Extended quotes from interviews should always be accompanied by some sort of analysis/summary statement to help the reader interpret their meaning with the context of the author’s argument.

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS (OF EXISTING DATA).

The reviewer wants some interpretation of block quotations. One rule of thumb is that for every line of a block quotation in a text, you would want a corresponding line of interpretation. Though this is not strictly the case, be sure you are providing enough context both before and after block quotations to make their relationship to your analysis clear. In this example, it seems that the reviewer is specifically critiquing the lack of analysis/summary after such quotations, so focus on this in your review.

The authors neglect to cite the work of Chang et al (2012), which relates directly to the research paradigm the authors develop here. Not only should this omission be corrected, but the authors will also need to explain how their work differs substantially enough from Chang’s to warrant publication.

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS (OF NOVEL DATA) & CLARIFICATION. 

This reviewer is asking for two things. First, the authors must be sure to cite a source that is currently not cited. Second, they must clarify the difference between this source and their own. Of the concerns articulated in this comment, the second is clearly the hardest to tackle. When responding to reviewers, be sure to take every suggestion that your intervention/argument must be justified or clarified very seriously.

A lengthier explanation should be provided of the inset cell cross section depicted in Figure 10. The caption currently seems to describe the whole image without providing an explanation for why the inset is depicted at all.

CLARIFICATION.

Though this request could be mistaken for a request for further analysis, the reviewer is actually expressing confusion about what a figure caption describes. In any figure caption, be sure to provide rationale for all elements of the figure. The opposite is equally important; be sure to not use figure captions as an opportunity to describe elements that aren’t depicted in a figure.

The Results section would be easier to follow if it began with a sentence or two explaining the main constructs being examined and then listing in outline form what will follow in this section of the paper. A lack of obvious structure and organization is making this part of the paper a bit difficult to comprehend, particularly in the beginning one-quarter to one-third of it.

MECHANICS.

The reviewer is basically asking for a roadmap for the results section of the paper. This may be as simple as writing a couple sentences (as suggested), or you may find that an attempt to write such sentences results in further reorganization that makes the entire section flow better. In either case, don’t confuse such a request with the need to reinterpret the data and come up with new results!

The second paragraph needs to more clearly introduce the topic of the paper (e.g., there is no grammatical subject in the second sentence; perhaps it should be “this article”?) and tell us in a little more detail how the paper will proceed.

MECHANICS.

Though the reviewer’s comment suggests this may be a request for clarification, the substance of what they are asking for is mechanical: (1) addition of a subject in the second sentence and (2) more detail on the paper’s organization from this paragraph onward. In the case of such two-part requests, don’t forget to attend to both parts. And, in this case, it’s probably best to complete the second request before the first (i.e., attend to any larger changes before smaller, as sometimes a larger change mitigates the need to address the smaller altogether.)

The author should be more clear about how the content for the study was selected and analyzed. What keywords guided the article search? How were articles coded following their aggregation? Etc.

CLARIFICATION.

The reviewer is asking for a more robust description of the research methods. Sometimes the easiest way to provide the level of detail necessary for such a request is to put yourself in a reader’s shoes. If your reader was going to replicate your study/analysis, what information would they need in order to do so? If this is something you find difficult to tackle on your own, don’t hesitate to run your research methods by someone who knows nothing about your research/experiment.

Overall, the author makes a convincing case for both the novelty of his/her approach and the specific factors that govern our understanding of Dickens’ Great Expectations as a literary classic. Somewhat less clear is the importance of this intervention (What are the consequences of not understanding the longevity of cultural objects? Why is it important that certain cultural objects are part of my imagination long before I ever encounter them?)

CLARIFICATION.

These types of comments are often misinterpreted as a need to go back and start over. However, what the reviewer is really asking for is a clarification of the study’s importance. In other words, what is at stake here? This isn’t a question that should require additional analysis (though it may require additional thought). If you find yourself needing to do additional analysis to answer such a request, your article might require more revision than even the reviewer is aware. Be honest with yourself at a juncture such as this: How long will such additional analysis take? Are you in a position to provide such answers yet? You might choose to alter your schedule for revision and resubmission based on the answers to such questions.

While the author is a clear enough writer, she or he has a kind of tic that manifests itself in places where she or he seems the least confident in the connections she/he is trying to make.  I’d recommend that the author revise the paragraphs in which sentence after sentence begins with unnecessary transitions or inappropriately used logical connectors such as “therefore,” “rather,” “thus,” “in doing so,” etc.  The revision here isn’t just a matter of cutting extraneous words but also tightening the connections through stronger and more pointed argumentation.

MECHANICS.

The reviewer is asking the author to look carefully at signposting words to determine which ones are absolutely necessary. Signposting is tricky–it is essential to logical and clear writing, but doing it too much obscures its importance and force and actually makes writing harder to interpret. We can often be our own worst editors when it comes to these types of concerns. Don’t hesitate to seek help from a friend, colleague, or Graduate Writing Place consultant to help with this type of mechanical editing.